Got this from Samudaya website.
Well said..
"
Historic DC Rally of May 15, 2005: some resentment
--Somnath Ghimire

I wanted to let you all know the outcome feelings of the people who attended
the Historic DC Rally.

More than 80 percent of the DC Rally Demonstrators have the following
queries: DC Rally became successful in quantity but not in quality.

1) What was the main agenda of the DC Rally?

2) Was it for the Pro-King, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Political Parties or for
Opportunists?

3) Why Speakers were not sorted out? Why were they not given a certain
boundary/topic to present in their speech?

4) If King Gyanendra suppressed the freedom of Speech in Nepal, why did
not we do that to all Mandaless/King's Supporters in their speech in the
Rally? Why was Prem Raja Mahat given a chance to present his speech instead
of singing a song? Is he a Pro-Democrat or Pro-King?

5) As it says in WWW.DCRALLY.ORG, DC Rally Committee, who are in the
committee? Why the names were/are not disclosed? Or the committee without
any names??..?

6) Was the DC Rally for launching ceremony of the book "Broken Pen"?
This was unknown to all of us. How did Murari Raj Sharma become the Chief
Guest in the middle of the Program?

7) Why & How was Murari Raj Sharma given a title of the Commander of
Democracy?

8) It was announced that, "it's raining now we have sorted our speakers
including Sherpa's": Why we need to say that, demoralizing lower caste
people, and we say that we need to be in diversity. Again, right after the
rain stopped and Sherpa was called back to podium, what is this nonsense? As
pointed out that T.Kumar of AI presented his speech under an umbrella, why
not Sherpa? There were people from Tamang, Rai and Gurung as well. Where is
the trend of respecting the all strata of life irrespective of all caste,
color, creed, gender, origin, religion and nationality?

9) Why Murari Raj Sharma got half an hour time to present his speech
and not others? Why did not we get the idea of "INCLUSIVE" instead of
"EXCLUSIVE"? People were frustrated.

10) Why people from NJ, MA, RI, Maine, Ohio, and South Carolina were not
given a minute to say their words of Democracy? As it was announced that
every representative from each States will be given a chance to speak, and
few got their chances including Girija Gautam, single man representing from
Tennessee. Isn't it a biased?

11) Why Nepalese Democratic Youth Council in USA became the platform for
the Opportunist and the Pro-King People? Why and how the NDYCUSA is
established? What is its aim? Why NDYCUSA is being used by Middle Ground
People? Can't NDYCUSA become in the Top Ground? We don't need the second
best; we need to be in the "First Best".

12) Why our people heard the words "Shree Panch Maharaja Dhiraj" in the
vote of thanks speech. Is this in favor of the King or against? Listen we are in the 21st Century."

Anil ji,

Going back to democracy, let me quote some authors so that this discussion can be academically rewarding for both of us.

" ..To prepare the ground for democracy today either in transitional societies or on a global scale is firts to re-create citizens who will demand democracy: this means laying a foundation in civil society and civic culture. Democracy is not a universal prescription for some singularly remarkable form of governmnet, it is an admonition to people to live in a certain fashion: responsibly, autonomously yet on on a common ground, in self -determing communities somehow still open to others, with tolerance and mutual respect yet a firm sense of their own values."

(Barber, Benjamin: Jihad vs. McWorld. 2002 ed.)

The key here is, civil society and civic culture. How do we go about creating a civil society- one of the preconditions of liberal democracy? Don't we need a strong middle class to have an impartial civil society- or the nagarik/bauddhik samaj, not pragatisil nagarik/bauddhik samaj or nepal nagarik/baudhik samaj sangh or nepali rastrabadi nagarik/baudhik samaj affiliated with the parties?

And don't we need economic reforms/developmnet/growth to have that kind of impartial civil society that will look after the people's interests, not of the party it is affiliated with? I argue, we need economic growth ebcause without economic growth there will be no (impartial) civil society, and the system becomes autocratic. According to Zakaria, the success of democracy in any given nation is directly related to its per capita income.

"A study conducted by political scientists Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, looked at every country in the world between the years 1950 and 1990. It calculated that in a democratic country that ahs a per capita income of under $1500 (in today?s dollars), the regime on average had a life expectancy of just eight years. With between $1500 and $3000 it survived on average for about eighteen years. Above $6000 it became highly resilient. The chance that a democratic regime would die in a country with an income above $6000 was 1 in 500. Once rich, democracies became immortal."

(Zakaria, Fareed: The Future of Freedom. 2003)

So higher income is needed.. how do the nations go about creating higher income for their citizens? First and foremost, the nations need to guaranty political stability. According to Kaplan,

"Social stability results from the establishment of a middle class. Not democracies but authoritarian systems, including monarchies, create middle classes-which, having achieved a certain size and self-confidence, revolt against the very dictators who generated their prosperity. This is the pattern today in the Pacific Rim and the southern cone of South America, but not in other parts of Latin America, southern Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa. A place like the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), where the per capita gross national product is less than $200 a year and the average person is either a rural peasant or an urban peasant; where there is little infrastructure of roads, sewers, and so on; and where reliable bureaucratic institutions are lacking, needs a leader like Bismarck or Jerry Rawlings-the Ghanaian ruler who stabilized his country through dictatorship and then had himself elected democratically-in place for years before he is safe from an undisciplined soldiery."

(Kaplan, Robert: Was Democracy Just a Moment? Dec. 1997)


Do "impoversihed" people want more democracy and instability that comes with it, or less democracy and stability and a clean, transparent non-democratic govt.? Let me quote Zakaraia again,

"Consider Pakistan. In October 1999, the Western world was surprised when Pakistan's army chief, General Parvez Musharraf, overthrew the freely elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. The surprising fact was not the coup- it was Pakistan's fourth in as many decades- but its popularity. Most Pakistanis were happy to be rid of eleven years of sham democracy. During that period, Sharif and his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, abused their office for personal gain, packed the courts with political cronies, fired local governmnets, allowed Islamic fundamentalists to enact draconian laws, and plundered the state coffers" (Zakaria, 2003).

Desn't this resemble Nepal or else how do you understand the majority's lack of interest in the political parties' rallies and protest programs? So the best model, as all these new "heretic" scholars suggest is not your cold war era democratization- overnight democratization- but capitalism, rule of law and the democracy. And it has worked in Chile, in some East Asian countries and it has led China towards liberalism. (See Minxin Pei's "Is China democratizing? Foreign Affaifrs, 1998.. jan/feb issue.. not so sure on the date though).

" The very fact that we retreat to moral arguments-and often moral arguments only-to justify democracy indicates that for many parts of the world the historical and social arguments supporting democracy are just not there." (Kaplan, 1998).. and when you deal with people who "constantly talk about morality in politics, which in practice means that anyone who disagrres with them is 'immoral'. You can't argue with these people. (Kaplan, R. Eastward to Tartary. 2000) So by automatically assuming a moral high plane, just because you happen to be a "democrat" (not you in particular, but GENERAL you)you kill the discussion. Either my way or the highway, either with me (or my group) or my enemy! I mean, what kind of democracy or democratic ideal is that? Let's not take democracy as something handed down by Gods.. let's treat it like something that developed over time and might have its own flaws. The beauty of "real democracy" is, you can discuss its shortcomings... To conclude, let me yet again quote Zakaria:

.. like any broad transformation, democracy has its dark sides. yet we rarely speak about them. To do so woiuld be to provoke instant criticism that you are "out of sync" with the times. [makes me wonder if Zakaria visited Sajha and read some of the "political" debates here!;-)] But this means that we never really stop to understand these times. Silenced by fears of being branded "antidemocratic" we have no way to understand what might be troubling about the ever-increasing democratization of our lives. We assume that no problem could ever be caused by democracy, so when we see social, political, and economic maladies we shift blame here and there, deflecting problems, avoiding answers, but never talking about the great transformation that is at the center of our political, economic and social lives" (Zakaria, 2003).

So to have a healthy debate on democracy, and I invite eeryone who is interested, some of us with high democratic ideals have to step down from their moral high place, and think of the issues in Nepal from a more practical pragmatic point of view, than just ideological. Then we all can have a "democratic" debate on "democracy" without branding/labeling each other this and that.

la ahile lai yetti matra..

So to have a healthy debate on democracy, and I invite eeryone who is interested, some of us with high democratic ideals have to step down from their moral high place, =


So to have a healthy debate on democracy, and I invite everyone who is interested, some of us with high democratic ideals have to step down from our moral high plane,

Since we are talking baout democracy in Jordan, let me give you an example: In the late 80s, the Jordanian parliament comproising mainly of the radical islamists were trying to pass certain bills that could be considered "illiberal" the King intervened and blocked those bills from passing. So who is liberal- the parties or the King? Elections and freedom of speech, not necessarily produce the same results in many parts of the world as they do in the US and Western Europe. =

Since we are talking baout democracy in Jordan, let me give you an example: In the late 80s AND EARLY 90s, the Jordanian parliament comproising mainly of the radical islamists were trying to pass certain bills that could be considered "illiberal" the King intervened and blocked those bills from passing such as one that wanted to make the Peace Treaty With Israel nullified. So who is liberal- the parties or the King? Elections and freedom of speech, not necessarily produce the same results in many parts of the world as they do in the US and Western Europe.

[[
"A study conducted by political scientists Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, looked at every country in the world between the years 1950 and 1990. It calculated that in a democratic country that ahs a per capita income of under $1500 (in today?s dollars), the regime on average had a life expectancy of just eight years. With between $1500 and $3000 it survived on average for about eighteen years. Above $6000 it became highly resilient. The chance that a democratic regime would die in a country with an income above $6000 was 1 in 500. Once rich, democracies became immortal."

(Zakaria, Fareed: The Future of Freedom. 2003)

So higher income is needed..
]]

You are so wrong, Isolated Freak , in your induction above.

The statement above says that richness provides longevity to democracy. That's all it says. In Rich country, democracy lives longer, or may become immortal. But it NEVER says poor countries can't have democracy, OR that higher income is needed to have democracy.Jakaria himself emphatically clarified this thing to this writer and a group of students long ago.

And, being so pro-panchayat, will you please illuminate an ignorant poster like me how long the king will take to make PCI about 6K left on his own? If 30-years of Panchayat is an indication, we will never get to that 6K point in this millenium. I don't even need to bother kaplan's optimum path. That kind of writings are strewn in every library, and no one really gives a damn about them.

KR,

You read the book he didn't write (because you said, he clarified the above point personally to you- lucky you!), I read the book that he DID write, and higher income is needed to have a fully functioning liberal democracy, not sham democracy. That's what he implies in the book, and I am yet to read his defense re: that point.. if you know of any, or where in the book that he did write.. let me know.. I'll read the book again.

Longetivity of democracy = sustainability/success of democracy. To succeed you need higher income, that's what I understood, and that's what I implied. Of course, yoiu can have democracy in poor countries, but is it real democracy? No. Its autocracy in the guise of democracy.

Regarding Kaplan, you are mistaken. He is one of the most reputed travel writer and a foreign affairs analyst for the Atlantic Monthly.

most reputed travel writers

KR,

Let's see the sales rankings for Kaplan's Realist/illiberal book and Micheal Mandelbaum's liberal idelist book. The figures speak for themselves!

Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos
by ROBERT D. KAPLAN
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #37,812 in Books

and

The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century
by Michael Mandelbaum

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #169,640 in Books

"Nepal was forced to democratize by external pressure".

Extra-regional powers also play a significant role, I agree. But they are not the sole causes for declining authoritarianism or breaking away of communism in many third world countries today. It will take me a long time to detail why countries go into transition, but I will shortly try to bring back some issues IF mentioned earlier.

Sorry wasn't able to read all of the postings, will read Anil Ji's and others later and surely put my two cents worth knowledge forward for scrutiny :P I could only read the first few postings, hence the response.

And thank you IF in the other post for providing me with info, with all regards I'm only here to put forward my arguments, no mud-slinging.

IF, when you say Nepal did not need democracy, or was not ready for democracy, you're sticking to the old literature before the Cold War which concluded that countries in the third world were not ready for democracy, or that only countries with conditions A, B and C can have a collapse of authoritarian regimes and move towards democratic transition. This notion was falsified during the massive democratization process in the 90s. The 90s, specially Dankwart Rustow's Model for transitional democracies set a trend for 'no preconditions' required for democracy; even a state with the stark authoritarianism or least development could move towards democratic transition.

But, thanks to pioneers in the field like Dahl, Putnam, Linz, Rustow, Stepan, Guillermo O' Donnel, they've outlined the conditions, mind you, not pre-conditions, for democratic 'consolidation'. A 'transition' is different from consolidated democracy, or what we call 'well functioning democracy'. Any country can be a democracy, but when is a country democracy? For political democracy to remain as an alternate mode of domination, the most important component to have is civil society. A civil society (in the form of institutions) that exists independent of the state and can take action to defend its own interests. And most third world countries in transition today, including Nepal, lack this. Why? If you already know of institutionalism, you might also know that historical context plays a pivotal role in shaping the process of democratization in transitional states (read Putnam's quantitative research on historical institutionalism in Italy). Therefore, more repressive the authoritative regime, with no civil society and least developed institutions, the difficult is the transition.

And when you talk about the correlation between democracy and development, very little have been finalized: whether democracy brings economic prosperity is questionable, and whether already economically prospering countries are more prone to democratic consolidation is also questionable. And to claim that Nepal is not ready for democracy, or cannot consolidate democracy because it is economically underdeveloped is not a very strong argument. Because we have examples of Greece, Turkey, that are economically less developed than some Latin American countries, yet democracy has sustained better in the former.

It is very surprising that Nepali educated mass confuse themselves with notions that king's takeover will better the economic condition of the country. First of all, we are mingling two systems here. For the sake of clarity, let us separate political system and economic system. When we say we want democracy, we have very less to do with economic system, what we want is a fair political system.

Second, there is no guarantee that monarchy will bring a rapid change in economy in the next 3 yrs when it didn't bring any social, ethnic, economic change in those 250 years. Only after the advent of democracy did people freely start questioning about their social and economic rights. Even Mahendra?s Panchayat system could do little to bring socio-economic mobility between class and castes that we freely enjoy today. What I believe further, is that, although there is a little probability that democracy brings economic development, I believe that democracy is an impetus for socio-economic change (like opening up the markets, etc.). And we have seen much of that in these 14 years. Well, 14 yrs is quite a long time to be in transition, why is there no sign of consolidation then? Among some other causes, lack of a civil society is one. Why does Nepal not have a civil society by now? Historical institutionalism again. Personally, I believe this lack of a civil society also led to lack of strong and committed leadership, which partially bogged down the process of transition and led the state towards feckless pluralism.

And oh yes, Nepal is no more a constitutional monarchy, if that is what your basis of argument is. It is somewhere in between absolute monarchy and electoral democracy (?).

Lastly, you're saying Pakistan is more liberal today? Well, depends then on your definition of 'liberal'. I don't see much change between Bhutto's Pakistan and Musharaff's Pakistan. In fact the latter is more of a military dictatorship than the former. And IF, if nothing else, I'm very surprised by your sincere hope that the king will better the situation of the country. Being a poli sci student, I thought you'd understand better. I'm neither an ardent supporter of the king nor of political parties, but as a student, I've read and observed that monarchies, in most part of the world have history of repressive regimes. No surviving monarchies today or authoritarian regimes in the past have provided any impetus for freedom; forget about our Rights, as citizens, being protected by rule of law. In fact, instruments of freedom have been manipulated by all repressive regimes for their own political gains. And our Own history bears witness.

Dear DC girl,

Your's is one of the most challenging posts I have read. Thank you for the challenge. I don't take it personally. Just as you have your views, I have mine and it does not harm to share those without getting personal. :-)

I'll reply you in detail later tonight or tomorrow because I have to think over it since you have argued well in an amazingly impressive way.

"Because we have examples of Greece, Turkey, that are economically less developed than some Latin American countries, yet democracy has sustained better in the former."

Poor nepal is landlocked, residing inside the 'sphere of influence 'of India and only India. Unlike, Greece, Turkey which are surrounded by other fellow European nations the Indian states bordering nepal are lawless jungle like the lalooland, Bihar. In my opinion, the only country that can be deemed fit to be compared with nepal in every aspect - political, cultural, social,economic is the great Swaziland ruled by the great king, who adds one bride, a year, into his harem.

Dankwart Rustow's Model? Is this a universel model? the parameters, variables set in this model can be applied/tested anywhere, or u need to make modifications?

"You read the book he didn't write (because you said, he clarified the above point personally to you- lucky you!), I read the book that he DID write,"

What's your point?

Don't pretend you know everything. I don't even believe you read that book, frankly. The way you wrote seems like you are just writing the excerpt that you saw somewhere.

Frankly, I was just pointing out one grave error in your reason: that being rich is necessary to have functioning democracy. If you read logic, "Rich democracies function properly" doesn't imply "you need to be rich to have functioning democracy", ok? What about countries like Sri Lanka and Costa Rica who have functioning democracy? Anybody with a working knowledge of econometric induction can see easily what to infer from the result he cited.

And what the hell your book sale data imply? I mean you are kidding with me? What kind of comparision is that? Two different books, that's all. There are more selling liberal books, there are other less selling conservative books. You simply don't know the art of statistical inference, do you?

Be rigorous when you think you are trying to prove something. Frankly, I don't have time for nonsenses like yours. I was just giving you advice on one point which I just happened to see and found to be grossly erroneous, but is repeated so many times by pro-autocracies that even Farid had repeatedly disowned it. And, yea, I don't think talking with Farid means being so 'lucky', it might be for you.

Dear DC Girl,

Sorry for this 'delay' but here I am with my defense (had to spend all of last night thinking of it):

"Extra-regional powers also play a significant role, I agree. But they are not the sole causes for declining authoritarianism or breaking away of communism in many third world countries today. It will take me a long time to detail why countries go into transition, but I will shortly try to bring back some issues IF mentioned earlier. "

In Nepal's case it weren't just "extra regional" powers, but intra-regional powers or regional power that was pushing for democracy.

" IF, when you say Nepal did not need democracy, or was not ready for democracy, you're sticking to the old literature before the Cold War which concluded that countries in the third world were not ready for democracy, or that only countries with conditions A, B and C can have a collapse of authoritarian regimes and move towards democratic transition. This notion was falsified during the massive democratization process in the 90s. The 90s, specially Dankwart Rustow's Model for transitional democracies set a trend for 'no preconditions' required for democracy; even a state with the stark authoritarianism or least development could move towards democratic transition. "

You are right to some degree and I give credits to you for that, but you are not right entirely. Of course, that some countries are not ready for democracy justified American support for the dictators all over (and the same logic is used to justify the American support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and places like that..), but after the cold war, when people had access to those formerly unaccessible places or off limit places, people saw how they really were, and surprinsingly enough, the State Department proved right! Yes, certain countries were/are not ready for the transition.

I haven't read *ANY* of the books/authors mentioned, and that's the beauty of academia. You can assume extreme positions and as long as you can prove your hypothesis/thesis, you are fine. However, since we are discussing the issue, let me counter your point with what I have read:

Yes, many nations went through this masive democratization phase in the 90s, but how many of them are functioning- fully functioning- democracies? Look at Rumania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia and the Central Asian Countries, do you think they are functioning democracies? I don't think so.. In my view, the are autocracies- neo-authoririan rules in democratic disguise. So I hate to write this, I DISAGREE with you based on WHAT I know, not on what I DON"T KNOW.

Now, let me address the "cosolidation issue":

Your example to compare Nepal with Italy vis-a-vis democratic consodilation is wrong. Italy is and was an industrial economy, with a significant already "politically charged" labor population. Nepal doesn't have that.. as a result the middle class is virtually non existant. Furthermore, when you talk about Italy, you have to talk about the political instability there too, hoina?

Democratic consolidation: From what I understand from my readings, there's two periods- 'transitional' and 'habitual'.. an optimistic point of view is during the 'habitual' period democracies consolidate, so no factors/variables like economy etc. matter, but I would argue otherwise: many countries do not go through - at least in the case with many neo democracies, the habitual phase.. The transition phase is "long, bruitish and nasty" because they do not resolve the coordination dillema (Wiengast). So when you do not resolve the coordination dilemma, which forms the basis of the new social contract between the three players- the soverign, elites and the commonmers- you are basically screwed. Westren European nations or where the democracies functions today, resolved this coordination dillema before or soon after they democratized, because then the world was still less interconnected, unlike today.. One of the ways they resoved this coordination dilelma was through economy- with economic development they bridged the ethnic and economic gaps in their respective societies. Where democarcy does not resolve- or solve?- this coordination dillema, like in Latin American countries ( and this explains why democarcies do not work there), "a surprsingly large portion of the citizinry has in the past (even todaybeen willing to support extraconstitutional means of political change." (italics mine)

part 2..

Also when you talk about the "successful" neo-democraices after the 90s, such as those in some- not all- Eastern European nations, you have to understand that, in their second (in many places; first in others) elections, people chose the former communists who partcipated in the elctions in the disguise of Liberal Democrats!! Chezh Republic and Poland could succeed becuse they "already had the institutions despite the long communist period" becuase of their close proximity to the "Austro Hungarian" empire.. which basically means, they benifinted from the European enlightenment/reniassiance(Sp?). So there was another factor "cultural" factor in those places where democracy succeeded.. in Nepal we don't and we never had a democratic culture/tradition, and this is one of the reasons for the malfunctioning of democracy there.

In theory or in the theoretical level everything is possible, but the empirical data suggest otherwise regarding development and democracy. By development, I mean, economic development. If you look at the economic development of Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, they all developed economially under mild authritaian rulers.. because those mild authritarian rulers could make policies that no democartically elected leaders could make.

Greece went throgh a lot of problems before it became a "fully functioning" liberal democracy. Even upto the 90s, Greece under Papendreu was not democratic in the sense the word is implied in the western countries. Now with its economic development, Greece has embarked on the liberal path, however, it is not an example- as of today- of a successful liberal democracy or democratic transition.

Turkey is not a liberal democracy either. The constitution of Turkey is very interesting. It actually gives the military the power to intervene in the government through coup-de-tats when the civilian governmnet threatens the national unity of Turkey. Also Turkey has been carrying a massive "de-ethnicizing" campaign through coercive means when it comes to dealing with its Kurdish and Armenian populations.


"It is very surprising that Nepali educated mass confuse themselves with notions that king's takeover will better the economic condition of the country. First of all, we are mingling two systems here. For the sake of clarity, let us separate political system and economic system. When we say we want democracy, we have very less to do with economic system, what we want is a fair political system. "

Look people have their beliefs, so as a studnet of political sicence it shouldn't surprsie you to come across the educated mass who does not believe in what you belive. Try saying this to someone in your class- " I am surprised that you are a democrat/republican".. and watch their reaction.. So let's not get surprised at each other's political beliefs, and discuss ideas here.

You are again mistaken to detach the conomic system from the political system. They go hand-in-hand; they go together. You cannnot seperate the political system from the economic system. Since I belong to or subrcibe to the Realist teradition of IR, one of the early modern Realist theorist, EH Carr, says: politics and economics are interrelated. You cannot seperate economics from politics. If you do, your whole analysis somehow lacks the most fundamental variable, in my view. .... " we have noe therefor returned, after the imoportant but abnormal, laissez faire interlude of the nineteeth century, to the position where economic can be frankly recognised as a part of politics. We can thus resolve teh controvery, which is in large part a produict of nineteenth-century ideas and terminology, about the so called economic interpretation of history. Marx was overwhelmingly right when he insisted on the increasing importance of the role played by ECONOMIC forces in politics..." (20 Years Crisis).

And even the liberal school has not been fully able to justify the seperation between these two forces either.. didn't koehene (and Nye?) came up with ytis explanation on "regimes" that "international trading/economic" regimes/institutions are creaed by the dominant powers/hegemons to foster their own economic (and political) ineterests abroad when they come up with these regimes/institutions? Its only later the regimes/institutions develop on their own and separtae themselves from the hegemon that created those... but you need a hegemon to create those at the first place! They don't emerge themselves.. So I argue against your claim: Economics and Politics go hand in hand, and its always been this way.

thir part churot break pachi..

And my Realist tilt makes me believe in Machiavelli: Politics is not what ought to be, but what is. Its not assuming liberal ideological positions but managing to get yourself succeed or fostering your interests in the prevailing conditions. Also to be popular in the long run, one has to be (and there's no exception to this rule) unpopular in the short run. You cannot ne popular and successful in the short run, and this should explain my support for the King. What liberals don't understand or why they fail for the most part is because they assume this very uncompromising position by cutting themsleves with the surrounding reality.. Woodrow Wilson and his 14 points and idealism failed because of this very reason. If I had to choose between Lee, Deng and Woodrow Wilosn, without any second thoughts I'd choose Lee and Deng, because despite their way of "governance" they were pragmatic and practical.

" Second, ....gain. Personally, I believe this lack of a civil society also led to lack of strong and committed leadership, which partially bogged down the process of transition and led the state towards feckless pluralism. "



You are too quick to judge the King.

"Only after the advent of democracy did people freely start questioning about their social and economic rights. Even Mahendra?s Panchayat system could do little to bring socio-economic mobility between class and castes that we freely enjoy today. "

And what did this lead to? It led to more political and social problems because democarcy came too early in Nepal. And I stick to the belief.

Why Nepal doesn't have a civil society... Ok, on this after another smoke break..

Among some other causes, lack of a civil society is one. Why does Nepal not have a civil society by now? Historical institutionalism again. Personally, I believe this lack of a civil society also led to lack of strong and committed leadership, which partially bogged down the process of transition and led the state towards feckless pluralism. "

And what exactly leads to the development of civil society? I argue, like I have been all along, and I hope you won't get SURPRISED, that economic development is the only way to create a civil society in today's world. There are no other ways. So economic growth- rule of law (due to the developmnmet of civil society) and then political liberalization. This has to be the way. And I stick to this belief too.

Nepal didn't have a civil society because of the lack of informed "citizinery" due to poverty and a widespread illiteracy. So democracy (the one you read about in the schools in US) does not succeed in Nepal- well, until we have an infortmed "citizinry" who knows its rights and which can place the limit on the state. And there's no consenus between the state and the people, as a result both sides violate the social contract (by which I mean the Constitution). In this scenario (and let's be realists here), you cannot have a functioning "liberal" democracy. Of cource you can have democarcy, but not funticoning and liberal.. and that explains the malfunctioning of Nepali democracy. Angry, hungry and uneducated people do not mka erational/informed choice for the most part.. and Nepal is nothing but a country filled with these people who are hungry, unedcucated and to make the matters worse, with "historical griviences" against others.


"And oh yes, Nepal is no more a constitutional monarchy, if that is what your basis of argument is. It is somewhere in between absolute monarchy and electoral democracy (?). "

I would rephrase this statement- And oh yes, Nepal is no more a constitutional monacrhy, it is an active monarchy. I would refrain, as of today, using strong adjectives. Instead of absolute monarchy (which I think is an obsolete concept) I use the word "active" and if it doesn't make you feel I am towing the official line, "constructive monarchy". You can disagree, be surprised.. but this is what, as of today, I stick to.



"Lastly, you're saying Pakistan is more liberal today? Well, depends then on your definition of 'liberal'. I don't see much change between Bhutto's Pakistan and Musharaff's Pakistan."

Yes, Pakistan is more liberal today despite examples of illiberal practices every now and then- the recent one being the rape victim. However, liberalism or society's liberty should not be only measured in terms of people's participation in the govt. through elections. Now Pakistani society and politics (for the most part) is free from islamic/radical/fundametalist influence and penetration, and in the absence of those, the society is turning (for the most part) tolerant. And this is what I mean by its getting more "liberal".

" And IF, if nothing else, I'm very surprised by your sincere hope that the king will better the situation of the country."

Let me repeat again, I am not surprised by your political views. And being a political Science student, you shouldn't be surprised with mine either. Try finding a better substitute for this word, if you want to engage in political debates or if you are contemplating a carrer in politics/IR. I be;lieve in what I believe in, and I believe in a strong rulers interfarance when things turn ugly. Blame it on my realist tilt.


"Being a poli sci student, I thought you'd understand better."

Also refrain from using this kind of strong rhetorical question. I understand what I understand based on my academic training and personal experience. You can assume any position but you have to be very careful with your choice of words. Just my sincere suggetsion to you.


" but as a student, I've read and observed that monarchies, in most part of the world have history of repressive regimes. No surviving monarchies today or authoritarian regimes in the past have provided any impetus for freedom; forget about our Rights, as citizens, being protected by rule of law. In fact, instruments of freedom have been manipulated by all repressive regimes for their own political gains. And our Own history bears witness. "

Look, you yourself admit, "monarchies, in most part of the world".. not everywhere.. :-) Nepal can be different. As of today, we have no basis/evidence whatsoever to dismiss today's Nepali monarchy as "repressive"- we ain't seen anything yet.. Let's just hope, and I do sincerely hope, the Nepali monarchy, the institution that I have immense faith and respect in, will be able to prove itslef (once again.. yet again) that it is for the people.

I hope I didn't offend you with my answer.

democracy. Angry, hungry and uneducated people do not mka erational/informed choice for the most part.. and Nepal is nothing but a country filled with these people who are hungry, unedcucated and to make the matters worse, with "historical griviences" against others.


Against each other

I am by and large, a active silent reader of this interesting debate going in here. Few I agree and others I choose to disagree; as my conscience and my ability to understand allows me to.

I am very curious to know one thing from IF. Please allow me to take this liberty.

IF wrote:
"Let's just hope, and I do sincerely hope, the Nepali monarchy, the institution that I have immense faith and respect in, will be able to prove itslef (once again.. yet again) that it is for the people. "

1) On what basis/foundation you have this immense faith in monarchy? Is it simply because you feel the need for the institution at this chaotic juncture, to guide or at least do 'something' in these turbulent times, or is it simply becasue you feel it IS THE institution that Nepal's future lies in, for a infinite time?

2) Is Nepal's monarchy for the people? Do you think it is even By the people? If yes, Why? Or are you saying that monarchy is far more concerned about the people than the political parties (Maoist Excluded simply becasue they are terrorist. Period.(My view)), relatively speaking.

I am very interested to know your views on this one. In the mean time, I personally believe absolute/active monarchy with with such an influnce on the army and constitution in general is not what I believe in. FOR NOW, it is our "bhadheta", due to lack of leadership without a single capable person in sight and also because of the inhuman Maoist lurking in the shadow. However, let's say 5-10 years down the line or even as early as 3 years down the line or as soon as possible, I think Monarchy should be ceremonial or at the very very least do not have any direct legal power to master our life; de facto constitutional monarchy is the least we need. I am not saying it will happen, but at least I hope it will.

I have 'some' faith in monarchy, simply because I do not trust any other parties. About respect, well, I have that somewhere close to ZERO ( Political [parties are ZERO and Maoist are in negative). Anyways, the bottom line is; everyone is acting for their own self-interest. No one is concerned for Janata or Nepal.

Just wanted to inform you about my position so that you would be able to inform me more appropriately.

Thank you.

-IndisGuise:)

I am agree with you isolated freak First we have lack of awareness about politics second we (67% Nepali) are uneducated. our polticians are very cheap (some poltician) anyone can buy and sell them and their decision on market. fourth our royal family never play good role in democracy , they need slaves not citizen. fifth who are educated in Nepal (some) always play negative role in society (Like corruption or support for corrupted people).