| Username |
Post |
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 10:29 AM
Sparsha and Biswo (I apologize for the spelling) have articulated their opposing and complimentary views on democratic prospects in Nepal. Sparsha has taken a pragmatic/realistic approach in suggesting that it is important to establish and ensure peace before resuming/restoring democracy in Nepal. Biswo tends to generalize his Chitwan experience to whole Nepal and disregard the fact most of Nepal is not as politically-oriented as Chitwan. Biswo has not answered the crucial question as to HOW are we going to make democracy functional. So I ask you both again to think it through.
Here is our dilemma. We know we want democracy. We know the best vehicle for democracy—the political parties--have not functioned/performed and sadly disappointed our expectations. So how is Biswo’s bottom-up approach going to work? And I must point it out to Biswo that no one here is suggesting that the poor in Nepal or any of the democratic proponents support authoritarian values. So I would like to hear your solution on how to make democracy work in Nepal. Who is to be trusted? What is the institutional mechanism you favor? Given the ambiguity of the term democracy, what qualification do you use in your understanding? Do you propose any of these--formal, procedural, participatory, bourgeois, social, guided, corporate, communitarian? Which democracy are you talking about? I find your arguments mostly theoretical or conceptual, so I would be able to understand you better if you gave some practical institutional or methodological explanation on the best strategy for democratic restoration and consolidation in Nepal.
And sparsha write: “Who do you suggest should lead the nation then? Where do I see with hope? Narayanhiti is status quo, Mao talks about defunct paradise with pointed guns, UML, NC and others see nothing beyound self and temporary gains and are clear reflection of "awasarbad and palyanbad", common people are either trapped and/or "bichalit" and/or "bibas". I am angry and frustrated.” Do you see any hope at all? Or is frustration your final anwer?
And further, “I am honestly ready to give chance to UML, NC or any other parties with different leadership. But their goal should be promoting national interests (peace first) not party or personal issues.” Here is my question: HOW can we make sure of a different leadership to come about? Is there a way we could make sure that the current leadership do not rise to the leadership?
The reality I have observed is this: The Nepalese I have seen in one of the major trade routes of Nepal do not even have toilets. Every morning they go to the river for their morning rituals. Give me a practical way to relate the relevance of democracy in their lives.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 12:15 PM
" Do you see any hope at all? Or is frustration your final anwer? "
Siwalik,
No. Frustration is not my final answer. In fact, I doubt frustration can be qualified as an answer at all. I do see hope. That's the reason of my argument. If my final answer was frustration then why would I argue? I am frustrated. True. That's why I want to get out of this frustration. I am looking around to see where is the exit or what are the alternatives. Depression may work as a final answer for some but not frustration (I don't think frustration can work as a final answer to anyone). Frustration is revolutionary. Unless a frustrated soul resigns his or her frustration will force him or her to find a way out. So, clearly, frustration is not my final answer.
"Is there a way we could make sure that the current leadership do not rise to the leadership? "
When we are so active in questioning even the king then what stops us questioning these so called bhate leaders? Why can't we strip them from their leadership? Why can't we throw them to a corner and leave them there to do "prayaschit" for their sins? Why we elect the same damn corrupt people again and again? We love to talk big but we have not been able to replace corrupt leaders. I am not a member of any political parties in Nepal. I don't recognize any party leaders as long as they work on party line as my leaders. It's extremely difficult to predict how a leadership will work when in power. True. But why can't we force our representatives work the way they promised? We should be vigorously active in calling our elected representatives back if they don't perform the way they promised in their campaign. But for us to do so that we have to be Nepali first not Kangress, Yemale, panche..etc. As long as we submit to party orders we will be their slaves.
Democracy never comes before survival except for the martyrs.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 12:58 PM
Sparsha wrote : Democracy never comes before survival except for the martyrs.
Exactly! like i said in some other thread, you don't care much about democracy when a bomb explodes 200 meters from yoiur house.
You are not excited about elections when you know all these 205 cartoons/super-clowns will be coming back.
What about a consensus on national issues? Why can't these leaders (hooliganms) think above the party line? That's what I have been asking to myself.
I don't consider myself undemocratic, but looking at democracy in nepal, I say, we were better off in panchayat and we do need a powerful leaders that can clear the whole mess. Remember, Jung Bahadur was the need of the time, so was 2017 and so was 2059, asoj 18.
Like our newly appointed minister for communications, ramesh nath pandey said on TV tonight: The moves like that of asoj 18 make people value democracy and proves that there is still democracy in Nepal. If it was something else, then do you think all these chor-ciongressis, commies would be out screaming their throats off, warning the king of serious consequences and still roaming free?
The thing with us is, we are way too judgemental. we make judgements faster than the light hits the earth. we ae good at it. we like to show our dis-satisfaction with everything. honestly, how many people who are now advocating democracy supported the congresi and UML govts? Why don't we let this cabinet work? who knows these people might turn out to be better than any leaders we hand in the last 12 years.
OK, my apologies for posting my "un-wanted" views.
But, the thing is: nobody in Nepal, except Makune and Girija cares about Democracy or Bhadbhailo cracry of the last 12 years.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 01:01 PM
shoot accept my apologies again for the typos, on this thread and the other one. kjatar hatar ma type garda typo typo...
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 03:26 PM
China ra panchayat ko kura garau. In China, when I was there, this case was a famous one. What happened was police used to win more than 99% of the cases they filed in the court and they won this case against a couple of poor girls in Guangzhou where the girls were accused of being prostitute. Then Qiao Shi, the then speaker and Jiang's one time rival, initiated a law that would allow defendants to have lawyer.Yes, they didn't have the right to have lawyer before. Those two girls' mom hired a lawyer, and the case was retried, and you know what, the two girls were found to be VIRGIN upon medical check-up. You probably wanna live in that type of society if you are a leader, but not if you are an ordinary citizen. About Panchayat, I am surprised to see claims about 'stability' here. No prime minister lasted the supposed 5 years, not even 4 years, royal families would move them in whim, there were protests by students, protests by NC, there was this execution of two freedom fighters(Yagya Bdr Thapa and Bhim Narayan Shrestha) even when their case still in supreme court, people were killed when they were moved from one jail to another jail, and , here is a major fact, Babu Ram Bhattarai and his CPN(Mashal) started this shashastra sangharsha ko talk in Panchayat. They wanted to do it against the king, they wanted to do it all along, their party documents tell it all, they split up with Lila Mani group just for this, everything happened even before the horse trading of Sher Bdr Deuba began. Some weird people blame Maoist struggle to democracy, but that's not true. They started everything even in Panchayat era.We had neither peace, nor prosperity in that era. There is no question of going back to that era.
Peace will always be temporary if some people tries to rule with iron grips in Nepal. Whether we like it or not, this is going to be true.
People like Isolated Freak are right when they say "you are not excited about elections when you know all these 205 cartoons/super-clowns will be coming back." 205 are not cartoons, they are representative of people, and they will win. And people are excited about election, they go to vote in record, 65% of eligible voters went to vote in the last election, if I remember correctly.Of course, people like Isolated Freaks are free to say whatever they like without backing up with evidences here in sajha, perhaps only remaining few places of Nepali jamghat where democracy is practiced:-)
And finally, I don't know if HIMAL changed its position or not,but last year in Dashain, I was reading this report in Himal which said "despite perception, Nepali had leapt a great 'phadko' in the past 12 years, Nepali people had been more prosperous, more confident, and they were alert to their right.' I never had doubt in my mind about that.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 03:26 PM
>Biswo has not answered the crucial question as to
>HOW are we going to make democracy functional.
Siwalikji,
'Functional' , if I understand correctly, is being used here to mean the somehow evenly distributed growth of national output so as the people belonging to least income category get benefit from it . Let me explain what I think.
A nation's growth , if we believe the economists, is a function of three fundamental things: labour, capital and technology. For the thousands of years before eighteenth century, world's growth rate remained almost constant, with those people living in palaces collecting taxes from poor farmers, and poor farmers toiling for their life and the luxury of some of the elite classes. The industrial revolution, led by the invention of textile looms, and steam engines kind of basic engineering breakthrough, was the first incident that dramatically made impact on the growth rate of the economy of the world, elevated millions of poors out of poverty and made England and western Europe, along with USA, rich and powerful nations. In the history of mankind, the only time countries get developed en masse after that was when Asia's four small tigers became deveoped after second world war.(Wealth of Arab nations was due to oil, a natural resource!)
Now, think about this, why did Industrial revolution start in England where the king had significantly less power? Why it went to other relatively liberal monarchy? Why it didn't help much to others like Russia? Because, technology has never been encouraged in less tolerant regions. You don't get constant return of scale, when technology doesn't accompany growth. Input of human labour and capital in a limited area can only do so much. Although I don't really know about this incidence in detail, but I have heard of two major scientific incidents that took place in Rana_kaalin Nepal, one was Gehendra Shamsher's ammunition development experiment and another one is Achyut Raj (?)'s attempt to make a plane in KTM, both people were rumoured to have discouraged, and perhaps killed by the elites who didn't want others to be 'smart'. Free thinking, technical thinkings have been rarely significantly encouraged in dictatorial systems, wars were fought in the caprice of rulers, and these all inversely affected the use of human capital and technology in the production sectors of dictatorial systems, and thus constant growth remained unachievable.That's why Russia stopped to grow in 60s.
Supporting a dictatorial system is like putting all our funds in one portfolio and hoping that it somehow works. It is unpredictable and dangerous to do so. Just because we are walking doesn't mean we reach anywhere. We need to have critical thinking, and constant checks to verify rightness of our direction. No autocratic system ever provided such kinds of freedom to its citizens. Brutality was a mean to move ahead, not critical thinking, in dictatorship. ASKING QUESTION ABOUT RULERS was great discouraged, and common people were treated like beasts.
--
Now, let's talk about how democracy can be made to function in Nepal.
If you expect me to write E=MC^2 like formula, then obviously I don't have that. Democracy certainly is not a spoon that goes to every house of poor ones, and feeds them every morning. But certainly, this is a form of governance that separates us from animals of jungle, meaning it is a form of governance that makes people ruler of their region. There are going to be a set of collectively accepted rules, within the parameters of which people can work freely, they can function freely, they can question anyone within their eyeshot freely, they can set up their business and operate freely, their sons can drive a taxi freely without being afraid of being hit by a person who is above law, their sons can go to work in night restaurant and can come back to home without being afraid of some one hitting them with impunity in the road.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 03:35 PM
"Just because we are walking doesn't mean we reach anywhere."
Biswoji, if we are walking then we definately will reach somewhere. It's a different story whether we reach our intended destination or not.
Or, one may ask....what is walking?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 03:40 PM
I meant "We reach our target". Sorry for mistake, Sparshaji. I just found out the mistake.I wrote my response in a hurry.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 06:05 PM
Okay, let me put it straight to you guys! No one is happy the way democracy worked the past 12 years. Leadership has been severely criticized and the parliamentarians are said to be clowns! Corruptions scandals made people into cynics. What will help reverse that perception? What kind of system will ensure that the people will get their voice in practice? To be more precise, shall we be better off with a presidential system, parliamentary system or semi-presidential system? I mean that kind of remedies to curb the misstep of 1990 democracy. What would be the role of the citizens? monarchy? judiciary? etc.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-Nov-02 11:46 PM
Siwalikji,
Let's make one thing clear: the details of implementation of an efficient governance is better known to a bureaucrat than to a student. I guess that is the reason why they don't make PhD guy directly full sachib in haamro nepalmaa:-)
--
I think the process to self-rectify the democratic leadership was gradually in place. CIAA was given massive rights to curb corruption. CIAA chief credited this to ruling and opposition parties in his latest interview someone posted here, if I remember correctly. Nepal Police, after being tampered initially by Bam Dev etc, was relatively free of political intervention (according to Kantipur report yesterday re DIG transfers and the refusal of Koirala to fire Achyut Krishna Kharel during NC-ML coalition even at the cost of his government). Virtues of our 12-years of democracy will be coming out gradually, I believe.Freedom is more appreciated when we don't have it.
What was the reason of 12-years of 'failure'? We didn't liquidate the elements of Panchayati raaj on time, and they,like contagious virus,in turn made us ill, made our leadership like Panche. It was like opening sluicegate of criminal elements, letting them roam freely in the society, somehow expect that they won't corrupt the soceity. We remember Sher Bdr Deuba's move to send MPs to Bangkok, but we merely remember who those were in the past.Also,next time, we do revolution, we make sure that either there is no king or the king of Nepal won't have more privilege than the king of Norway where the king in his ragged coat has to run to catch up the bus.(Acc to New Yorker of this week.) We make sure that his aasepaase don't default on bank loans with impunity, we make sure that his bharaute don't poison the untroubled water of politics by orchastrating paid julus that whets the power hunger of royals.
I don't do big talk. I don't like monarchy, but I am not ready to kill innocent people to overthrow absolutely odious Paras. I like small developments. I think during last 12 years, our local bodies did a splendid job.We can't develop every region at once. But local bodies did a good job. Let them handle their own money. Let them create their own tax system. Let them spend those money right there. I believe villagers more than I believe officers of KTM.Taking money to the center and never letting that money percolate down has resulted in poverty and lessened incentives to develop the backwaters. Imagine the impact freedom of spending the trekking money right there in mountainous districts would generate, imagine how quickly Sauraha, Bachhauli, Jhuwani would develop if they were to spend most of their tax money right there. That was the reason why after the first election of local bodies, a lot of roads were paved in east Chitwan. Experience of China says that such developed local territories are more willing to help other regions. Imagine a developed Chitwan spending its money on relatively underdeveloped areas of Dhading later, the way Shanghai is spending its money in Lhasa these days. That is my way to go. Of course, before making it policy, I would like to pay a hefty amount of money to researchers/professors in Tribhuvan University and other universities to forecast the effects more scientifically.
|
| Jhilke Kyailan |
Posted
on 26-Nov-02 05:05 AM
"....you don't care much about democracy when a bomb explodes 200 meters from yoiur house..."
But isn't that the reason you should care for democracy???.....Bombs and terror are used by individual and groups when they have no other way of expressing their views.....democracy is the only system which allows for free expression without fear of retribution....
As to failed experiment of the last 12 years.....my opinion is that the failure was due to , first and foremost , the political infighting of the parties and their short sighted, power hungry leaders........but political culture in which the democratic experiment commenced also has a lot to do with it....I mean to say, the system changed but the culture and attitude of politicians and to some extent the people, didn't. Culture is a product of history and, which institution has been most influential in shaping Nepali political culture in our history?????? Today I have no illusions that democracy in nepal hasn't paid the expected dividends but I am very sceptical of people who advocate handing back power to the same unaccountable institution, which in my eyes, has played the major role in bringing about the state of affairs in Nepal today........
The Nepali aristocracy has always viewed the everyday janata as something beneath them, not worthy of equal status (throught the institutionalisation of the caste system into everyday life). So am I to believe that today they view the janata as equal partners in the development of Nepal????....I am always open... but have severe doubts.......and that is why I believe only a fully fledged democracy can bring back the equlibrium in our society......It is extemely short sighted or down right stupid to think that the centralisation of power within one institution will be the answer to Nepal's problems.......Just my humble opinion......
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 26-Nov-02 08:30 AM
"What kind of system will ensure that the people will get their voice in practice? To be more precise, shall we be better off with a presidential system, parliamentary system or semi-presidential system? I mean that kind of remedies to curb the misstep of 1990 democracy. What would be the role of the citizens? monarchy? judiciary? etc. "
Siwalik,
No system in itself is an answer. Who implement the system and how do they implement makes a difference. No matter which system we adopt, it takes time for it to function properly. People don't need any particular system to have their voice heard. When people are united and raise their voice, their voice will be heard. We need to be united, which we are not. Here is what I like to see: the head of the govt. is elected directly (unlike here in the US) from people. Let that person (elected head of the govt.) form a cabinet (from within/outside of the parliament). Reduce the number of MPs in the parliament. If a mayor is enough for Kathmandu metro. then why do we need five MPs to represent the town? Both houses of the parliament should have elected members (no place for nominees). MPs should be called back if they don't perform the way people want. The parliament should be powerful enough not to be dissolved by anyone. Also, no one should be able to remove the head of the govt. Impeachment (from the parliament) should be the only way to bring down the elected top leader. This is not it. This is a broad subject and requires detail planning. I am not an expert in all that. This topic needs thorough discussion.
"But local bodies did a good job. Let them handle their own money. Let them create their own tax system. Let them spend those money right there. I believe villagers more than I believe officers of KTM." I am plesed to note Biswoji saying "I believe villagers more than I believe officers of KTM." We need rural areas to develop first and fast. However, when we talk about local bodies, are wet only talking about nepalgunj, bhairahawa, narayanghat, hetauda, birgunj, biratnagar, dhulabari ...etc? These places may have pretty attractive revenue base but what about those districts and towns which are quite poor in revenue generation? who is going to support them? I am all for decentralization but we have to be careful in this issue.
JK ji,
I share many of your views. But let's talk about a point you raised here this time:
".....Bombs and terror are used by individual and groups when they have no other way of expressing their views.....democracy is the only system which allows for free expression without fear of retribution.... "
Who is stopping those who are shooting at us or bombing our neighborhoods and showing their cruelty from entering the system of democracy? Nobody is stopping them.
I didn't quite get you here JK ji. You say we have democracy and defend the system and also state at the same time that individuals and groups use terror when they have no other way. So, what system of democracy are you talking about here?
|
| Jhilke Kyailan |
Posted
on 26-Nov-02 10:27 AM
Sparshaji,
I think you have misunderstood my point.....The underlying thesis of my argument is that in 1990 our system of govt. changed but the political culture stayed the same. Government remained the means to "rule over people" and not rule for the people. We had democracy in name only but not in spirit and that is what led to the series of events (infighting, corruption on the grandest of scales, petty politics etcc...) which today threatens not only the true concept of democrcy in Nepal, but also the structural integrity of our country.......(on this point has anyone else heard of the report published under the patronage of the british govt., but later disavowed by them, pertaining to the belief that 60 % of the Nepali population support the maoists; that they (the maoists ) are ready to declare a seperate state west of Mugling within the next two years and that if the situation continues to deteriorate at the present rate, the King will have to leave Nepal for a foreign haven...most likely England or Switzerland..)
Getting back to the point I wanted to make, 1990 was a step in the right direction. It was the begining of the greatest change of the political dynamics of Nepal since the inception of our country. The fact that the present batch of "politicians" had no clue as how to govern and hence has led to the dire situation is a valid, but ultimately besides the point. Like you said yourself..
"... No matter which system we adopt, it takes time for it to function properly."
and twelve years is not enough to judge democracy unsuitable for Nepal and ask for the reinstatement of the past authotarian regime.....it is a given that today we the Nepalese haven't mastered self government, but the only way we ever will is if we continue with the process.......the democracy of today in the west has only been ahieved by centuries of practice.....how are we to incorporate democratic values in only twelve years???? WE HAVE TO PERSEVERE WITH OUR EFFORTS.....Relying on the crown to bail us out is not the answer.....I am not a republicanist, I believe the crown has an important role to play in the nation....but as a subordinate to will of the people, carrying out the wishes of the people, not dictating their wishes.......King G is thought to be an intelligent and wordly man...I don't know..I don't know him...I pressume he is.....BUT as I have said before the centralisation of power into one UNACCOUNTABLE institution is not the way forward. "Power.............corrupts absoluetely", I am a firm believer of this and that is why a system which distribute power to a larger base is always going to be more effective. This is the only way the checks and balances required for a functioning democracy can be achieved....and democracy is the only way the ultimate will of the people be realised......Just follow the political history of all of the developed nations of the world if you doubt me......
As for the point about the terrorists, I am not talking about the leaders but the everyday janata who support the movement and carryout the activities. I don't condone their actions at all.....they have to answer for what they have done no question about that....but in my heart I believe I know why they do it......Does the average villager have a voice today, did they have it in the panchayat era? post 1990? ...NO and that is why they commit such horrendous acts against those who are actually supposed to look after their interests....Baburam and Prachanda were able to capitalise on this frustration of the Janta...if it wasn't them someone else would have done it...Same as the congressis and communists were able to do it 1990....I believe only in a true democracy can they have a true voice...India is a fine example.......have the indian janta not voted out parties they didn't faith in.......Thus, after all my blabbering, I am only merely trying to state that post 1990 democracy was a sham...but that we need to continue with our efforts so that in the future we have the a proper democracy.........and that will ultimately is the best way forward.......... Tell me have I made any sense????My typping isn't as fast as my thought process so things get a bit jumbled.....and I usually end of seem like I am talking out of my ass :o)
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 26-Nov-02 11:53 AM
There are some important points coming from this discussion. Biswo agrees that local bodies should be strengthened. Jhilke Kyailan brings out the cultural aspect. Sparsha want accountability to be enforced.
I agree that 1990 was a sham. sparsha, you ask why the Maoist do not join the political mainstream and ask what is keeping them. I had read that they had misgiving about the 1990 constitution but were convinced by the Congress and UML to go alone with it. Apparently it did not work as they expected so withdrew for an armed alternative. And here I agree with Jhilke Kyailan that armed insurgency is a result of being left with no viable political option. However, I do not agree that any system will be fine as long as we get used to it. Our system has to be based on cultural trajectories and practices. Our mentality now is based upon religious values with "king can do no wrong" acceptance. We are already seeing the excesses of panchayat era repeating with birthday bash for the CP. Concepts and values can change regarding monarchy as they will again bring their own downfall by marginalizing the major political and citizen forces.
Along with the equality before law, transparency in public affairs, and institutional enforcement against corruption is a MUST. Accountability matters. Local bodies need to be autonomous to pursue their own path so that more democracy can be practiced and fostered at the local level.
Parliamentary system may not do it. Prime minister has to be accoutable to the people and might be better if he/she was chosen by a national election (like israel). First past the post might not be the best way to elect, maybe absolute majority have to be introduced. Proportional representation would suit better (German style maybe an option). There are a lot of alternatives that have to be thought through but the best system would come as Jhilke Kyailan says from understanding and entrenching in our own cultural tendencies. This would call for a strong charismatic leader who has a national mandate with probably both the legislative and executive powers. To me it seems like the French semi-presidential system might be more appropriate.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 26-Nov-02 03:50 PM
>Biswo agrees that local bodies should be strengthened.
Siwalikji, It has always been my position.
>This would call for a strong charismatic leader
> who has a national mandate with probably both
>the legislative and executive powers.
Not my position.
I believe in collective leadership, strong constitutional watchdogs, but not in a 'strong' leader with a lot of powers.
Not going into detail rightnow, let me say this much, the success of community forest in Nepal, microcredit programs in Bangladesh and relative better performance of local bodies from Kathmandu Nagarpaalikaa to Hetauda, Humla JIbisha to Chitwan jibisha, it all goad us only to one direction: empower local bodies, make central government less powerful, democratize nation more. No wonder both rightwing and left wing retrogressive elements of the nation targetted our local bodies to undermine the democracy.
We didn't lack strong leaders in the past. Even Mahendra, I agree, was both powerful and charismatic, and to some extent, motivated to make the nation more developed. But the way he chose for us was wrong. It led us to nowhere except to the reign of chaos and uncertainty.
>Proportional representation would suit better
> (German style maybe an option)
I don't think so. Remember Italy's proportional governmenance system in pre-1995(?). Small parties blackmailed the big parties, and Italy was the most unstable nation in the Europe after second world war. Given the past performance of RPP, Sadvabana, I can imagine what type of share they would want in central government.Empowering local bodies would allow small parties to rule the land(local nikaaya, I mean) in proportion to their size, and they can hope for share in central government if their performance in local level impresses people from other region and they start to vote for them.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 27-Nov-02 08:17 AM
Friends,
I am terribly busy these days. I hope to come back to this thread ASAP. I am very eager to put some points on the table.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 27-Nov-02 12:22 PM
Biswo, we agree that strengthening local bodies is crucial for functioning of democracy in Nepal. Actually that is consistent with how democracy functions in India. The most important aspect of democracy should be a vibrant civil society.
There are, however, some vexing problems. How do we balance needs of the citizens against the need of states? Should state have primacy over the citizens or vice versa? For instance, in France state has primacy over state and people expect the state to have a greater role in their lives. That is the situation in Nepal as well. People want the government to bring "bikash" in their lives. Can we do something to change that? Should we?
There is a reason a charismatic leader could perform better. It will be consistent with cultural values and expectation of Nepal. Nepal is submerged in the notion of a massiah or a savior. There is no doubt in my mind that a strong leadership is needed. One of the reasons why monarchy continues to play a central role is its historical legacy of leadership. Hindu culture expects it. People are used to it.
I think we have estabklished that parliamentarians have not worked too well and developed a pajero culture. So if we were to decide on constitutional prerogatives of parliament or prime minister, which should have an upper hand? How strong should be the parliament? If the members of parliament are pulling in different directions, can 205 members not create more problems than solve? You mention Italy's problem with PR system, I can think of Germany and Brazil where it seems to be doing ok. But I am thinking of PR based on single member district election as well as PR. The benefit of the system is to give representation to all parties. I do not foresee Italian style fractions. I feel it is important to accomodate all groups in political process. But we are still not sure if parliamentary democracy is the way to go. Maybe if we want to emphasize the local autonomy in developmental approach, federalism may work better. What do you think?
|
