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."

IF jyu, Indisguise raises valid questions that I'd be interested in hearing the answers too as well. Indisguise I am on the same boat as you regarding your current political stance.

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.= 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 a thriving middle class.

hmmm..Indisguise and saroj, I'll be replying you guys tomorrow.. ahile sarai thakiyo..

Also refrain from using this kind of strong rhetorical question/statement...there are other typos too... correct it as you read it. :-) malai alchi lagyo.. thakai pani lagyo..

Thank you IF for taking some time to think on it.

"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."

First I'd like to say a few things about the authors I mentioned. I don't know about IR students, but comparative politics students worship them like god :) I don?t mean to dig into your knowledge base (as long as the arguments are strong), but I think the authors that you mention, Thomas Friedman (is this the same guy, the NY Times Columnist?), Rudyard Kipling, they're magazine writers, or story writers, what we call in academia. Noam Chomsky (extreme left), Edward Said, are good writers, but I wouldn't quote them when I argue on democracy or democratization.

These authors, Robert Dahl (on the concept of Democracy), Theda Skocpol (on Revolutions), Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan (on Democratization), Guillermo O Donnell (on Authoritative Regimes), Robert D. Putnam (on Historical Institutionalism); they're political scientists, celebrated for challenging the old literature and establishing a new trend in the field. So if I were to argue on communism or capitalism, I'd pick Marx than Chomsky or Kanak Dixit.

And this is by no means to put down your knowledge on specific areas, I personally think you know a lot better than me, and its fun to argue with someone more knowledgeable than myself.

Ok, about the arguments now.

"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..)"

If you're bringing in American diplomacy and foreign policy to argue why some countries democratized while some didn't, I have not much to say. Whether America will support dictators or want democracy in that country is a different game, of foreign policy. Their stance in a country will change depending on their political interest; I think you yourself mentioned this somewhere in the thread, with the example of US support in Pakistan.

"..but after the cold ward, 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"

You haven't proved this point, how?

"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."

I never said all of the countries that started the process are full democracies now. In fact, out of the 100 or so countries that entered into transition, only a few have attained a well functioning democracy, 20 or so are en route to becoming successful, while some countries have clearly failed letting the authoritarian regimes re-solidify, like in Uzbekistan, Togo, Belarus. Yes, there are reasons why democracy failed (and personally, I think the type of authoritative regime in the past has partially to do with it). But democracy failed doesn't mean authoritarian regimes are better.

"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?"

Yes, comparing Nepal with Italy would be a fatal mistake. I'm not comparing Italy and Nepal; I'm only using historical institutionalism to explain why the transition period in Nepal is so difficult. You can take any literature on historical insti. for that matter. Putnam in that article analyzes three or four different regions in Italy to see how institutions of the past shape the process of transition, thereby making one region industrially and politically developed than the other. Nepal's history of political institutions begins during the Rana period, but because they didn't get much chance to foster, political and social institutions that constitute the civil society are weak- one reason why transition is becoming painfully difficult today.

"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)"

Interesting argument. But again, brings the question of correlation between development and democracy. There is a possibility that if a country is doing good in all aspects of development (socio-cultural, economic, political, ethnic etc.), the presence of civil society, and the tendency of rulers governing democratically, without infringing on constitution and violating the rights of the minorities, will be felt vividly. This is what you've called 'coordination', if I?m not mistaken. But the debate on democracy and development is still pending, so I don't want to base my argument on that.

Also, your argument is kind of contradictory in itself. You say economic development bridges socio-economic and ethnic gap (you haven't said how), and give example of why Latin America is not democratic. In my earlier post I'd given example that some Latin American countries were economically advanced than some Southern European countries, but democracy in the former was doing worse than the latter.

And lastly, you forgot to answer my biggest question. Why, would you still, support Monarchy?

oops! lot of water has passed under the bridge! phew. looks like i really did 'challenge' someone...

Ok, first things first.

"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 don't need to tell me what to do. yes, people have beliefs, and its only natural to be surprised- political science students or not, i cannot supress my surprise, its a different thing i don't have to express it. and i've tried to keep emotions and personal biases out of discussion as much as possible. and indeed, when i say i am surprised that nepali elites keep hope that king's take-over will better the economic condition, i'm not surprised at their political belief and faith that the king will do good, but i'm surprised that they replace political system with economic system completely. nowhere during my arguments have i mentioned that democracy will bring economic development, i am only advocating for a fair political system, while the king's supporters directly relate his system to economy. and i'm not directing this individually at you, it has become a collective hope, and i think in democracies i'm allowed to express my disagreement :) and i've put my argument regarding why monarchy cannot do anything about it, in my first post, that u haven't counter-argued.

Second, i't be easier if you could use technical terms instead of 'in disguise of Liberal Democrats', 'mild authoritarian rules', i don't know what to decipher out of them; what kind of regime are you talkin about when you say 'mild authoritative rules??'

Third, incomplete pieces of examples on Greece or Turkey etc. when you say:

"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."

provide me with literature here (cause no where have i read greece is a democracy because of economic development. i will explain in another post why it is a democracy).

Fourth, Carr, Morgenthau, Koehene, Schultz, Kenneth Waltz, are pioneers in international relations; they've contributed very little to the literature of democracy. Your argument:

"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.."

Koehene here is talking with an international perspective in mind. He is true, hegemons create institutions to foster their national interests abroad. but you might want to look at what specific institutions he is talking about. when it comes to protecting national interest in the form of political and economic security, he is talking about creating institutions that sustain or expand these interests- like military, monetary (USAID), etc., not necessarily institutions that foster a civil society at the domestic level.

Again, when you say:

"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. .... "

Context again. yes it is inter-related, more intensely so in international politics. because, in a system of anarchy, states maintain a balance of power by securing their national interests; and when they say national interest in international relations, it has very much to do with national security, political and economic gains. obviously then, what would politics be without economics. but that doesn't conclude that economic development brings democracy.

Your argument citing Machiavelli:

"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."

Nobody is assuming liberal ideological positions here. like you, i'm a realist, and i strongly believe that monarchy is not the solution to this quagmire. but this latter argument in the above sentence proves nothing (please don't bring pieces of quotes without context, if possible, try to bring their arguments). Machiavelli's The Prince is a masterpiece, and for him, protecting national interest will surpass all moral obligations. He doesn't propound immoralism, ethics for him is good if it is possible, but usually when you've to look at your interests, ethics does not have much value. and yes, the king is taking machiavellian steps, but there is nothing which even gives a little hint (for these three years he has ruled), that he is 'surpassing moral obligations to protect national interest'.

And when i said this:

" 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"

i was pointing at the civil society, and our political parties, not the king. the king does not constitute the civil society, his is an 'authoritarian regime'.

i said:
"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".

if you believe that gaining socio-political awareness and starting to question our rights, our system, and the marginalized ethnic groups starting to question their social identity is problematic, that is strong belief in authoritarianism. (but i thought somewhere you said bridging ethnic and economic gaps will bring out a stable democracy). how will one bridge this socio-cultural, ethnic, economic gap without creating awareness among the 'commoners' which will then coordinate with the elites? building infrastructure and implementing a top-down approach to development is not going to bring much social change, at least for the impoverished mass. and hypothetically, even if the economic 'theory' you proposed were supposed to work, we would start industries, build infrastructure, control market, do whatever to stabilize economy, but we will have no civil society; under a reppressive regime, political institutions have no chance to foster, like i've already given example in earlier post, and we will be living in the dark, without our individual, social, economic, and political rights, for ages. what i derived from your arguments is this: lets build an economically stable society, then implant a civil society, then implement a democratic model. it is not that simple.

When i said:

" 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 didn't phrase the first sentence properly then. sorry, i reframe it again: monarchies throughout the world have a history of reppressive regimes. it is not an individual king or a queen, but the 'system' of monarchy, the regime, is by nature, repressive. that is why we call them 'authoritative regimes'.

adios!

"As of today, we have no basis/evidence whatsoever to dismiss today's Nepali monarchy as "repressive"- we ain't seen anything yet.."

sure my friend, almost 3 yrs of rule and curtailing of freedom of expression, detaining political leaders, journalists, and human rights activists, dissolving a democratically elected government, using the military to suppress any voice against monarchy...it sure doesn't look like repression to me!

Dc Gir,

Did you do the word count? Seems like you wrote a book here in sajha:) Need an agent?

DC Girl,

"First I'd like to say a few things about the authors I mentioned. I don't know about IR students, but comparative politics students worship them like god :) I don?t mean to dig into your knowledge base (as long as the arguments are strong), but I think the authors that you mention, Thomas Friedman (is this the same guy, the NY Times Columnist?), Rudyard Kipling, they're magazine writers, or story writers, what we call in academia. Noam Chomsky (extreme left), Edward Said, are good writers, but I wouldn't quote them when I argue on democracy or democratization. "

I'd definatley read the authors you mentioned this summer. Rudyard Kipling? No. Its Robert Kaplan, who is an analyst for the Atlantic Monthly. I would quote them, even Zakaria, who is also a journalist/editor of Newsweek, when I talk about democracy. These people test the validity of the theories, in my view, and I see no reason not to believe in these people's accounts/analysis.

" If you're bringing in American diplomacy and foreign policy to argue why some countries democratized while some didn't, I have not much to say. Whether America will support dictators or want democracy in that country is a different game, of foreign policy. Their stance in a country will change depending on their political interest; I think you yourself mentioned this somewhere in the thread, with the example of US support in Pakistan. "

I still believe that many democracies were due to direct american pressure to democratize. Otherwise, in many countries, there was neither drive nor motivation for demcracy. Let's look at the Russian example: Democracy filled the political vaccum ater the collapse of the Soviet Union. If any other -ism or - cracy were being promoted, they would have adopted to those. Look at what happened or is happening in some of the CIS states: islamic radicalism is now slowly developing as a substitute to democracy.

Also the point to note is: Although they democratized in the 90s, the lack of institutions and traditions resulted in autocratic regimes.. This is my point. The Americans did promote and export democracies in many countries and forced them to democratzie, in some other places, they did not because of strategic and other interests. Otherwise how do we understand Nepal's democracy and Bhutan's autocracy? You are isolating the democratziation process to individual countries, I see it in a broader framework of American and in Nepal's case, Indian foreign policies agendas.

" "..but after the cold ward, 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"

You haven't proved this point, how? "

Look at the examples of CIS countries and others such as Georgia, Yugoslvia, Armenia, Ajerbaijan.

" I never said all of the countries that started the process are full democracies now. In fact, out of the 100 or so countries that entered into transition, only a few have attained a well functioning democracy, 20 or so are en route to becoming successful, while some countries have clearly failed letting the authoritarian regimes re-solidify, like in Uzbekistan, Togo, Belarus. Yes, there are reasons why democracy failed (and personally, I think the type of authoritative regime in the past has partially to do with it). But democracy failed doesn't mean authoritarian regimes are better. "

No, I am not saying autoritarian regimes are better either. I am just saying that democracy in those countries failed, and the failure of democracy was disastrous to those nations. Many people died there in the 10 eyars of democratziation than the last 20 eyars of communist or whatever regimes they had there. So its a clear indication of their failure to adopt the democracti culture, values and traditions. And why is that, whyc couldn't they adopt those values? This is where my argument comes in: they w ere not ready to embrace those at the first place because of poverty (in mnay cases) and ethnic divisions.


" Yes, comparing Nepal with Italy would be a fatal mistake. I'm not comparing Italy and Nepal; I'm only using historical institutionalism to explain why the transition period in Nepal is so difficult. You can take any literature on historical insti. for that matter. Putnam in that article analyzes three or four different regions in Italy to see how institutions of the past shape the process of transition, thereby making one region industrially and politically developed than the other. Nepal's history of political institutions begins during the Rana period, but because they didn't get much chance to foster, political and social institutions that constitute the civil society are weak- one reason why transition is becoming painfully difficult today. "

Sorry I somehow misread your earlier point on Italy. So my apologies for this miscommunication. I will defintaley look at Putnam's article.

" Interesting argument. But again, brings the question of correlation between development and democracy. There is a possibility that if a country is doing good in all aspects of development (socio-cultural, economic, political, ethnic etc.), the presence of civil society, and the tendency of rulers governing democratically, without infringing on constitution and violating the rights of the minorities, will be felt vividly. This is what you've called 'coordination', if I?m not mistaken. But the debate on democracy and development is still pending, so I don't want to base my argument on that. "

That's my point too... yes, when the nation is doing well in all areas including minority rights areas, then we can say the nation has resolve dits coordination dillema. That's my point too- there's no way to prove that democracy and development go together or authritarian regimes and developmnet don't go together, in theory:-). However verifiable evidence (Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, China) proves that democracy is not necessarily a major factor in development..Countries can develop without democracy.


" Also, your argument is kind of contradictory in itself. You say economic development bridges socio-economic and ethnic gap (you haven't said how), and give example of why Latin America is not democratic. In my earlier post I'd given example that some Latin American countries were economically advanced than some Southern European countries, but democracy in the former was doing worse than the latter. "

Beucase the economic resources/income is not equally distributed in those countries. Resources are controlled by a small group of people and in many South American countries, it has led to ethnic nationalism.. mestizos vs. others. If they have sound economic polices that leads to equal or fair distribution of income among all the ethnic groups, their democracies will succeed.

" And lastly, you forgot to answer my biggest question. Why, would you still, support Monarchy? "

I support the monarchy because I see it as the only constitutional power in Nepal that can resolve the present crisis.

" you don't need to tell me what to do. yes, people have beliefs, and its only natural to be surprised- political science students or not, i cannot supress my surprise, its a different thing i don't have to express it. and i've tried to keep emotions and personal biases out of discussion as much as possible. and indeed, when i say i am surprised that nepali elites keep hope that king's take-over will better the economic condition, i'm not surprised at their political belief and faith that the king will do good, "

Well, I felt I had a need to tell you given the condescending tone of your earlier post. Glad to know that you knew it all along. I accept my mistake.

"but i'm surprised that they replace political system with economic system completely. nowhere during my arguments have i mentioned that democracy will bring economic development, i am only advocating for a fair political system, while the king's supporters directly relate his system to economy. and i'm not directing this individually at you, it has become a collective hope, and i think in democracies i'm allowed to express my disagreement :) and i've put my argument regarding why monarchy cannot do anything about it, in my first post, that u haven't counter-argued. "


Without a functioning economy, you cannot have a functioning democracy.. equality fairness and all that, and this is my argument. If we have democarcy for the democarcy's sake, without any economic developmnet, what do we get? The Maoist problem, which unlike many people, I see as an "economic" conflict rather than political.

You are right about the hope part. I mean what can be done now except to hope for a better Nepal under the "visionary leadership of the King". I have said this time and again, and I'll say it again, maybe he will be our Lee or Deng and make things better, economically, in Nepal. This is my hope, and I am confident, with political stability, we'll soon see economic development, or at least the early signs of it. You have your reasons to believe otherwise, and that's good.. (it let's us discuss more on the issue :-)

" Second, i't be easier if you could use technical terms instead of 'in disguise of Liberal Democrats', 'mild authoritarian rules', i don't know what to decipher out of them; what kind of regime are you talkin about when you say 'mild authoritative rules??' "

Look just as there are functioning democracies and dysfunctional democracies, the governmnets in non-democarcies (not undemocratic) nations vary too. You can have Turkmeinistan's autoritarian ruler, and you can have liberal-autocrat of Pakistan. You can have a dictator as Idi Amin or you can have a mild-authritarian ruler like Lee. You cannot just put all the non-democacies in one group. You have to analyze the governmnets there.. and that's when all those prefixes come in.

" provide me with literature here (cause no where have i read greece is a democracy because of economic development. i will explain in another post why it is a democracy). "

Please refer to Balkan Ghosts by Rudyard Kipling.. oops, Robert Kaplan. I'll love to read your version too. Although Greece was democarcy, there was a wide spread corruption and the economic benifit was not reaching to the masses equally. (I admit my wrong chocie of word.. developmnet should have been replaced with economic benifits for the masses). Also you saw the rise of hypernationalism..now Greece has finally put an end to those, it is embarking on the liberal democratic path and that's what I meant.

TUrkey is a military democracy. Refer to any book on Turkey or the Turkish Constitution. Its founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was from a military background, so he trusted the military more than the civilian governmnet. So even today, the Turkish military can intervene in politics and replace the civilian govt. if it feels the governmnet is threatening the national unity of Turkey. Its everywhere. Any book on latest political development there should give you an idae of Turkish Politics.

"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. .... "

Context again. yes it is inter-related, more intensely so in international politics. because, in a system of anarchy, states maintain a balance of power by securing their national interests; and when they say national interest in international relations, it has very much to do with national security, political and economic gains. obviously then, what would politics be without economics. but that doesn't conclude that economic development brings democracy"

Context again. You fist said, economic and political systems are different, I used that quote of Carr to prove that economy and politics are inter-related. Economic developmnet leads to institutions that are necessary to sustain democracy in the future. For example, Chile under Pincohet was an authritarian regime, but it embarked on economic reforms. What happened? If I udnerstand democarcy as less governmnet, then that's what it lead to in Chile. Sudenly you saw the seoperation of judiciary and the govt. then you had more alws allowing economic freedom to people, and all of this later led to Chile's successful transition to democracy because all the institutions necessary to sustain/safeguard democracy was already there. Only economic developmnet can lead to rule of law in the nations were they don't have a tradition of it, and it also craetes a middle class.. these two things make democracies function properly. And this is what I meant. You can have political freedom without economic developmnet, and the result will be disastrous like in Nepal. Look at Taiwan and South Korea, there democracy functions because they democratized in the 80s when they were economically well off.. and their democracy is free of problems (for the most part).

"
Nobody is assuming liberal ideological positions here. like you, i'm a realist, and i strongly believe that monarchy is not the solution to this quagmire. but this latter argument in the above sentence proves nothing (please don't bring pieces of quotes without context, if possible, try to bring their arguments). Machiavelli's The Prince is a masterpiece, and for him, protecting national interest will surpass all moral obligations. He doesn't propound immoralism, ethics for him is good if it is possible, but usually when you've to look at your interests, ethics does not have much value. and yes, the king is taking machiavellian steps, but there is nothing which even gives a little hint (for these three years he has ruled), that he is 'surpassing moral obligations to protect national interest'. "

I strongly believe that the monarchy is the solution.. which other constitutional power is there to lead the nation or can lead the nation at this point? My quote re; popularity and unpopularity fits the context. Sorry didn't corroborate it.. The King is being unpopular now, he has taken a big risk.. and many people are against his move, if not against him. In this context, my analysis is, he is like a machiavellian prince who does not fear to become unpopular in teh short run to become popular in the long run. Maybe he knows how to deal with the situation and maybe the only way to execute his plan was Feb 1 move.. whatever it is, he has risked unpopularity to save the nation, and I give him credits for that.

aaba euta churot fukera auchu..

" if you believe that gaining socio-political awareness and starting to question our rights, our system, and the marginalized ethnic groups starting to question their social identity is problematic, that is strong belief in authoritarianism. (but i thought somewhere you said bridging ethnic and economic gaps will bring out a stable democracy). how will one bridge this socio-cultural, ethnic, economic gap without creating awareness among the 'commoners' which will then coordinate with the elites?"

Very valid question indeed. But to ask for the rights and being concerned about the rights, the awareness has to be pursued pecaefully, not by spreading radical propaganda through radical "seperatist-ethnic" movements/organizations. There are many ethnic movements associated with the Maoist movement- Khumbuwan, Tharuwan.. and others and I do have problems with it. And why we saw this surge in ethnic nationalism in Nepal after 1990? I argue, it was economic reasons, not other factors...


" building infrastructure and implementing a top-down approach to development is not going to bring much social change, at least for the impoverished mass. and hypothetically, even if the economic 'theory' you proposed were supposed to work, we would start industries, build infrastructure, control market, do whatever to stabilize economy, but we will have no civil society; under a reppressive regime, political institutions have no chance to foster, like i've already given example in earlier post, and we will be living in the dark, without our individual, social, economic, and political rights, for ages. what i derived from your arguments is this: lets build an economically stable society, then implant a civil society, then implement a democratic model. it is not that simple. "


Whatvecer form of economic development, in the process it creates all those things you mentioned- civil society, middle class and this leads to the rule of law (sorry for being too repetetive here), and that leads to having a fully functioning democracy later. The choice is democracy now and instability or democracy later and stability.. I'd chose the latter approach. 10-20 or even 30 eyars to wait for political reform is not that long, if the regime no matter how authritarian it is, can promote economic development.

You misread me, and I don't blame you for it.. maybe I was not clear enough.. I didn't say implant the civil society and democarcy.. they develop themsleves independent of the state in the process of economic developmnet/liberalization.

" it is not an individual king or a queen, but the 'system' of monarchy, the regime, is by nature, repressive. that is why we call them 'authoritative regimes'. "

In the history yes, but in recent days/modern history there are exceptions to this rule. Not all monarchies are repressive. Consider this example: The democratically elected mayor of some town in Austria was openly anti-semitic.. The Autrian King/Prince had to intervene and delay his appointment. So not all democratically elected leaders are liberal, and not monrahcs are rtepressive.

" adios"

and I thought you'd say OLA!

and not monrahcs are rtepressive. = and not ALL monarchs are repressive.

" Interesting argument. But again, brings the question of correlation between development and democracy. There is a possibility that if a country is doing good in all aspects of development (socio-cultural, economic, political, ethnic etc.), the presence of civil society, and the tendency of rulers governing democratically, without infringing on constitution and violating the rights of the minorities, will be felt vividly. This is what you've called 'coordination', if I?m not mistaken. But the debate on democracy and development is still pending, so I don't want to base my argument on that. "

That's my point ... yes, when the nation is doing well in all areas including minority rights areas, then we can say the nation has resolve dits coordination dillema. There's a debate among theorists to prove/disprove each other re" democracy and developmnet.. However verifiable evidence (Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, China) proves that democracy is not necessarily a major factor in development..Countries can develop without democracy.

Koehene here is talking with an international perspective in mind. He is true, hegemons create institutions to foster their national interests abroad. but you might want to look at what specific institutions he is talking about. when it comes to protecting national interest in the form of political and economic security, he is talking about creating institutions that sustain or expand these interests- like military, monetary (USAID), etc., not necessarily institutions that foster a civil society at the domestic level.

You are right to.. on this one, but foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy, and whether at the international level or at the domestic level, you cannot even for a moment seperate economics and politics. That's why when Chanakya wrote his book on statecraft 2200 years ago, he called it "arthashashtra".

But if you still insist that economcis and politics are seperable and we can understand either of them independently, then I have no problems with it.. different people, different opinions.

ISO,

Firstly, a refute on Lebanon:

You have quoted Friedman's TINY PART of the book, that too, I THINK, is from the prelude. It has been many years since I read that book, but if my memory serves me well, Friedman accurately portrays Lebanese internal factors that was adding fuel to a looming civil war, but places EQUAL responsibility to the latter to the roles various Middle East actors -- particularly Syria and Israel -- played to take advantage of those situations. The overall Midlle East political crisis, particularly the Palestinian problem and the power struggle among the Arab states, contributed tremendously to brutal civil war in Lebanon.

Nevertheless, if your quote of Friedman is anything to go by, it explains that it was NOT a failure of democracy that gave way to civil war in Lebanon, rather a DEPARTURE from democracy. allow me to copy-n-paste that quote again for reference:

"But by the 1970s, rapid democgraphic growth among Lenbanon's Muslims had turned Lebanon upside down. The Christians had shrunk to a little more than one-third of the population and the Muslims and Druse had grown to roughly two-thirds, with the Shiites becoming the largest single community in the country. When the Muslims demanded that political reforms be instituted to give them a greater share in power by strengthening the role of the Muslim Prime Minister, the Maronites resisted."

(Friedman, Thomas: From Beirut to Jerusalem. 1995).

So, up until the Lebanese constitution -- which was truly democratic -- more or less reflected the demographic realities of that country accurately, it was rapidly growing, prosperous country. It was when the constitution started to become non-reflective of the realities, i.e., DEPARTURE from democracy, not FAILURE OF, the problems started.

**********************************

I do not have much in disgreement with the likes of Kaplan and Zakaria who point out the fact that democracies in some countries brought more chaos. They are absolutely right. However, their analysis is only one "daanaa" in a whole "anaar daanaa" that needs to be understood in the context, rather than hug their implications as a reflection of reality -- that of the larger picture -- as a whole.

You see, they write about momentary relapses in law and order and other chaos that particularly the beginning of democratic process entails. The tragic trend has been to dismiss democracy just because it brought some hardships in the beginning. Political and social transformations are not easy to come by, and are not always pleasant in the beginning. However, the problem of lack of basic structure that you claim needs to be in place for democracy to be fruitful -- satisfied janata (in terms of food and $$$), educated mass, properly functioning civil society, etc. -- can ONLY be most effectively address by democracy and freedom in the long run.

As exemplified by the Panchayat era in Nepal, the more we wait for the "right time" to implement democracy, the more we lag behind in terms of human growth, which is crucial in democratic success. Ther greatest (and the best) irony of democracy is that it corrects itself. Better democracy is ONLY possible through democracy itself, and it is NOT a package that can be delivered once an authoritarian ruler decides that his people are ready for it. No one is, and noone will ever be, ready for democracy -- it is an ONGOING process that, if left intact despite initial problems, will inevitably herald a stronger, healthier and prosperous society.

Therfore, I think the criticisms of democracy by the likes of Zakaria and Kaplan are either misplaced in their initial virtue, or wrongly misunderstood by some of their readers. Once again, they are absolutely right in pointing out the initial problems of democracy, But those problems are/shoud be expected, and they should not be reasons to bring the process of democracy to a halt because, as I implied earlier, the process sweeting of the entire fully grown "anaar daanaa" does not deserve to be destroyed by few bad "daanaas".

This now leads me to another aspect of our discussion that I originally wanted to put forth: the seeming confusion among the people about democratization, westernization, and capitalization.

Next post...

1. " Nevertheless, if your quote of Friedman is anything to go by, it explains that it was NOT a failure of democracy that gave way to civil war in Lebanon, rather a DEPARTURE from democracy. allow me to copy-n-paste that quote again for reference: "

Departure from democracy in itself indicated the failure of democracy and the institutions. Maybe demoacrcy was not institutionalized, maybe the issues were not addressed democratically... but why? becuase by then nobody believed in democracy. Israel and Syria tried to take advantage of the situation, but the departure from democracy or democratic failure, it means the same. All democracies become failures when they depart from the principles of democarcy. The key is how to make them stik to it?

2. I do not have much in disgreement with the likes of Kaplan and Zakaria who point out the fact that democracies in some countries brought more chaos. They are absolutely right. However, their analysis is only one "daanaa" in a whole "anaar daanaa" that needs to be understood in the context, rather than hug their implications as a reflection of reality -- that of the larger picture -- as a whole.

Agree. There are others too who think differently.

3. You see, they write about momentary relapses in law and order and other chaos that particularly the beginning of democratic process entails. The tragic trend has been to dismiss democracy just because it brought some hardships in the beginning. Political and social transformations are not easy to come by, and are not always pleasant in the beginning. However, the problem of lack of basic structure that you claim needs to be in place for democracy to be fruitful -- satisfied janata (in terms of food and $$$), educated mass, properly functioning civil society, etc. -- can ONLY be most effectively address by democracy and freedom in the long run.

I disagree.. Again look at the East Asian examples, including China.

4. As exemplified by the Panchayat era in Nepal, the more we wait for the "right time" to implement democracy, the more we lag behind in terms of human growth, which is crucial in democratic success.

What exactly is human growth? Better human capital?

5. Ther greatest (and the best) irony of democracy is that it corrects itself. Better democracy is ONLY possible through democracy itself, and it is NOT a package that can be delivered once an authoritarian ruler decides that his people are ready for it. No one is, and noone will ever be, ready for democracy -- it is an ONGOING process that, if left intact despite initial problems, will inevitably herald a stronger, healthier and prosperous society.

Yes, it does but it does not correct itsl;ef in the short run.. it takes awfully long time, and simply in today's interconnected world, we cannot have a dysfunctioning democracy and instability, so that we can have a functioning democarcy after 30-50 years. This is my view.

Stronger, healrthire and properous society in the long run but civil wars, fragmneted societies and dirt poor societies until democracy corrects itslef after 10-20-30 years... so we should have democarcy.. no, I don't agree with this approach.

6. Therfore, I think the criticisms of democracy by the likes of Zakaria and Kaplan are either misplaced in their initial virtue, or wrongly misunderstood by some of their readers. Once again, they are absolutely right in pointing out the initial problems of democracy, But those problems are/shoud be expected, and they should not be reasons to bring the process of democracy to a halt because, as I implied earlier, the process sweeting of the entire fully grown "anaar daanaa" does not deserve to be destroyed by few bad "daanaas".

They are noit criticizing demoarcy.. They are saying look the system has its flaws and there are two ways of demcratizing: overnight transition which might not lead to liberal/functioning demoarcy or gradual phase wise manner by first initiating the economic liberalization which has proved to lead to liberal functioning democarcy..That's their approach, and that's what (if I DIDN"T MISREAD OR MISUNDERSTOOD THEM) understood. Of course, I could have totally misread them. But as of today, based on my (mis) reading that's what I got.