| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 12:24 PM
I think the recently posted poll by Biruwa asking whether democarcy or stability is important for Nepal, while well intended, is based on a flawed assuption : that democracy and stability are mutually exclusive. I think the poll would be better reflective of reality if there was another option that said "Both". My two cents .... |
| ruck | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 01:06 PM
That poll was posted by me FYI. We the people in the country hope to see some stability with the King taking over. We've seen how Democracy worked for more than a decade now.. What more??? If I had written both rather than two options, then there wouldn't have been series of threads here on the current political scenario of Nepal and it's instability. Nepal is what it is today because it is not stable... |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 01:57 PM
Thank you orion for granting me credit for the flawed assumption :-). But as ruck has already claimed, that flawed assumption is not mine :-) But looking at all three polls posted it does make us sit back and take a look at the whole picture. Unless someone or a group is voting multiple times for vested interests hami sadharan janata have clearly cast our vote. OUR vote is For dictatorship, if it means peace! For abolition of multi-party democrary, if it means stability! |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:01 PM
Have not heard what if any analysis is being planning by oohi Ashu! Ashu ji, any plans on analysing the poll results ? I know the polling booths have not closed yet but may be it is time to voice your opinion based on the poll results ! |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:15 PM
Hey Guys, Thanks for the response. Like I have said in other threads, by stability I assume you mean stability in all 75 districts and not just in Singha Durbar and Kathmandu. I stand open to ideas about how exactly His Majesty intends to do this, but nothing has changed on the ground in terms of the military campaign against the Maoists and it will take more than dismissing an elected government and usurping executive powers to bring stability. On the contrary, now that all the political parties appear aligned against the King, I think we might actual get more instability and not less. |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:16 PM
No doubt, the assumption is problematic. More than likely, the Maoist activities will increase as well as the political protest against the monarchy as the political forces regroup from their stunned disbelief. If stability was the primary goal, and things get increasingly worse politically, does that mean the monarchy is invalidated by its own move, just like democracy? The assumption that monachy means stability does not hold. |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:20 PM
...and apologies for the goof-up with names :) |
| ruck | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:22 PM
Looks like all you up there want a quick solution from the King.. it's not even a week since he's taken over (not fully still) we gave those dumbo leaders 12 years and to the King 6 days?? think about it... I am not a pro monarch as such, but having some very close friends living in the far most remote area of Nepal, I have seen the worst of terror in their eyes... I hope people will one day consider the other parts of Nepal as part of Nepal and not just Kathmandu..... |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:44 PM
Ruck - it has really been after the restoration of democracy that the government has started looking outside of Kathmandu. The Panchayat concentrated everything on Kathmandu - hospitals, universities, roads, industries, government offices. People in Kathmandu had the choice of going to 5 hospitals if the got diarrhea whereas a pregnant women needing a gynecologist had to walk days. Not that democracy has reversed that. But the process has at least started. All new government hospitals constructed after 1990 were outside the valley. Three or universities have opened up outside the valley. Development was becoming more and more democratized. Of course corruption was a problem but it could have been handled without destroying democarcy. And for the first time in Nepal's history people outside the valley were saying "F ... you" to people who wanted to concentrate more resources in Kathamndu. Democracy in Nepal did not turn the country into paradise or even Singapore like Bhattarai promised, but it did give people at the grassroots a say in determining their destinies. The unsolved problems of democracy - the lack of transparency and accountability - both of which were responsible for corruption might actually worsen without a democratic system. I do not see how an unaccountable Monarch can truly address these issues because I think, in this case Monarchy is part of the problem and not part of the solution. |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:44 PM
The king has no solution but to hand over power to democratic leaders. The solution is to restore public security, which will come about only through political negotiation between democratic forces and the Maoists. Military action is not going to resolve it. It is unlikely that the monarch can hold a dialogue with anti-monarchy insurgents. The way out is through democratic practices, which has served the king well so far. Getting back into the political fray directly and blatantly is likely to cost it dearly. |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:45 PM
When I say OUR, it means the majority of the vote and not necessarily my own vote. In fact, my vote for IS MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY SUITED TO NEPAL? was in "I want this discussed." Oops, the secret is out!:-) OUR represents 40 negative votes in IS MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY SUITED TO NEPAL? and 87 positive votes in WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THE KING'S MOVE?" It may be difficult, but it is best if the minority accepts the majority's vote. Democracy means majority rules, with minority's voice getting some respect. |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:46 PM
I meant a pregnant women in Jajarkot had to wlak five days to get to a hospital |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 02:59 PM
Biruwa - like all online polls, there is a slight skew in this poll. But I get the message behind the poll. For me that message is, people are frustrated with the democratic system as it existed till last week and want a change. I think I can correctly assume that most people want this change in the hope that things will get better in the country. But I have serious doubts about whether things CAN get better given the new power structure we have in place and want to challenge the argument that it can. This power structure, by its nature, seeks to circumvent a system of governance that stands up for the rights of every Nepali in the country. I am sure you will agree that the country is not just Kathmandu - so how can the aspirations of the people be represented by one unelected and unaccounted ( maybe well-meaning) Monarch who has lived all his life in Kathamndu? Who is to connect the executive Monarch to the people in the villages if the elected governments get no respect in this new power paradigm? Democracy maybe flawed, but dictatorship is a worse alternative. |
| ruck | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 06:59 PM
Democratic form of governence is something everybody wants these days. But everytime it has been imposed without proper institutions in place it has failed. Look at Eastern Europe, or more notoriously Russia-a classic case of hasty placement of democracy and free-market economy. Does this mean democracy is bad?? No. But there is certainly a hell of a lot to learn from whats happening in Nepal. Maybe democracy is and ideal that is held too high. Democracy is 'cool', politically correct. It is might sound unorthodox to say anything bad about democracy in todays 'intellectual' circle. Whatever the debate...DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED IN NEPAL!!! there are several directions this can lead to: What has to be done so that democracy does not fail? Maybe first thing is the realization that simply electing representatives-same old ones despite their dubious credentials-should stop. Did we actually have democracy two weeks ago? what makes us so sure? were peoples grievances being representated by the politicians, was there equity? Was there freedom of speech? (The chief of police could not speak his mind on the issue of election postponement-he was humiliated by the government by asking for a letter of explaination). It will be unfortunate if Nepal turns into a dictatorship, but its all our own making. We voted-they got elected-they got corrupt-kept fighting with each other for 12 years and left the country in a limbo. What do we expect??? |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 08:13 PM
Ruck - you raise some very valid concerns and points. Yes, democracy does not mean multi- party elections only. That is only one element of democracy. Like you have noted, there are other elements - institutions like a free press, independent judiciary, a check and balance system between those who wield executive power and elected representatives to name a few other elements. I would higly recomend the < a href="http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/"> Human Development Report - if you havent already gotten a chance to read it. The report basically backs these claims with statistics. Chapters 3 and 4 especially. It cites, stating facts and data, that democracy is essential for human development and peace . In Nepal, we have failed to build those insitutions - which is why those institutions need to be developed so that the true meaning of democracy can be realized by the people. We should not instead abandon democracy altogether and move to authoritarianism. Development, peace and stability are much more uncertain and difficult , if not unachievable, through a non-democratic form of governance. I agree that the elected representatives have not been the greatest of people. But atleast with democracy you can throw them out! The Nepali people have twice thrown out elected governments through the ballot box in the last 12 years. But in a regime where the chief executive is accountable to no one, forget about throwing him out, no one can even ask questions, as we have seen during the country's previous experience with direct rule. Yes, Nepal's democracy may not have been perfect, but again detsroying it altogether is too harsh a punishment for a system that seeks to allow people to have a say in determining their destinies How much democracy there was two weeks maybe hard to measure and even if it wasnt as much as one would have liked , it seems there will be much less democracy in the future if the events of the past few days lead us into a dictatorship. Plus, what is there to say there will be more stability because of direct rule? We will have to wait and see but based on the events of the past few days, I think we are headed for more instability and not less. Not a signle major national party supports the King. Even the RPP agrees that what the King did was unconstitutional. Nothing has changed on the ground with respect to the Maoist conflict. Add the current crisis to this, and I fail to see how the Royal "take over " is leading towards anything but further instability. |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 08:40 PM
And there is a quote there by Nobel laureate and an expert on third world development , Mr Amartya Sen. He says: In earlier times there were lengthy discussions on whether one country or another was yet “fit for democracy”. That changed only recently, with the recognition that the question was itself wrong-headed: a country does not have to be judged fit for democracy, rather it has to become fit through democracy. This is a truly momentous change. —Amartya Sen1 |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 10:13 AM
I am wondering what makes ruck say 'democracy has failed in nepal." I invite his calrifications. Similarly, does he imply to say that there is no difference between two weeks ago and now regarding political and civil rights of individuals? What has representation to do with equity? Does any public official have the right to free speech without correct protocol in a politically volatile situation? |
| ruck | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 10:19 AM
Ruck = He???? |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 12:24 PM
He/she/neither/both is beside the point. The questions still stand! |