First, a few quick points about Nepal Democracy Google group. 1. The group is not an INCLUSIVE organization. Those who do not oppose Feb 1 unambiguously have zero chance to enter into the group. All the invited members are presumably pro-democracy activists and sympathizers. 2. Acceptance of a new member is CONSENSUS based, not MAJORITY based. 2. Posting etiquette is strictly observed. One user was recently expelled from the group (actually the user was expelled for the second time. He had been taken back after the earlier expulsion.) 3. Politics and particularly pro-democracy activism is the major topic of discussion. However, occasionally, non-political topics make appearances too. 4. Personally, I am for making at least selected discussions publicly available. May be someday that will happen. However, the understanding at the moment is that, materials related to any users can not be made public without his/her consent. What I posted above was on my self-consent :-) There is, however, a sort of understood encouragement for everybody to write op-ed in public media. Op-ed pieces of the members get very enthusiastically discussed and complimented. Prof. Alok Bohora, Murari Raj Sharma, Dr. Shiva Gautam, Angaraj Timilsina, Dr. Ambika Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Aryal, Kanak Dixit, Dr. Madhu Ghimire are some of the members whose op-ed pieces make regular appearances at the discussion. *** *** *** *** Now, the original topic. Aardvarak-jee, This posting was actually inspired by your posting on the same subject. http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=27003 You have very good points and I generally agree with all of them. Choosing a corrupt over other is no answer to corruption, but bringing a system is. That, I think, was the central message of your piece. My interest in this thread was to talk about such system. A full democracy, a big sweep and the rule of law were what I imagined to be three crude steps towards cleaner Nepal. I want to emphasize that this model does not require things like preaching to the corrupt ones for it's solution. An all-powerful anti-graft body and reasonably alert civil society is all what it needs. Even in overwhelming presence of corrupt politicians in power, it should work. **** **** **** **** Kalekrishna-jee, >Nepeji, in addition I suggest tier system of corruption >criterization and mandatory punishment for grave cases, >lenient though on self revealing. Excellent point. My roadmap is very crude. You point is among thousand things that will require to refine it. Thank you for your input. *** *** *** *** *** Shree, >मा को-को लाई भ्रष्टाचारी मान्नु हुन्छ ? ... ... >... अनि तिनीहरुको लागि सजाँय वा तपाईँले भने >जस्तो amnesty समेत के के जाति प्रक्रियामा >को को कहाँ कहाँ पर्छन? यसलाई यसरी राख्छु म । अदालतले भ्रष्ट प्रमाणित नगरेसम्म म कसैलाई पनि भ्रष्ट मान्दिन । अर्थात् भ्रष्टाचारको परिभाषा (कानून), अनुसन्धान र ठहर गर्ने काम राज्यको प्रणालीको हो । बरु त्यस्तो प्रणालीको व्यवस्था नगर्ने वा व्यवधान खडा गर्नेहरु नै हुन् भ्रष्टाचारी त्यतिन्जेलको लागि । कानूनको हकमा, केही प्रचलित र केही आवश्यकता अनुसारको नयाँ कानून दुवैलाई लिनु पर्छ । जहाँसम्म amnesty को कुरा छ, मेरो अवधारणा amnesty नभएर बरु 'एक वृहद तर उदार कार्यवाही' हो । माथि Kalekrishna-jee भन्नुभएको "lenient though on self revealing" को सिद्धान्त निहित छ भनौं न यसमा । प्रक्रियालाई यसरी व्याख्या गरौं- १. कानूनको समानताको घोषणा (यो राजनैतिक प्रकृया भएकोले छुट्टै बहस आवश्यक होला । यसमा गणतन्त्रका कुरा आउँछन् जो) २. ६ महिना लामो "स्वेच्छिक सफाई" अवधीको व्यवस्था [ यस अवधीमा गैरकानूनी साधन-श्रोतबाट लाभ गरेका सबैले (सार्वजनिक पदाधिकारी देखि निजी व्यवसायी सम्म, सबले) सो लाभ बराबरको पूर्ण वा आंशिक (भनौं ५१%) रकम स्वेच्छाले अ.दु.नि.आ. मा गोपनियताका साथ बुझाउने वा pledge गर्नेछन् । (मौद्रिक मुल्यांकन गर्न नसकिने लाभलाई त्यसको कानूनी सजायद्वारा मुल्यांकन गर्नुपर्छ) (झुठो दावीलाई नियन्त्रण/न्यूनिकरण गर्ने प्रणाली बारे छुट्टै बहस बेस होला) स्वेच्छिक सफाई प्रस्तोतालाई थप कार्यवाही हुनेछैन । ३. कानूनी राज ("स्वेच्छिक सफाई" अवधी पश्चात को यो प्रणाली त स्वव्याख्यित भईहाल्यो) अहिलेलाई यत्ति । __