In a recently conducted nationwide public opinion survey where the Nepali people were asked to rate their support for federalism in a scale between 0 and 10, the Nepali people gave federalism a score of 3.8. In a spectrum where 0 indicated total opposition to federalism and 10 total support for federalism and 5 neither opposition nor support, 3.8 is on the negative side. What this underscores is that the average Nepali is unenthusiastic about federalism.
In addition to rating federalism the survey had asked several other questions on the issue, the responses to which point to the reasons why the average Nepali is downbeat about federalism. In the nationwide survey undertaken by Interdisciplinary Analysts (IDA), a Kathmandu-based research and consulting organization, in September 2010, 3,000 individuals (18 years and above) spread across 35 districts were randomly selected and interviewed.
IDA, which specializes in public opinion polls, had begun asking questions related to federalism once this issue had gained salience in the public discourse. The question that has been asked repeatedly over the years is: “Have you ever heard about the federal system?” What the data between 2006 and 2010 shows is that though more people report having heard about federalism, even as of 2010, only 50 percent report having heard of it. The proportion of people who report having heard of it was 10 percent in September 2006, 16 percent in May 2007, 23 percent in January 2008, 32 percent in July 2009 and in September 2010 one out of two people reported hearing about the federal system. What this underscores is that more than two years after the elected constituent assembly endorsed Nepal as a federal democratic republic, only half of the people report ever hearing about the federal system.
Though the average Nepali is negatively disposed towards federalism, there are differences of opinion among the people based on where they happen to live, their caste/ethnic backgrounds and their political sympathies. Among the three ecological regions—mountains, hills and the Tarai—those living in the mountains rate federalism at 6.5, while those living in the hills and the Tarai rate it at 3.9 and 3.4 respectively. People living in the mountain region are more upbeat about federalism than those living in the hills and the Tarai. In terms of the development regions, federalism receive the highest rating in the Far Western region (5.6) followed by the Mid Western region (5.4), while it receives the lowest rating in the Western region (2.1).
Among the different caste/ethnic groups it receives the highest support among the Janajatis. If among the hill Janajatis, federalism receives a score of 4.3, among Tarai/Madhesh Janajatis it receives 4.2. What the data further highlights is that for no caste/ethnic group is the rating for federalism higher than 5, which represents a neutral attitude.
How does a person’s political sympathy affect the rating towards federalism? Among those who had voted for the Maoists in the April 2008 constituent assembly elections, the mean support is 4.9, while it is 3.7 among the Nepali Congress voters and 3.5 among the UML voters. What this reveals is a higher support for federalism among the voters of CPN (Maoist). However, even here the average score is less than 5 which is a neutral orientation towards federalism. Among the voters of MJF federalism registers 4.3 while among the voters of TMLP it registers 1.8.
People’s response to questions on expectation from federalism and the basis through which the federations should be structured points to the reasons why the orientation to federalism is not affirmative.
When asked: “What do you anticipate with the implementation of federalism (or what is your expectation from federalism)?” 53 say “do not know/cannot say”, 26 percent say the Nepali state will disintegrate, 18 percent say Nepal will be weakened and 12 percent say various caste/ethnic groups will begin fighting against one another. Multiple responses were allowed in responding to the question. The first response—don’t know/cannot say—corresponds to the proportion of people who report not having heard about federalism. The second, third and fourth responses are essentially negative associations of federalism. Then only do positive associations begin to surface—11 percent who say there will be more development at the local level and 7 percent who say the various groups that inhabit Nepal will have their identities assured.
Even though the elected Constituent Assembly endorsed Nepal as a federal democratic republic, there is disagreement among political parties as to how the states should be demarcated. IDA had sought to find out what the public thought should be the basis of federalism. The question that was asked was: “Nowadays, there is a debate going on regarding what the basis of federations should be. In your opinion, what should be the basis for the establishment of federations?” Respondents were asked to give only one answer. The possible choice of answer was not read out to the respondents: rather the answer given by the respondents was noted and tabulated.
This question as in the case of the earlier one was asked to all respondents whether they have had heard of federalism or not (unlike in an earlier survey done by IDA where those who reported not having heard of it were excluded). Half of the respondents (50 percent) professed ignorance while 18 percent reported that Nepal should not be a federal state. Some 9 percent thought that it should be based on geography (east-west). Those who reported that it should be based on ethnicity was 7 percent and those who said it should be based on economic transactions was 4 percent. A small proportion (5 percent) said that they have only heard the term but have not understood it. This shows that as in the case of the political parties among the general population too there is lack of unanimity as to what should form the basis for the demarcation of states.
The source from which people have come to learn about federalism points to the weak if not, non-existent role of the political parties in informing the public as to why the country was transformed to a federalism system and what should be the basis for the delineation of states.
Survey found out that a majority of the people get information about federalism from the radio (69 percent) followed by television (50 percent), newspaper (14 percent), people of own community (13 percent), community meetings or other local level forums (12 percent) and friends/relative (8 percent). Those saying that they have received information about federalism from political leaders are a meager 0.3 percent—the data highlighting the virtually non-existent role played by political parties in informing the public directly.
The people’s response to the last question is illuminating in that it provides a clue as to why the average Nepali’s orientation towards federalism is negative—political parties have simply not informed the public as to its necessity. All the information the public has gleaned has been from the media—the radio, T.V. and newspapers. The various studies worldwide that have examined public opinion formation processes have pointed to the role of the media in shaping opinion, among others due to agenda-setting, framing and priming (the process by which dominant aspects of media coverage serve as criteria for individual decision-making). In Nepal too given that political parties have not been pro-active and that the role of the political parties in informing the public has been taken over by the media, one can infer the role the media has portrayed and relayed federalism by examining people’s orientation towards it. The people’s negative orientation towards federalism can be attributed to the role of the media. If the public’s orientation is to be transformed from one that is negative towards it, to one that is positive, the clue as to the mechanism through which this could be brought about, too lies with the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment