Posted by: Maverick_ June 10, 2008
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Nepe Guru,
Arent we discussing of the political parties upon a political scenario?
One classic mistake of every political discussion is being back n forth between the idealistic scenario and political scenario. Idealistic, when its favoring their goal, and political, when its not.
"If cabinet berth is what helps political parties, all the glory to their fight. However, isn’t the Constituent Assembly-parliament is where political parties should be showing their show ?"""
Oh really, if its so, then why were Maoist bargained in the pre-election scenario for the ministerial berth, (taking the majority aside), just going by ur words of "showing their show in the floor".
I can pretty much bet that you wouldnt have said "I was actually asking to give Maoist only a free hand (nothing more) to form a government of their wish (including making alliance of convenience to any party/parties they like)" replacing other party with Maoist if any other party would have got slight majority.
I dunno if its on the paper, but wasn't the putative agreement was to form all party government? We didnt have direct election of the executive power, did we? So whether you like it or not they have to make some kind of coalition. So I dont understand, in political sense, that what do u mean by let them run the way they want.
"First of all, the doctrine of one party regime is trashed by Maoist themselves"
I didn't say they follow it, did I? I said its a hangover of the previous doctrines which they were following upto two years back. The major hangover is the communist mentality of omnipotent leader whom communist have this tendency of demagoguing. I believe, this beget the present political impasse; as Maoist dont want their supremo under some one and at the same time they want to clinch all executive power.
Beside, you didnt write any thing of my major point.
Arent we discussing of the political parties upon a political scenario?
One classic mistake of every political discussion is being back n forth between the idealistic scenario and political scenario. Idealistic, when its favoring their goal, and political, when its not.
"If cabinet berth is what helps political parties, all the glory to their fight. However, isn’t the Constituent Assembly-parliament is where political parties should be showing their show ?"""
Oh really, if its so, then why were Maoist bargained in the pre-election scenario for the ministerial berth, (taking the majority aside), just going by ur words of "showing their show in the floor".
I can pretty much bet that you wouldnt have said "I was actually asking to give Maoist only a free hand (nothing more) to form a government of their wish (including making alliance of convenience to any party/parties they like)" replacing other party with Maoist if any other party would have got slight majority.
I dunno if its on the paper, but wasn't the putative agreement was to form all party government? We didnt have direct election of the executive power, did we? So whether you like it or not they have to make some kind of coalition. So I dont understand, in political sense, that what do u mean by let them run the way they want.
"First of all, the doctrine of one party regime is trashed by Maoist themselves"
I didn't say they follow it, did I? I said its a hangover of the previous doctrines which they were following upto two years back. The major hangover is the communist mentality of omnipotent leader whom communist have this tendency of demagoguing. I believe, this beget the present political impasse; as Maoist dont want their supremo under some one and at the same time they want to clinch all executive power.
Beside, you didnt write any thing of my major point.
to expect any political parties
to back off at this major junction where it has long term amplification
on them, their seat in parliament and their political power, is a
politically callow statement.
I wasnt talking just for the current political impasse, for which you said that i am emphasising too much on ministerial berth. In the end, they all want to make claims of changes, isn't it???
Or shall i understand like this: a maoist sympathizer wants to see the party to gain all short term and long term political points:)
Also that "jyu" is unnecessary. Please remove that from next post .
I wasnt talking just for the current political impasse, for which you said that i am emphasising too much on ministerial berth. In the end, they all want to make claims of changes, isn't it???
Or shall i understand like this: a maoist sympathizer wants to see the party to gain all short term and long term political points:)
Also that "jyu" is unnecessary. Please remove that from next post .