Political appeal of an ambiguous idea: explaining the institutionalisation of food sovereignty in Nepal

Abstract

The idea of food sovereignty lacks clarity and is imprecise. Yet, some countries have accepted the idea and included it in their constitutions and legislation. Existing literature on food sovereignty tends to argue that the reason for the institutionalisation of the idea of food sovereignty by some countries is that these countries have accepted the demands made by social movements on food sovereignty and are willing to make changes in the food and agriculture sector accordingly. I argue that this explanation regarding the institutionalisation of the idea of food sovereignty does not hold much ground. Rather, the institutionalisation of the idea of food sovereignty can be better explained by the "coalition magnet" thesis. A coalition magnet is an idea with political appeal that attracts a diversity of individuals and groups, and is used strategically by policy entrepreneurs to frame their interests, mobilise supporters and build coalitions. For an idea to be called a coalition magnet, three things are essential: 1) effective manipulation of the idea by policy entrepreneurs, 2) embracing or promotion of the idea by key actors in the policy process, and 3) coming together of actors who previously seemed to be at odds. I find that the idea of food sovereignty possesses these three attributes, and this helps explain the institutionalisation of food sovereignty by Nepal. In Nepal, there were policy entrepreneurs who propagated the idea of food sovereignty, and other actors also found the idea appealing, more so because they could interpret and accept the idea of food sovereignty in their own particular ways. This facilitated agenda setting as can be seen in the inclusion of "food sovereignty" in Nepal's Constitution, and also in relevant policy and planning documents. However, the incorporation of the idea of food sovereignty in these official documents has been vague and imprecise. In terms of operationalising the idea of food sovereignty, there has not been much progress. This shows that ideas that are coalition magnets could be useful for agenda setting. But the nature of a coalition magnet also explains why the idea might be difficult to implement.