| Username |
Post |
| PurnachandraMaharjan |
Posted
on 17-Feb-02 08:17 PM
Choice between Democratic Republic and People’s Republic:
As to the ideology of Democratic Republic and People’s Republic, these two have essential differences, however one similarity is there, which is no monarch in a country.
With a pleasing, I personally could argue for Democratic Republic, not for People’s Republic, if there is to make a choice between two. But, I have not seen any political figure in Nepal that he/she can lead the nation being a president of Democratic Republic of Nepal. It could be just a thought.
Maoist political-demand is to abandon of monarchism and establishing of People’s Republic. How far is it possible in Nepal? Is it possible of killing a very few number of policemen and soldiers? Undoubtedly, this recent assault has awakened to the people, who have underestimated the strength of rebels. It gestures that the bloodshed in Nepal will not be easily ended. Somehow, it must be ended as soon as possible for country's well off. It will be better to accept of political ideology of Democratic Republic for Maoist and other followers of Republic State.
Purna C. Maharjan
|
| Gosaikunda |
Posted
on 17-Feb-02 11:32 PM
Purna Chandra Jee,
Did u understand what u r writing?
Why u paji need so called democracy? Just go back and have KHOLE.
|
| PurnachandraMaharjan |
Posted
on 18-Feb-02 05:50 AM
Goshaikunda jee,
Well, most of Nepalese have this type of reaction at this moment. It is not unpredictable because of frustration. However, I would say to you please write with your real name on the net. Whoever you are, let's face opponency with a real name on any topic you want.
This is a sort of irresponsibility and hiding yourself like a fugitive creature in the world.
Purna C. Maharjan
|
| Gosaikunda |
Posted
on 18-Feb-02 10:04 PM
Thanks Purna Chandra Maharjan Jee,
To present my own idea here, and to go strictly against your opinion, why you need my name, age sex, cast and ...?
This is not the point we're discussiong here.
"Gosaikunda" is sufficient introduction, I thought. Is it wrong to have a nick Name
in this forum? I don't want to tell you my name, sex, cast ... that's why I preferred to be in Nick Name. That's all. Take it positively if you really like free discussion from the buttom.
|
| dodhare |
Posted
on 19-Feb-02 11:31 AM
Sure, you can hide your identity Gosaikunda. However, if you want to participate in discussion use basic ethics if not opinion. It seems you are hiding your identity just to name-call others.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 19-Feb-02 03:25 PM
For a state like Nepl to survive, there has to be a unifying force. Monarchy may be an archaic institution, but it has survived in the world as a symbol of patrimonial legitimacy. Monarchy might die of its own arrogance or by crossing the limit, but until there is nothing, even remotely, to call a viable alrternative, how well can democracy function? Afterall, proper functioning of a democratic system has nothing to do with presence or absence of monarchy. While you correctly point out the common feature of the two systems you mention, I see no other connection or relevance to establishing a successful democratic state.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 19-Feb-02 04:41 PM
Siwalik wrote-
>Afterall, proper functioning of a democratic system has nothing to do with presence or absence of monarchy
May be not in theory, but in Nepal, it has everything to do. Haven't we learned anything from a decade of flop 'constitutional monarchy' ? Don't limit yourself to tell that it flopped because of poor performance of elected leaders. Ask why poor performance from everyone. There lies the secret of Nepal's political failure.
Nepe
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 19-Feb-02 06:29 PM
Nepe: I do not claim to be close to those who wield power in Nepal. So you are defenitely right to suggest that democracy in Nepal might have suffered, apart from other reasons, by the presence of monarchy. You claim that " it(monarchy) has everything to do" with (non)functing of democracy in Nepal. How did the constitutional monarchy "flop"? Could you please elaborate these points? What is the "secret" of our failure in your opinion? I would appreciate your response. Thanks!
>Siwalik wrote-
>>Afterall, proper functioning of a
>democratic system has nothing to do with
>presence or absence of monarchy
>
>
>May be not in theory, but in Nepal, it has
>everything to do. Haven't we learned
>anything from a decade of flop '
>constitutional monarchy' ? Don't limit
>yourself to tell that it flopped because of
>poor performance of elected leaders. Ask why
>poor performance from everyone. There lies
>the secret of Nepal's political failure.
>
>Nepe
|
| Human Rights |
Posted
on 19-Feb-02 08:22 PM
>Afterall, proper
>functioning of a democratic system has
>nothing to do with presence or absence of
>monarchy. While you correctly point out the
>common feature of the two systems you
>mention, I see no other connection or
>relevance to establishing a successful
>democratic state.
Hello Siwalik ji,
Could you please elaborate your saying of "proper functioning"? How far did you see that democracy in Nepal was properly functioning. I just read an article that was posted by someone in this web site. The article has shown the brutality police officers in different parts of Nepal, mostly western part of Nepal. Would you think a democratic system work properly in that way with the cruilties of police officers?
I disclaim about the theme of the article that it has tried to show only one cause of rising of Maoist in Nepal.
Human Rights
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 19-Feb-02 10:46 PM
Siwalikji wrote-
>How did the constitutional monarchy "flop"? Could you please
>elaborate these points? What is the "secret" of our failure in your
>opinion? I would appreciate your response. Thanks!
My theory is pretty simple. Let’s start with the fact. A whole decade of our political exercise did not produce a single leader. By leader, I mean somebody like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who did, against all odds, what it takes to turn Turkey into a modern, secular and vibrant nation, or like Lee Kuan Yew, who turned a poor and resourceless Singapore into what it is today. The question is why we do not have any Mustafa Kemal or Lee Kuan. I think we have our Mustafa and Lee somewhere hidden amongst today’s nalayak leaders of Nepal. I mean we do have many potential Mustafa and Lee in the country. The problem is that there is something that hinders them to be Mustafa and Lee. What is that ? It might not look obvious at a first glance to those who take monarchy and many other traditional institutions for granted, but the hindrance is indeed monarchy. What makes Mustafa and Lee the Mustafa and Lee ? Their patriotism ? Their sensing of the pulse of the time ? Their far-sightedness ? Their vision ? Yes, of course. But the most important element is the authority, supreme authority, absolute authority, nobody except their goal was above them. And exactly that’s what is absent in Nepal. I know what is written in the constitution about the king. But that’s somehow did not matter. What mattered is what is written in the psyche of the nation, what is written in the psyche of our leaders. Our national psyche is still under the shadow of monarchy. How much constitutional power it has did not matter. The fact that it is there, it’s presence mattered. We still carry the psyche of a slave, psyche of a subject. Do you know, our victorious leaders of Jana-andolan, when met ‘defeated’ king Birendra at the palace at that victorious night of 2046, their legs were trembling, trembling by awe, by fear, by reverence, by being belittled by the majestic presence of his majesty. That continues. The subject psyche of our prime minister does not allow him to feel that he is the supreme authority of the nation. His aura, his energy, his supremacy, his authority is neutralized by that of his majesty, not constitutionally, but by virtue of psychology of sub-conscious mind. We are never going to see our Mustafa and Lee until and unless we get rid of the presence of his majesty next to them. We will only see new edition of Surya Bahadur and Marich Man, nothing more. Many people can give many hypothetical reasons for keeping monarchy in the country. That is not the point here. The point is, you have to choose between Lee and monarchy. You can not have both. Not in Nepal. Last twelve years are my witnesses. I rest my case.
Nepe
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 20-Feb-02 08:13 AM
Nepe: Ok, I accept your argument that psychological changes cannot be easily accomplished, not merely by changing the constitution. You are right about the "nature" of the Nepalese leaders. But I still question your "cause" for their behavior. Your argument would lead us to believe that if only there were no monarchy in Nepal, democracy would function propertly, and potential Ataturks or Lee Kwans would emerge in a patriotic burst to lead Nepal to a bright future. If this argument holds, should we not see such leaders emerging in countries where there are no monarchies? My point is not to defend monarchy, simply to follow your logic.
Human Rights Jee: I do not see democracy in Nepal as functioning properly. At the least, I would expect to see some stable regime and confidence of people to accept it as "properly" functioning. If one were to base the assessment on 1) peaceful transfer of power and 2) regular free and fair election, maybe Nepal could pass the test to some degree, but that is just the lowest denominator. I feel we should achieve more than the minimum to classify a properly functioning democracy.
|
| dodhare |
Posted
on 20-Feb-02 09:48 AM
We, Nepali people, have established 4 alternate super powers in Nepal. First 2 are NC and UML. We blind support them (not in this forum but in election) regardless of their wrong doings. They have people’s mandate to claim that they are good leaders and they can call others reactionary forces. They have ruled the country for 12 years and things gotten worse and yet they are as loud as they used to be. Why? Because we, the people, support them and so they are powerful. Another super power is Nepal Army. Nobody wants to mess up with Army because we think they are something. Their reputation has a good impact on us, may be because of the Gurkhas or may be they are in the shadow of the palace. They were the ones who captured the BP and his elected government and put them behind bars. We saw and heard of the stories during the royal massacre. Our PM was clueless and army men were acting like they run the country. I think that gives them sense of super power. I don’t have to add anything about the monarchy in Nepal. We made them the most powerful force of our country no matter what’s written in the constitution. Whenever something goes wrong or when our government does not function well, we want palace to take over without thinking or without waiting a significant time. How can the country move forward with this many alternate powers?
I think monarchy is not the symbol of unity. It is creating confusion among Nepalese with the power we have given. We know their background, history, and acts. We know what they are up to. Yet we stand behind them. Recently, PM said referring to Maoists demands that it is impossible to have a constitutional assembly. Right after that Gynendra invited a journalist and said he doesn’t have a problem with constitutional assembly if that brings peace and unity among Nepalese. This is bullshit.This is what I’m talking about creating the confusion. If he doesn’t have a problem or he respects and cares so much about people why not make Nepal republic? These alternate powers are giving many directions to our country. To move in one direction, we need to get rid of the monarchy and then only the other power Nepal army will function under the government.
|
| dodhare |
Posted
on 20-Feb-02 09:57 AM
We, Nepali people, have established 4 alternate super powers in Nepal. First 2 are NC and UML. We blind support them (not in this forum but in election) regardless of their wrong doings. They have people’s mandate to claim that they are good leaders and they can call others reactionary forces. They have ruled the country for 12 years and things gotten worse and yet they are as loud as they used to be. Why? Because we, the people, support them and so they are powerful. Another super power is Nepal Army. Nobody wants to mess up with Army because we think they are something. Their reputation has a good impact on us, may be because of the Gurkhas or may be they are in the shadow of the palace. They were the ones who captured the BP and his elected government and put them behind bars. We saw and heard of the stories during the royal massacre. Our PM was clueless and army men were acting like they run the country. I think that gives them sense of super power. I don’t have to add anything about the monarchy in Nepal. We made them the most powerful force of our country no matter what’s written in the constitution. Whenever something goes wrong or when our government does not function well, we want palace to take over without thinking or without waiting a significant time. How can the country move forward with this many alternate powers?
I think monarchy is not the symbol of unity. It is creating confusion among Nepalese with the power we have given. We know their background, history, and acts. We know what they are up to. Yet we stand behind them. Recently, PM said referring to Maoists demands that it is impossible to have a constitutional assembly. Right after that Gynendra invited a journalist and said he doesn’t have a problem with constitutional assembly if that brings peace and unity among Nepalese. This is bullshit.This is what I’m talking about creating the confusion. If he doesn’t have a problem or he respects and cares so much about people why not make Nepal republic? These alternate powers are giving many directions to our country. To move in one direction, we need to get rid of the monarchy and then only the other power Nepal army will function under the government.
|
