Nepal, federalism and participatory constitution-making: deliberative democracy and divided societies

In 2008, Nepal reintroduced democracy and elected a Constituent Assembly whose first act was to declare a secular federal democratic republic. The Assembly was tasked with engaging the public in a participatory and deliberative process as it drafted, debated and decided a new federal constitution. This article asks how evaluates how deliberative the process was in practice, and whether the deliberative components influenced decision-making. It demonstrates that, although the political parties assumed the primary role of negotiating the constitution, deliberation occurred at the local level and through the Assembly’s structures and systems. After more than seven years of once polarized debate about whether ethnicity or territory should be the basis of the new federal provinces, the political elite reached a decision that was consistent with the deliberated outcomes that permeated upwards. The experience of Nepal’s constitution-making process demonstrates that deliberative practices, in combination with consociational features, can be effective in a divided society and regarding fundamental constitutional issues, ultimately moderating extreme positions, influencing key decisions and building popular support for their adoption. The Nepali experience also provides lessons for Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and other countries, which are embarking on similar processes towards federal constitutional change.