Category Archives: Federalism

Political incidents are like bubbles. Nevertheless, they can reveal changing realities and their impact on the larger polity. One such incident recently took place in Kolkata. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay left a review meeting called by the prime minister in just 15 minutes. This throws a light on the emerging symbiosis between the party system and federalism.

Pre-poll acrimonies between political parties are not a new thing in electoral politics. But its impact on state politics is fraught with the danger of fracturing federalism. The authors of the Indian Constitution were conscious of the possibility of such a situation arising and so, they explicitly defined the Centre-state relationship. Moreover, no scope was left for the aspiration to be a subsidiary sovereign. The use of the phrase union of the states for the Indian federation is not accidental it gives paramountcy and unchallenged monopoly of sovereignty to the parliamentary executive. For Indian federalism, jurisdictional morality, not legalism, is fundamental to its success. In this regard, the aforementioned incident not only undermined the constitutional authority but also reflected an ambition for shared sovereignty. This gratuitous action represents an undoing of constitutional morality.

In a multiparty system, the political fulcrum is unlikely to be static. It changes like electric waves. This was first experienced when the communist government in Kerala was dismissed on July 31, 1959. Unlike today, the Left then carried strength and weight. The debates in the Lok Sabha on August 17, 19 and 20, 1959 on the promulgation of the Presidents Rule under Article 356 bear appalling testimony to the fact that a battle for hegemony has the potential to unsettle constitutional arrangements. Interestingly, both sides vouched for democracy but they lacked conviction. The then Home Minister G B Pant said democracy requires the spirit of accommodation, unlimited fund of tolerance, patience and forbearance. Easwara Iyer from the communist group warned those persons who had used the atom bomb against us will know that democracy has its own values and they will be wiped out from entire India.

Its monopoly over power led the Congress to treat state governments as an extension of the High Command. In Punjab, for example, the Congress had 70 MLAs out of 77 in 1951. But Presidents Rule was imposed due to unmanageable dissensions in the party. The then home minister, C Rajagopalachari, said this went against the prestige of both the government and the party.

Article 356, described by Ambedkar as a dead letter, was used 88 times by the Congress in its 54 years in power. Where does the fault line lie? The answer is simple: Political immorality spreads faster than the forces trying to combat it. When parties are deluded by a mandate into believing that it is their divine right to act according to their exaggerated ambitions, crises emerge. The example of Kerala further proves the point. The CPI, led by E M S Namboodiripad, got only 35 per cent of the vote and 60 seats in the 1957 assembly elections. The Congress got 37 per cent votes but only 46 seats. This dichotomy is not unnatural in a first-past-the-post system. The formation of the government through a mandate is fundamentally different from government by revolution. In the former, the government is bound by moral responsibility even for those who have not voted for it. Thus, democracy carries inherent limitations as well as responsibilities. Failing to understand this leads to a mess. This happened with both Indira Gandhi and the EMS government.

There is a long distance between Congress rule and the BJPs ascendency. The reason lies in their fundamental differences on core issues secularism, right to freedom of religion and also matters mentioned in the directive principles of state policy. The BJP proved itself closer to Indian realities and its opponents remained prisoners of their eroded ideological hegemony. Besides, cultural capacity gives the BJP-RSS influence even over those who vote for others. This multiplies their strength and confidence. On the ideological front of Hindutva, the BJP is free from competition while there are many claimants for the dying Nehruvian legacy of pseudo-secularism.

The commitment to the constitutional values does not rest upon reading the Preamble but finds an echo in the narratives on unity and integrity of the nation. After a long time, New Delhi under Narendra Modi has substantively reached out to the people of the Northeastern states. The protracted crises in the region have ended. This disappointed even China, whose imperialistic ambitions are known.

Moreover, central schemes, such as the construction of toilets, homes for the poor, Jan Dhan Yojana, Ayushman Bharat, Ujjwala Yojana and free grains to 80 crore poor under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, are a great leap from the symbolism practised earlier. Modi has acquired a pan-India presence, from Kongthong to Kushinagar.

Federal government grants have been a disputed issue. The US administration under president Ronald Reagan had initiated a concept of New Federalism by stopping federal aid to the states. This silenced many of those who considered overriding state rights. Eventually, the federal government reversed this decision. The obligation of the Indian Constitution to empower the poor and marginalised has never been disputed in our central schemes, whether it was Indira Gandhis Garibi Hatao or Manmohan Singhs MGNREGA. However, Modis welfare schemes have been undesirably politicised by some non-BJP chief ministers, notably Banerjee and Arvind Kejriwal. They have, unfortunately, perpetuated false narratives even in the difficult times of Covid-19.

Democracy is based on free speech and legitimate opposition. But obstructionism is not an adequate substitute for these, which is what the opposition practises now. It seems Frank Anthony imagined the future during his speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949. Describing the inclusion of health in the state list as a great blunder, he argued: we have left it in the hands of the provincial governments and inevitably this greatest nation-building subject will be dealt with in a feeble, halting manner, according to the different capacities of the different provincial regimes.

When ideological rivalry mutates into abhorrence, constitutional morality is the casualty which we now daily witness in shameful and sham television debates. Historian George Grote rightly said: The diffusion of constitutional morality, not merely among the majority of any community but throughout the whole, is the indispensable condition of a government at once free and peaceable.

Constitutional morality does not appear along with a democratic constitution but requires strenuous and unbroken efforts to establish it as a convention and tradition.

Two basic things that the political class needs to evolve are unlearning poll-bound discourses and socialising with adversaries. After all, democracy is the use of the heart and mind, which together creates consciousness.

This column first appeared in the print edition on June 24, 2021 under the title The federal let-down. The writer is a BJP Rajya Sabha member

Link:

What does the West Bengal chief secretary episode say about India federalism? - The Indian Express

The escalating row over Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the former chief secretary of West Bengal who is now an advisor to the state chief minister, demonstrates the challenges of uncooperative federalism. It throws up an important question: stuck between the Centre and the state, forced to make a difficult choice, what should a civil servant do?

Over his long career, Bandyopadhyay navigated the power corridors of Bengal smoothly. He built a reputation of being effective and of getting along with all his political bosses, first from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and then from the Trinamool Congress. Yet at the very end, he faltered when it came to following hierarchical protocol.

Bandyopadhyays troubles started when he failed to attend a review meeting on May 28 about Cyclone Yaas chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Bandyopadhyay had been accompanying West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on an inspection of the areas that had been affected by the storm. Banerjees antipathy for Modi is no secret and when she decided to skip the review meeting and continue her aerial survey, Bandyopadhyay went along with her.

Had he attended the meeting, irrespective of what the chief minister did, he would not be facing disciplinary proceedings from the Centre that could result in him losing his pension and gratuity. He would also have avoided the notice sent to him under the Disaster Management Act for allegedly refusing to attend the meeting with Modi. The section mentioned in the notice carries the penalty of imprisonment and a fine.

Had Bandyopadhyay adhered to the rule book, he could have protected himself, irrespective of whether the political relationship between the state and Center was acrimonious or affable.

Politicians get away with a lot of things but civil servants dont, observed CV Ananda Bose, former chief secretary of Kerala, in the New Indian Express. In case of dispute between the state and the Center, the Center usually prevails. There is a lesson to all civil servants in this imbroglio, Bose said. Look before you leap. Keep off party politics.

According to Sarvesh Kaushal, former chief secretary of Punjab, civil servants should go by the service rulebook alone.

But former civil servants from Bengal have come out in support of Bandyopadhyay.

Jawahar Sircar, former Union Culture secretary was of the opinion that though All India Service officers have dual loyalty to both Centre and the state in which they are posted, Bandyopadhyays immediate boss was the chief minister, so he was not in a position to disobey and attend the meeting with Modi.

Former IAS officer and ex-MP Bikram Sarkar told The Times of India that the charges are vague and need to be properly interpreted. He can get justice from the court, but again in the courts, such a case is unprecedented so he has to be extra cautious, Sarkar said. This will come at a price. His pension and gratuity will be stalled till such time as the departmental proceedings are disposed of, Sarkar said.

Modi governments relationship with civil servants, especially the Indian Administrative Service, has been difficult. Since it came to power in 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party government has worked towards chipping away the stranglehold bureaucrats have on governance. Since 2018, Modi government has sought to reduce the presence of IAS officers in top positions and has instead promoted officers from other services.

With the introduction of the 360-degree appraisal format that involves multi-source feedback in addition to the Annual Confidential Report system, the abrupt and frequent transfers of officers from one ministry to another, the introduction of biometric attendance in government offices, and the concentration of power in a Prime Ministers Office manned by handpicked loyalists, the supply of IAS officers to Delhi has also plummeted.

Once there was a scramble for deputy secretary, director and joint secretary postings at the Centre but now there are hardly any takers. Of the 280 IAS officers in West Bengal, only 11 are posted with the Central ministries.

The increasing politicisation of Indian civil servants has been explained by sympathisers as being a necessary evil to survive in the current political environment. But as the Alapan Bandyopadhyay case shows, it is pushing them down a slippery slope.

Sreya Sarkar is a public policy professional based out of Boston who has previously worked as a poverty alleviation specialist in US think tanks.

See the rest here:

For civil servants, Alapan Bandyopadhyay case highlights the perils of uncooperative federalism - Scroll.in

West Bengal Finance Minister Amit Mitra on Wednesday wrote to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman alleging that there has been a steady breakdown of the spirit of cooperative federalism in GST Council meetings.

What pains me the most is the fact that the GST Council Meetings have become acrimonious, vexing and almost toxic with erosion of mutual trust that held past between States and the Centre since inception, he said.

He urged her to consider a course correction in the manner of functioning of the council. We will respond in equal measure if you bring back consensual atmosphere that has defined GST Council since its inception, he noted.

Dr. Mitra stated that after hours of submission by Ministers, no conclusion and consensus was declared at the end of a meeting, as in the case of 42nd meeting of the council. The Minister has sent a note of dissent after the meeting. He alleged that his microphone was switched off at a crucial time.

In the three-page letter that has been copied to his counterparts in other States and Union Territories, Dr. Mitra said, Many of us as Ministers are also concerned that the GST Implementation Committee ( GIC) consisting of officers, from a few States and mainly from GoI, have started amending rules and presenting them only for the information of GST Council not for discussion and ratification.

Follow this link:

Breakdown of spirit of cooperative federalism at GST Council meetings: Bengal Minister - The Hindu

As easy as it is to blame successive Union governments for being bullies, it is equally, if not more, important that state governments block and repel centralisation.

COVID-19 has shone light on one of Indias darkest corners that we stoutly refuse to examine the lack of coordination between the governments in India. Nationally relevant policies, be they vaccine procurement, pricing and disbursal, oxygen manufacturing and inter-state supply, GST rates for COVID care resources, trans-state migrating labour, national lockdowns, elections in various states, religious gatherings of multi-state relevance, and more have cried out for planning and coordination across the governments in the country. The absence of it has cost lakhs, perhaps tens of lakhs of lives.

India has many governments; one of them is the Union. Notwithstanding that Parliament was repeatedly truncated or cancelled in the name of COVID-19 (while elections and religious events proceeded simultaneously), it is neither the purview nor expertise of the Parliament to coordinate inter-state relations and implementations. For instance, the formula for vaccine disbursal to states, the lag between requirements and fulfilments, its pricing, or assigning the cost of migrant labour transport, etc., are issues that only governments can claim, plan and coordinate, not legislators. That at least a dozen Chief Ministers, including those of Kerala, Jharkhand, Mizoram, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Punjab, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Delhi, have written to the Union, and some to each other on vaccinations alone, must make it apparent.

Indeed, there emerges even more compelling evidence from the recently concluded GST Council which, stunningly, was not called to order for over 6 months amidst the throes of a pandemic. The Council announced a lowering or waiving of GST rates for certain essential or medical items, decisions delayed till June of 2021, largely due to the breakdown of federal relations in India.

India was formed from and is formed of many governments, and this implies that cross-country governance requires ongoing inter-state planning and coordination. This feature is not unique to India. Most large democracies like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. have many governments provincial ones and a Union. What Australia did, for instance, as soon as the pandemic struck, was to retire its existing Council of Australian Governments, an existing inter-government coordinating body in their federal structure, and create a National Cabinet. It is composed of all Chief Ministers, Premiers, the Prime Minister and even representatives from local bodies. An empowered executive, with select and expert committees and adjunct councils, it decides on federal financial, pandemic-related health, employment, even womens and childrens safety and security, and with a legal framework as buttress.

For doubters asking if Australia or any of the others in a genuine federal partnership between their in-country governments are managing the pandemic better than India, the answer is crystal clear. In a Westminster-style democracy, Indias national and sub-national governments are elected for parties agendas and as on date, India and its states vest their executive powers in close to 40 distinct ruling parties. So the question before us is not if Australia or countries with federal partnerships within are doing better but if India will now manage COVID-19, and indeed the country in general, better if its various governments with distinct agendas plan and coordinate regularly.

While COVID-19 may spotlight the extent of rot of federalism in India, the unequal partnership between the Union and states has cost India through the annals of time. India did set up an Inter-State Council, thanks to the Sarkaria Commission in 1990, to recommend policy on matters of common interests across states and the Union. It met a dozen times until 2017. As per Article 263 of the Indian Constitution, the Inter-State Council is composed of the Prime Minister, who is the Chairperson, Chief Ministers of states and Union Territories and several Union Cabinet Ministers, and cannot be dissolved or re-constituted. In other words, it is extant but defunct, barely meeting once in three years since establishment and not at all during a pandemic that requires intimate partnerships and collaboration.

Also read: Union govt vs Centre: Whats the difference, and why DMK govt is insisting on the former

The problem, of course, goes back to the very establishment of the Union, denying states their sovereignty (unlike in the US) even as it leaned federal. Subsequent purposeful Constitutional amendments, like expanding Concurrent lists, or the GST, have vigorously engendered centralisation. However, the real root of federal rot lies more with states and less with the Union.

Successive, blighted state governments have failed to check Union overreach, which has imposed grave costs on public good. A few states have responded in an enlightened fashion. Tamil Nadu refused to ratify the GST, across both the DMK and the AIADMK, until J Jayalalitha passed. Many states passed resolutions against the Citizenship Amendment Act, and most recently, Mamata Banerjee displayed spirited resistance against her Chief Secretarys transfer. As easy as it is to blame successive Union governments for being bullies, it is equally, if not more important, that state governments block and repel centralisation.

The keys are often in the very structure of the institutions that states have allowed without due diligence. The GST Council has been established with only the Union Finance Minister as Chair, and ability to call for meetings. By any measure, the GST is a multilateral matter, with separate stakeholders, the Union being one. There is no reason why Chairpersonship is not rotated or powers (like calling meetings) are not vested in many or all. In fact, Mumbai city with its mammoth pre-GST Octroi has no say in the Council, and neither does any other local government.

The previous West Bengal Finance Minister, Amit Mitra, chided the Union Finance Minister for failing to convene the GST Council during the pandemic; subsequent reduction in GST rates for life-saving drugs and equipment could have perhaps avoided deaths if they had been considered 6 months prior. The Tamil Nadu Finance Minister, Palanivel Thiagarajan, also recently pointed out that the GST Council has fundamental structural issues of One State, One Vote. Manufacturing states like Gujarat and Maharashtra, whose people are heavily compromised, have been egregious in their historical silence, hence enabling an anti-federal structure.

Ditto with the Finance Commission. For a Constitutional body that divides monies between states and the Union, and across states, the Union is but one stakeholder. However, the Union assumes all powers in appointment of the Commission and issuing of its Terms of Reference (ToR), an inherent bias for a federal body. This is exactly what the Inter-State Council is meant to do; ensure that a ToR is negotiated and balanced.

For India to leapfrog into a developed country, an oft-bandied political rhetoric, the country must first be willing to shed its unitary insecurities, govern via a federal body politic, and defer to local and state governments. As things stand, the Union has too much power on inputs and too little stake in outcomes. The Inter-State Council must be resuscitated, reinvigorated and chartered to represent a federal India. Matters, not only financial but water management, labour, energy, human trafficking and much more, are cross-state matters, which require ongoing conference between states. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, yes, but also as much autonomy and agency, given the differences in the social and economic environments across states.

One Nation, Many Governments is the reality of India, and the Union is but one among the many. India must strive for a boring Union and vibrant states and that indeed will be the hallmark of success, replete with subsidiarity, decentralisation and federalism.

Tara Krishnaswamy is the co-founder of Shakti Political Power to Women, a non-partisan grassroots group campaigning for more women MLAs and MPs. She is co-founder of Citizens for Bengaluru, a citizens movement for a sustainable Bengaluru.

More here:

One nation, many governments: Why India must embrace federalism - The News Minute

BORIS JOHNSON came to power in 2019 with a commitment to significant constitutional change: the Tory manifesto pledged that a Conservative government would hold a constitutional review to restore trust in our democracy.

This review would tackle the purpose of the House of Lords, prerogative powers, the role of the courts and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The Labour Party also pledged a constitutional convention which would focus on the future of devolution and proposed replacing the House of Lords with a Senate of the Nations and Regions.

The SNP made a commitment that SNP MPs would continue to oppose the undemocratic House of Lords and vote for its abolition. The Greens were committed to a fully elected House of Lords. The Lib Dems have a long record of supporting a federal arrangement. Even the Brexit Party was committed to reforming the House of Lords.

Polling conducted in the run-up to the 2019 general election for the Electoral Reform Society reported that 85 per cent of people felt dissatisfied with the political system and felt that they had little influence.

The ERS response was that Parliament is in urgent need of an overhaul From a warped voting system to an unelected House of Lords,our 19th-century levers of government are in desperate need of an upgrade.

All this contributed to a sense that, regardless of the outcome of the election, there would be some change to the way the UK Parliament operated.

Eighteen months from that election, what has happened? There was an opportunity for a wider debate around the Dunlop Review which was commissioned by Theresa May in July 2019 as a short, focused independent review to ensure that the devolution settlements were working effectively.

It was completed before the end of 2019, but it was spring 2021 before the review was made public. The main finding was that Whitehall had little understanding or interest in devolution. It has been proved correct.

It was apparent by then that constitutional issues had fallen off the agenda and it was back to business as usual, except for Johnson making himself Minister for the Union. The imposition of the Internal Markets Act has only further centralised power in 10 and 11 Downing Street.

The issue has not gone away. Across Britain there have been renewed discussions within and between the nations and regions.

In Wales in January 2021 there was the launch of We the People: The case for Radical Federalism. Supported by the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, it made the case for the shared governance of the UK.

It argued that radical constitutional reform is a necessity. It stated that the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should be offered the opportunity to make a positive choice to envision, and contribute to the creation of a modern, collaborative, distributed and open democracy.

In Scotland the Red Paper Collective has continued to make the case for progressive federalism. It argues that any constitutional arrangement must ensure the redistribution of wealth throughout the UK, be built on democratic control of the economy as without that real power is not devolved and be based on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. Solidarity with working people everywhere, but ensuring that power is held at the most local level where it can be delivered effectively.

It is not just the nations that are calling for greater powers locally and a real say in central decisions. The past five years have given voices to regions through their elected mayors.

Jamie Driscoll is the elected mayor for the North of Tyne Combined Authorities area covering Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council and Northumberland County Council. He is in favour of devolution to the level of the functional economic area. Thats the city region.

He is opposed to the idea of an English executive, or an English parliament. He argues that in Newcastle, he has more economic common ground with Glasgow and Edinburgh than the south coast or Home Counties. Subnational bodies such as a northern powerhouse should be confederal, where city regions choose to collaborate. He sayshe would not have chosen the mayoral model, but we have to start from where are.

Elected mayors have been a counterweight to the growing authoritarian Tory government and give a glimpse of what a federal arrangement could mean.

Federalism means more than simply devolving power to the nations and regions, it must also include the opportunity to establish common interests and by uniting together have the power to resist the imposition of damaging policies by the centralised cabinet dominated Westminster Parliament.

Constitutional Commissions and Reviews are loudly announced but quietly disappear. We should not wait for the outcome of an elite-led lengthy review but start the process now.

The regions and the nations all face a battle to protect themselves from the centralising agenda of the Johnson government. This should be the basis for working together in our common interest.

Devolved administrations, elected mayors and council leaders need to combine to resist the imposition of unacceptable policies and mobilise alongside the trade unions and campaigning groups to build solidarity across borders. This should prefigure a federal approach laying the ground for a radical restructuring of the British state.

This approach may not appeal to independence parties, but it would appeal to their voters, who recognise that a future promise of a better life under independence is not a substitute for fighting for a better life here and now.

Pauline Bryan is a Labour peer and convener of the Red Paper Collective.

Visit link:

Federalism is an issue for the whole of the UK - Morning Star Online

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit, on Monday, outlined the policy initiatives of the DMK government on priority issues, in his customary address at the first session of the 16th state assembly.

While a significant portion of the address reiterated the DMKs avowed ideologies of state autonomy, social justice and reservation, the governors address, for the first time in the state assembly, referred to thecentral government as ondriya arasu or the Union government, the term being used by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin to refer the central government as union of states. Strong states are needed to create a strong Union. This government will staunchly stand in defence of the rights of the states and constitutionally oppose any infringement of such rights. At the same time, we will maintain a cordial relationship with the Union government as partners in the process of nation building, in line with our policy of extending our hand in friendship, even as we speak up for our rights, he said.

Reiterating that the government is guided by the ethos of the Dravidian movement, the governor said social justice, gender equality, economic equity, opportunity for all through reservations and progress through education and social reforms will drive every legislation and every scheme of the new government. The government is determined to transform Tamil Nadu into a state with self-respect, with an empowered citizenry enjoying their rights, and which is prosperous in all respects, as envisioned by Thanthai Periyar, he added.

While touching upon the need for continuing with 69 per cent reservation and exemption from NEET, the governor also said this government would ensure that native Tamils, especially those that have studied in Tamil-medium and government schools, would be given priority in recruitment for government posts.

Stating that an expert council will be constituted to advise Chief minister M.K. Stalin on revitalising the states economy, he said the government will submit a white paper on the states finances in July. Making it clear that the government will not stand corruption in any form, Purohit said, The Lok Ayukta will be revitalised and empowered to deal with complaints against public authorities, including elected representatives and government officials.

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) will be energised and pending complaints dealt with expeditiously, he said. In fact, this was one of the poll promises of the DMK. The party had said corruption will not be allowed at any level of governance and those who erred in the earlier regime will be dealt with legally.

Purohit further said the government is determined to ensure transparency and accountability in temple management, and added that the assets, lands and properties of temples will be protected.

"A state-level advisory committee for all major Hindu temples will be constituted to enhance facilities for devotees, improve the maintenance of temples and to advise on related issues, he said.

Go here to read the rest:

Tamil Nadu governors address emphasises on state autonomy and federalism - THE WEEK

Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri said PM Modi has done a lot for Punjab and Sikhs over the 7 years. He cited exemption of community kitchens of gurdwaras from GST, and the opening of the Kartarpur Sahib corridor for visa-free travel

By Malavika PM

UPDATED ON JUN 18, 2021 06:10 PM IST

Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri on Friday held a press conference to showcase Prime Minister Narendra Modis outreach to poll-bound Punjab in the true spirit of cooperative federalism and to farmers. He said Modi on Thursday sanctioned 41 oxygen plants for Punjab under the PM Cares Fund. He added the Centre earlier allocated 13 oxygen plants for the state and added some of them would be operational by the end of this month and the rest by August 15.

Puri said PM Modi has done a lot for Punjab and Sikhs over the seven years he has been the Prime Minister. He cited exemption of community kitchens of gurdwaras from GST, the opening of the Kartarpur Sahib corridor for visa-free travel to Guru Nanaks final resting place as measures of goodwill towards Punjab and the Sikhs in particular.

Also Watch | Amid 3rd wave worry, PM Modi launches crash course for 100,000 Covid warriors

Puri hit out at critics who have accused the Centre of denying the state its fair share of Covid-19 drugs. He said Punjab received 632 remdesivir doses per 100,000 people while Uttar Pradesh, which has a much larger population, 364. This might not be an indicator as many states also procure the drugs themselves. But for anyone to suggest that they have been short-changed or denied the legitimate share is a falsification.

He said Modi and the government have made it repeatedly clear that they were ready to sit and talk to the farmers, who have been protesting against three farm laws passed in September. And I reiterate that. There are several commentators on this issue. I call them up individually and ask them to clear all residual doubts. We are open to all suggestions. But the template has to be to benefit farmers. The hard-working farmer is the primary beneficiary and has to be rewarded. Anything else can be discussed.

Puri underlined it has been a year since the farm laws, which first triggered protests in Punjab, were promulgated as ordinances and none of their expected repercussions has come true.

Get our daily newsletter

Thank you for subscribing to our daily newsletter.

See the article here:

BJP cites PM Modis Punjab outreach to laud spirit of cooperative federalism - Hindustan Times

Formal institutional reforms, such as decentralisation and a transition to federalism, do not necessarily mean immediate or significant changes in the actors with political power or capital, the power of the government as a whole, or the power of interest groups to block reforms. However, the transition to federalism needs to have more, and different, effects on the decision-making mechanism. Decentralisation needs to increase the importance of organised opposition as the governments need to pay more attention to the communities that are under their jurisdiction. There is a need for working from both ways: national to local and local to national levels. This is possible only through massive inclusion, creative dialogue and interaction among all concerned units and stakeholders.

For this, relevant authorities should nurture policy dialogues among leaders of all sectors and levels. So, the policy process should be seen as a collective process for all Nepali people equally. The deconstruction of an elite-controlled, centralised and top-down policy process into the bottom-up approach to ensure multi-dimensional participation is a way of solution. It will help to generate the ownership of stakeholder in related policy that will be productive in accelerating the activeness and ensuring sustainability.

As Nepal transitioned to federalism with a new constitution in 2015, similar changes were expected in society. However, it did not happen effectively as the play of politics is seen during the Covid-19 pandemic and the decision-making regarding the pandemic control.

With respect to policy design and implementation, close attention needs to be paid to the body that will implement a policy rather than the body making a formal decision. During the first wave of the pandemic last year, the federal governments decision-making and fund-flow mechanism, as a response to stop the spread of the virus, were highly centralised and based on hunches and swallow analyses.

The inefficiency on the part of the government was not, however, due to a lack of decision-making bodies. In fact, multiple committees had been formed at different levels to tackle the problem, starting from the federal level to the lowest rung of administration: the local government. However, the decision-making process had been riddled with problems since the very beginning. Ad-hoc decision making, unnecessary politicisation, overlapping roles and responsibilities, a lack of coordination, political influence and unnecessary creation of hierarchy complicated the flow of information.

The personality-driven decision-making process needs to be changed with collective voices and actions from civil societies, organised opposition and interest groups. There needs to be a structural transformation following relevant pathways such as but not limited to the alignment of political capital and the mandate and ownership of implementers, organised opposition, the political economy of issues, purpose, scope and limitations, public awareness and support and the impact on direct and indirect beneficiaries.

The focus can be better placed on where the government is actually committed and motivated to act upon a policy. A useful sign of deeper commitment and interest is whether a government is prepared to spend its own resources in response to the pandemic and delegate authority to an implementing organisation to put the policy into action. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Nepal government has pervasively and glaringly mismanaged its pandemic response. The government failed to prepare adequately for a second wave during the months when there was a letup in infections and transmissible variants that would spread more rapidly.

Willingness to devote its attention to the crisis still remains unclear. Effective state response to a pandemic of the magnitude of Covid-19 requires clear roles and responsibilities, coordination mechanisms, information channels and fiscal relations that allow for a contextualised response, and enables interventions that effectively respond to the immediate health and economic crises. Nepal clearly lacks many of these basic requirements.

Compounded divisions between CPN-UML and the Maoist Centre have added to the turmoil. Three years post-unification, different competing factions within the ruling party are still alive. Betrayal and counter betrayal continue to prevail. Party leadership got indulged in internal fissures and spent the time deadlocked in a power tussle resulting in ineffective governance practices.

Prime Minister Oli earned notoriety for misinformation, denial and nationalist campaigns to silence hiswaningpopularity and credibility. Olis incompetent leadership is costing innocent lives as he continuously undermines the severity of Covid-19. In conjunction, the Oli administrationprioritises political manoeuvresthat aim to consolidate the prime ministers power. Censorshipof the media, controversialnew ordinances, and parliament dissolution, to name a few, were his priority over Covid-19 relief efforts that benefit the general population.

These make it quite evident that political wrangling and infighting are to be blamed for the sharp turn for the worse in the pandemic. Such decision-making undermined democracy in favour of creeping authoritarianism and deepened divisions within the ruling party. Olis inability to thrive without nationalist rhetoric catalysed eventual calls for his losing the vote of confidence in the House of Representatives.

The result of politics is measured empirically in the realm of development where development is not only a purely economic phenomenon but also a multi-dimensional process of reorganising and reorienting an entire economic and social system that seeks the improvement of quality of all human lives in a protected ecology. The existing capital centred policy institution and one-way development policy process cannot be relevant in the federal system of Nepal. Proven poor governance track record, characterised by inadequate leadership, a divided ruling party, corruption and mishandling of funds by the government, and questionable governance practices by the prime minister not only put the population at a disadvantage in weathering the pandemic, but it also may deal additional blows to the countrys health and economic wellbeing.

Continued intra-party disputes and dismissal of the pandemic will lead to greater suffering and delay urgently needed measures to further weather the Covid-19 aftershocks. A change in leadership amid a crisis is not ideal for a country historically plagued by political instability, but fresh leadership and energy are necessary to mitigate the impending repercussions and reestablish effective governance that can adapt to new challenges such as Covid-19. Political reformation with strategic importance for drastic change may play the role of the game change in competitive response towards the Covid-19 catastrophe.

See the original post:

Covid-19 Nepal: Federalism fared badly as politics and pandemic collided. What next? - Online Khabar (English)

By Robert Egbe

True federalism, fairness, equity and justice are needed to avoid a repeat of the 1983 and 1993 post-elections violence in the 2023 general election.

This was the stand of participants at the 27th anniversary of the Epetedo declaration by the late Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola.

The events organiser, Coalition for a Better Nigeria, stated this yesterday in a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Awa Bamiji.

The late Chief Abiola, recognised winner of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, declared himself the president, at Epetedo on Lagos Island, on June 11, 1994, after waiting a year for his mandate to be restored.

His defiance of the military junta which later annulled the poll led to Abiolas arrest and subsequent death in detention.

The events theme was 2023 general election: how to avoid a repeat of 1983 and 1993 post-election violence.

Apart from the June 11 national discourse at Epetedo, there was also a June 12 Eko Youth democracy day symposium held at Eko FM in Ikeja. Both events were hosted by the Lagos State Government.

The second co-chairman at the event, Senator Biyi Durojaiye was represented by a leading figure from the Campaign for Democracy, Pastor Banji Ajayi.

Of the four discussants invited, Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi was represented by Comrade Shina Loremikan. Two others, Oba Abiodun Sowunmi and former National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) president, Comrade Segun Mayegun, participated in person.

Also in attendance were Alfa Daud, Chief Imam, Iju Ishaga Mosque; victims of the June 12 struggle led by Abiodun Mustapha, a.k.a. June 12; and Akin Orisagbemi, former aide to the late Kudirat Abiola.

Read the original post:

2023: True federalism needed to avoid post-election violence - The Nation Newspaper

THE BBC has defended its decision of not including a pro-independence voice in a discussion on Good Morning Scotland of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL).

Tory minister Michael Gove has proposed scrapping the mechanism that means legislation affecting England alone must be approved by a majority of English MPs.

The measure, introduced in 2014 by then prime minister David Cameron after the independence referendum, has been accused of creating a second-tier of MPs at Westminster by the SNP.

READ MORE:Mhairi Black rips into Michael Gove's new plot to stop independence

Gove is reportedly considering the change in a bid to boost support for the Union.

So, who did the BBC get on to discuss this possibility? Good Morning Scotland opted for LibDem MP Alistair Carmichael and Conservative Home's Henry Hill.

The question was introduced: "Is Michael Gove about to deliver us from EVEL? I'm referring, of course, to English Laws for English Votes [sic]. It was brought in by the David Cameron government to prevent Scottish MPs voting on matters that did not affect Scotland.

"It now looks like Mr Gove is going to scrap the procedure. Is that a good thing, or does it mean that what's knownas the West Lothian Question returns to cause problems?"

You'll notice a distinct absence of any mention of why this move is said to be happening to boost the Union.

When we asked the BBC whether a pro-independence voice had been invited on, a spokesperson told us: "The topic of the item was English Votes for English Laws with contributors on from opposing positions to discuss it."

READ MORE:Alex Cole-Hamilton mocked for ridiculous response after Scotland game

Carmichael was for more federalism, whereas Hill defended the measure as the best option available. The other solution to this dilemma, of course, is Scotland going independent, but that viewpoint wasn't represented.

Instead, listeners were treated to attacks that went unanswered.

Explaining his position, Hill said: "Its simply a fact that the debate on devolution in England isnt where federalists would like it to be, England is under no obligation to come up with a system that sort-of mirrors those chosen by Scotland and Wales.

Especially not for effectively so trivial a reason as Scottish and Welsh MPs dont like having to crack on with case work when English-only legislation is in the chamber.

Those lazy Scots and Welsh, eh? Its a wonder they want us in the Union.

Carmichael, meanwhile, said: The fair way to do this is for the UK as a whole to have a federal structure of government, something the Liberal Democrats have been promoting since I was a boy and even before that, and now a significant number of people like Gordon Brown

If the removal of EVEL precipitates a proper debate on that future structure for governance in England then thats got to be a good thing.

More federalism. The Gordon Brown Scottish independence debate special.

READ MORE:Andy Burnham in row with Nicola Sturgeon over Manchester travel ban

Setting out his position further, Hill said: I think this is part of the problem. The idea that we should go through the vast expense and constitutional danger of bringing in an English parliament or revisit regional assemblies which English voters already rejected in the New Labour era the idea that we need to do all of that just because Scottish and Welsh MPs dont like the fact they have to sit out on an English education vote, is I think fairly ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is the people of England are not obliged to come up with the same answer or even a similar answer to that Scotland or Wales came up with. English Votes for English Laws laws allows us its the bare minimum to the answer to the West Lothian Question.

It really is annoying having decisions foisted on you despite how you voted, isnt it? For example, being forced out of the European Union despite every region in your nation voting against that.

Could the BBC host at least play devils advocate here? Apparently not

Read more:

BBC defends failure to include pro-indy voice on EVEL discussion - The National