Why Do Nepalese Maoists Want Ethnicity-based Federalism In Nepal’s New Constitution? Will Ethnicity-based Politics Do Any Good To Nepal In The Long Run?

Ethnically homogenous polities, and particularly SMALL ethnically homogenous polities demonstrate higher tolerance for high taxation and high redistribution because of our biological preference for kin selection.

People often advocate the scandinavian model, but these are very small countries where all individuals are near-relations, where cousin-marriage is prohibited, and where the absolute nuclear family is practiced along with individual property rights meaning children are responsible for themselves and their economic survival, and do not stay home with parents.  They are also well educated, genetically lower in impulsivity, enjoy hard work, and speak in germanic languages in which duty and hierarchy are metaphysical givens.  As such these countries have very high cultural resistance to corruption.

Given the great transformation that Nepalese must go through this coming century, a more homogenous culture means less competition for political power that is useful for seeking and distributing rents, and less opportunity and incentive for organized political corruption. 

However, given traditional nepalese family structures, and nepalese poverty levels, it is unlikely (much like india) that corruption will be eliminated from government and it may even be expanded. 

Conversely, it is less likely that the degree of corruption that the nepalese will engage in will cause political infighting or a resistance to taxation and redistribution (if only into investment in the commons: infrastructure), if the polity is homogenous. 


Scale is no longer as valuable to an economy as is a reliable currency. 

It appears that the universalists program advocated by the enlightenment is unsuccessful and that nationalism (tribalism at scale), will return to its historical status as the dominant political ideology.

This is in part because the value of scale in obtaining credit necessary to finance war has been nearly eliminated by the (strange) influence of nuclear weapons.  If a country can afford nuclear weapons it does not need to engage in large scale defense projects, because its boundaries are secure.  Conversely (as Mr Putin has demonstrated) a country without nuclear weapons cannot claim sovereignty.

So just as credit, conscription, and ‘total war’ defined the past five hundred years, it appears that nuclear weapons, and small scale nationalism which better serves the interests of citizens, will replace empires and military-credit-industrialism.

Hence, oddly enough, nuclear weapons end up having produced intuitive political orders.

Strange but true.



Leave a Reply