| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| paramendra | Posted
on 23-Oct-02 07:24 PM
Majority in NC CWC for constituent assembly The Kathmandu Post This is big news! "The proposal that the party go for such a move was placed formally by Narahari Acharya, former spokesman and elected member of the CWC." "Noted supporter of the President Girija Prasad Koirala like Chakra Prasad Bastola, Mahantha Thakur and Arjun Narsingh KC surprisingly threw their weight behind Narahari Acharya. In a surprised 180-degree turn around, former deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel also saw merit in the demand for a constituent assembly although he had opposed it just a day earlier. "What other option do we have?" Poudel asked the meeting." "Bastola reportedly also concurred by saying, "if there is no restoration of the House of Representatives and no correction of the constitutional aberration by the King, then going for a constituent assembly is the only way out."" "Maoist rebels have for long demanded such an constituent assembly to draft a new constituent. But the idea had always been rejected by the mainstream political parties." |
| paramendra | Posted
on 23-Oct-02 07:26 PM
In the new constitution:
What do others think? What should the new constitution look like? |
| ??! | Posted
on 23-Oct-02 07:43 PM
??...........!!...........({:)|.....(.) |
| Jayahos | Posted
on 23-Oct-02 07:52 PM
Demand for constituent assembly is not new for NC and mere demand is nothing that significant that we start drawing an ideal constitution now! Congress was for constituent assembly from 2007 SAL and it's the power struggle with palace and communist movement attaining a climax that made Congress to compromise with election of Parliament. Rather than declaring an election for constituent assembly just after democracy in 2007, the palace tried to mingle with politics and king Mahendra went so far as pressing for either election for Parliament or status quo. When the king holds so much of power even these days - many people used to pray King as God at that time, it was not possible for Congress to launch an allout war with King. Rising power of communist bloc worldwide and in North particularly made Congressis to compromise with the king and Congress left the demand for Constituent Assembly. Although there should be no negative feeling about constituent assembly, many constitutions are done without Constituent assembly and Congress had gone for this option as copy-cat of India (as is evident in many otherthings like: JayaNepal from JayaHind, Jananayak from LokNayak and so on!!). Is Congress ready to wage an allout war with the KING for constituent assembly? Otherwise, a compromising step with king and more binding provisions in the constituions is more amicable solution. This new development has drifted them more towards Maoist than to the Monarch. Let's wait how positive this approach will prove!! Jaya Hos |
| paramendra | Posted
on 24-Oct-02 11:49 AM
Okay, for clarification purposes, what exactly is a Constituent Assembly? You elect people who will then draft a constitution? Is that what? What are the details? What constituencies will they get elected from? How will they reach consensus on major disagreements? How will that assembly draw a document? What is the idea here? |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 24-Oct-02 01:51 PM
The time has come for Nepalese to decide which is more important--saving monarchy or saving Nepal? Monarchy sustained its patrimonial legitimacy because of cultural values that trusted a noble king as enshrined in "Ram rajya". Recent history and forthcoming royal succession gives us no impression of our king meeting such standard. Nepal in the eyes of the world has had a shameful image of crowning a known murderer as its king. Is that the way to live? The prerogatives enshrined in the 1990 constituion still has undemocratic elements all related to the royal affairs--secrecy and all. In the democratic society we aspire for there should be no place for legal inequaltity or secrecy. No one should be above the law, nor shound be opt for anything but total transparency in national affairs. If shaving Nepal is our goal, then the Maoists have to be brought into the democratic mainstream. This cannot be achieved by feeding the monarchical frenzy. It is time to opt for a republic and federalism. A president can be as patriotic and nationalistic as any Nepali. Besides, a president would be checked by institutional mechanism of impeachment, if he/she does not work for the best interest of the state and people. Federalism is required for decentralism of power so that democratic experiences can be spread and cultivated at the local level where ordinary citizens can choose what is best for themselves. Federalism to empower people and diffuse concentration of power that has led to corruption of leaders and bureaucracy and cinicism on the part of ordinary citizens. A constituent assembly based on the present electoral map would be a welcome development. |
| dirk | Posted
on 24-Oct-02 02:16 PM
Saving Nepal or saving the Monarchy.......are they mutually exclusive? |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 11:29 AM
It will depend on 1. How long we Nepalese are willing to withstand instability and daily fatricidal deaths. if we want to go the Sri Lanka way of prolonged civil unrest for two decades or so, we might as well embrace an institution that has hardly been democratic; 2. Whether we want total economic chaos and radicalization of marginalized population; 3. Whther we are willing to throttle democracy from both the right and the left, or embark on a middle way of compromise where Nepal, the bereaved nation, comes first, not monarchy. etc. |
| wy | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 02:34 PM
Siwalik, The issue is not about the King versus the gains of democracy, as Girija would like you to believe and you seem to be buying, the real discourse should be about throwing out the old outdated bastard like Girija, Deuba, and Bhattarai in favor of bringing in a new crop of clean leaders, so a clean form of democracy can be practiced in Nepal. Remember, why the King took advantage of taking power (but has agreed to give back.): Siwalik, remember, leaders like Girija, Bhattarai, and Deuba palyed musical chair with our lives, changed hands, generated a band of corrupt thugs, did not hesitate to diissolve parliament, refused to go away, sent incompetent ambassodors all over the world....you name it they have done it. In the name of democracy, you indirectly keep defending them and their kartut. I believe in democracy, and big time, but I have lost faith in these old band of leaders. Show me the money first. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 05:01 PM
Jayahos : "..., the palace tried to mingle with politics and king Mahendra went so far as pressing for either election for Parliament or status quo..." So to not go for a constituent assembly would be to appease the monarch. The ground reality is that the RPP, the Sadbhavana and the UML have all expressed interest in joining the government. "...many constitutions are done without Constituent assembly ..." Is it possible to declare Nepal a republic through the current constitution? I don't think so. If the monarchy has to be got rid of, the constitution has to be got rid of. And you can not get rid of this constitution through a parliament that might exist through this constitution. No wonder the Maoists don't come for talks. Their central demand is not even being considered. "...more binding provisions...(for the king)..." Please elaborate and give examples. How? What baby steps are you talking about? Siwalik : "...saving monarchy or saving Nepal...." The two have to be distinguished. The monarchy is a dispensable institution. "Nepal in the eyes of the world has had a shameful image of crowning a known murderer as its king." Very important point. "The prerogatives enshrined in the 1990 constituion still has undemocratic elements all related to the royal affairs--secrecy and all." Not only that, you can not do away with those provisions even through 2/3rd votes in the parliament. Am I right? You can change those aspects of the constitution that might affect the janata, but not that might affect the raja. What kind of democracy is that? "No one should be above the law..." Key point. "If (saving) Nepal is our goal, then the Maoists have to be brought into the democratic mainstream. This cannot be achieved by feeding the monarchical frenzy. It is time to opt for a republic and federalism. A president can be as patriotic and nationalistic as any Nepali" No leader on the national scene is even remotely close to solving the Maoist problem. The solution is political and not military, and it is to keep the option of (1) the republic and (2) federalism on the table. The president can substitute the king in all ways: (1) To safeguard the constitution. (2) To be a symbol of unity. More so than the king, for the king is a Nepali Speaking High Caste Male. A president could be a woman, a madhesi, a janajati, a dalit. The king offers false "unity." (3) About 1,000 times less expensive. "A constituent assembly based on the present electoral map would be a welcome development." Please explain this. What is the idea here? How would the constituent assembly be formed? How long would it last? What will succeed it? How will it do its work? What responsibilities will it have? dirk : "Saving Nepal or saving the Monarchy.......are they mutually exclusive?" They are two different topics. Nepal is a country. The monarchy is a dispensable institution. Siwalik : "... Sri Lanka.." That is an important corollary. The Tamil Tigers started out by wanting a separate country. Now they are about to settle for a state within the country. The Maoists say they want a communist repubic, I think they will settle for a republic. "Whther we are willing to throttle democracy from both the right and the left, or embark on a middle way of compromise where Nepal, the bereaved nation, comes first, not monarchy." To "save" the monarchy, people are willing to live the pain of what is essentially a civil war situation. wy: "....Girija, Deuba, and Bhattarai ..." You might as well add some royal names to that list. Precisely because the country needs "new" political leadership, the "old" monarchy needs to make way. The likes of GDB will be swept away much easily. |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 05:13 PM
wy: you are exactly right about the ineptness of our so called democratic leaders that you have mentioned as well as those you have left out. In no way would I defend the action of political leaders or the king that is not in the best interest of the people at large. In another thread I observed: "By retaliating against democratic parties and placing a stooge at the helm, the present regime resembles a persanalist autonomus regime--the one most vulnerable to revolutionary movements. The best thing going for monarchy is the corrupt and inept political leaders who have failed to inspire and channel national vision for better future. Otherwise, the rift between the king and political parties plays right into the alley of Maoists." My point is this: Nepal is goign down the drain. I can see how anyone can disagree with that observation. Developmental infrastructures, lacking to begin with, are being targeted. Even more damaging result of the Maoist movement is the economic decline becuase the government has not been able to provide the first of all public goods: security and stability. Without a secure environment to step up to other developmental goals, there can be no vision of democracy or glorioous future. On the other hand, declining economy due to instability will make everyday life increasingly worse for every citizen. That is exactly what the Moaists want. Make the state so weak that it can launch its final offensive. Even if they do not succeed, they will retreat and continue with the guerilla warfare, like in the case of El Salvador. In any event, as long as there is insurgency, there will be no economic development, hence no place for democracy--an excuse the king will use to continue to the Panchayat formula. Now, do we want this? Hopefully not! So what is the option? Bring the Maoist into the mainstream. Can this be done through dialogue? One wishes. My gut feeling is that they will not settle for less than monarchy, but they might opt to rejoin the democratic mainstream. I might be wrong here since I have not checked the Maoist manifesto closely; I am just being deductive. Anyway, if the price of returning to democratic system is to be a republic, should we embrace it or not? No means a monarchy with continued decline. Yes means a shot at consolidating democratic system. If yes, then we would still need a head of state. That we can have through a presidential with a strong institutional checks and balances, with a provision for impeachement. This would also guarantee transparency for all executive affairs--unlike the secrecy that still clouds all royal affairs. Maybe I need not reming you that 1990 constituion has strong anti-democratic elements in it. We are living with the consequence today. So, if we had only one option between saving Nepal or monarchy, what should we do? What would you choose? |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 05:27 PM
I have not thought through with the issue of constitutional assmebly. How about this brief idea? 1. Hold an election for 225 members according to the present electoral district. 2. The assembly thus constituted would write a new republican constitution. 3. Having completed that task and passed by a majority (or through referendum), the assembly will assume the role of the parliament. 4. Parliament forms a cabinet 5. Presidential election can be held based on candidates that are independent of political affiliation. The new constitution should have absolute transparency and anti-corruption measures. Federalism will give DDC's the power to chart their own local developmental strategies. Anyone care to elaborate their thoughts? |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 06:42 PM
Siwalik, you make some very valid points. Save the country. Let the monarchy go. Save democracy. Bring back peace. Choose stability and economic growth. The federal form of governance, though, asks for the country to be divided into about five states. That is key. The janajati voice is a major undercurrent in the Maoist movement. |
| smr | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 06:47 PM
Siwalik: Presidential election, republic, presidential power? I had written a paper one time in my comparative PolSc. class that I took awhile back. There is nothing to elaborate here. It is a straight textbook stuff. And, instead of wasting our time, why don't we simply borrow the US constitution? But then, I wish it were that simple, Siwalik. If it were, the whole world would look like the US system. That does not mean what King did was right. He indeed made democracy weak in Nepal by virtue of flirting with it. But then, a bunch of bastards like Girija and company including many Panchayat people, of course, ruined the country, and they cannot be trusted either. Throw them out and bring the new crop. |
| SIWALIK | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:13 PM
You are right! We are in a catch 22 situation. Borrowing US constitution is never an option. Latin American countreis have done that and failed! The situation is very complex, and I doubt if we the Nepalese have the "smart" to get out of it. History does not bode well in that regard. Where is the ray of hope? |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:20 PM
Maoists spell out two options Maoists spell out two options Himalayan News Service Kathmandu, October 25 (Source: The Himalayan Times) The Maoist rebels in a press statement today have outlined two primary options in overcoming the current political crisis. The Maoists have called for holding of constituent assembly as the first option to seek a political resolution to the present crisis. The constituent assembly will formulate a new constitution, which will prove to be an important in leading the country out the crisis, said the statement. If the first option fails to work out and the government continues to mobilise the army and foreign troops, and upholds its "regressive" moves, the outlawed outfit said that they will move ahead with the "decisive and historical struggle." The outlawed organisation further stated: "We are ready for any of the options." In order to find a concrete solution to the current crisis, the King has to sacrifice for the good of the people, as when required, said the Maoists' statement. They also highlighted the need to prepare a conducive atmosphere to seek and lead the nation on the path of peace and progress, while emphasising the need to strengthen national unity and uphold sovereignty of the people. The Maoists' statement has come days after prime minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand, upon assuming office, announced that his government is ready to hold peace talks with the rebels. This is a challenge to the six political parties. Their options are as follows, as I see it:
|
| Jayahos | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:29 PM
Parmendra: >>So to not go for a constituent assembly would be to appease the monarch. Yeh, obvious. Now some elements in congress and uml are also reluctant to this demand for this will appear as maoist winning the battle - which will shift political weight towards maoist. >>The ground reality is that the RPP, the Sadbhavana and the UML have all expressed interest in joining the government. Though true, Why you raised this point here? They all know in a country like Nepal the one in power always falls heavy; look at the past two elections of local bodies. >>Is it possible to declare Nepal a republic through the current constitution? Is it possible to declare Nepal a republic through the constituent assembly? This constitution has every provisions to keep king away from the executive power, more progressive in many fronts than that of 2015 SAL and more importantly it was excersided for more than 12 years, . But look at the fact....King Mahendra had to use army to depose BP but this King G did it just by an announcement. If we go for constituent assembly now, do u think we will end up with more progressive constituion? This constitution had provision of operating army by mobilising Security Council where PM, Defence Minister and Army chief are the members. If we talk about provisions in paper, this constituion had enough of it. Did it help? BP, after being deposed by Mahendra, later accepted the fact that he did mistake by not injecting MUKTI SENA in the Army (Maoist are demandid this!!). Slowly but steadily we need to reform the Army (and the Politicans alike). Or opt for an all out war as Maoist are doing. >>"...more binding provisions...(for the king)..." Please elaborate and give examples. How? What baby steps are you talking about? The earlier constitution +- a few more viz. a clear provision that the parliament must be in place within 6 months. Had the parliament been there, the King would not have dared to depose a PM by an announcement and pretending as done constitutionally. This provision was there but Supreme Court somehow managed to redefine this another way in last verdict. Jaya Hos. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:39 PM
Look at this scenario: The UML is officially for holding a referendum. The majority of the Koirala Congress central committee is for a constituent assembly. But neither is an immediate option. Because the monarchy is in the way. For all the demagogues in the two parties, I would rather have them than the king, for at least they answer to the people. The country is not a democracy yet, this proves. The panchayate kaal monarchy retains its momentum. The will of the people has to be the primary political fuel in a democracy. It is not in Nepal. The struggle for democracy did not end in 1990, apparently. The argument about the army being royal to the palace does not hold water. The army's strengths have been exaggerated in the past, and the Maoists have blown a hole into that myth. And that loyalty itself has to be questioned. Declare a republic, and those same top brass folks will swear allegiance to the new constitution. The king is no symbol of unity. He is symbolic more of the unfair domination of the Nepali Speaking High Caste Males. He is a symbol of autocracy. A symbol of official corrution. A symbol of Panchayat heydays. He symbolizes the superstition that he is some kind of an avatar. That is ignorance, not culture. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:45 PM
The primary question remains, so how do you bring the civil war to an end, and without peace, forget elections. And you can not hold "talks" with the Maoists by saying the constitutional monarchy is non-negotiable. And the solution to the Maoist insurgency is to be political, not military, not that the military option is even there on the ground. The discussion on the monarchy has to be put into the context of the raging civil war. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:58 PM
TUG O' WAR Who will blink first in this tussle between the palace and the political parties? ANALYSIS by RAJENDRA DAHAL http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue116/headline_1.htm |
| kreep | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 09:46 PM
paramendra, how many places in nepal have you been to? |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 10:58 PM
Former Speaker wants all-party convention, constituent assembly Himalayan News Service Kathmandu, October 25 Ex-Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana today called for an all-party convention, saying it can alone pave a way out of the current problems the country is facing. "The present government does not hold the people's mandate. That is why it is necessary to hold an all-party convention, inclusive of the outlawed Maoists," said Dhungana. "The mandate of the convention then should be forwarded to constituent assembly to form a legitimate government. This is the only means to restore political stability, peace and good governance." |
| paramendra | Posted
on 27-Oct-02 09:28 AM
Parties call on King to form govt. under Article 128 The political parties whose leaders have been alleged of inefficiency and rampant corruption Friday toned down and demanded that the King initiate steps to form an all party government under Article 128 of the Constitution of Nepal 1990. King Gyanendra appointed Lokendra Bahadur Chand Prime Minister after the political parties failed to forward names of 'untainted individuals'. Chand has gone on record saying that in the present context, forming an all-party government under Article 128 was not feasible. Chand is set to expand his nine-member cabinet after the Deepawali festival. nepalnews.com am Oct 26
|
| paramendra | Posted
on 27-Oct-02 11:28 AM
Major Polarization Taking Place (quotes in italics from nepalnews.com) http://www.nepalnews.com.np/
|