I definitily do not like Westminister Model as this model makes it easier for India to buy out the top 10 leaders of Nepal and they will pretty much have the head of the state of their pick for Nepal. This model also creates a dynasties like Gandhi and Koiralas. I believe it is because of this model why we get a shitty hand dealt from India. Why would they go about impressing 2 Karod papulation when all they have to do is impress 10 leaders to get their way in Nepal. Direct presidential system sounds apealing but it also have a authoritarian risk ( Hugo Chavez) . What i like about this system is when you Vote you are directly voting for the guy you want to win. In USA there is a presidential rule but its the indirect one. You vote the state and the state votes for the president. If your state loses you lose too. I myself prefer...Direct presidential with equally powerful Congress and legislative branch.....so that all three can check and balance each other. But since my preference is not an option i think the French Model would work the best for Nepal.

sidster · Jun 30, 2011 10:17 AM

Direct Presidential System looks good to me......directly voting for the guy.

Poon-Hill · Jun 30, 2011 10:24 AM

1024x768 Normal 0 false false false st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} I am more concerned about the articles in the constitution than the modality of the governance. If our constitution does not restrict the power of government and does not keep it limited, then we are back in the same cess pool.  The constitution should allow only enumerated powers while it should totally restrict the government from trampling on the individual's unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursue of happiness. It should reinforce the supremacy of individuals and any public servant violating the oath of constitution must be declared treasonous and persecuted to the full extent of the law of the land. The constitution must make sure that the powers are not consolidated within one group or a person. The executive, legislative and the judicial powers must restrict each other. The Federal government should only involve in foreign policies, national defense and protecting individual’s freedom and liberty. The powers not delegated to the Federal government must leave it to the state and the people.  Nepalese people have to understand that government is not the panacea of their problems. In fact government IS the problem. It remains a mystery to me that many people continue to believe that the government can provide all the solutions for their problems. History is evident. As George Santayana said, “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. For millennia governments have been the  agents of tyranny and denying liberties to its citizens. Those who hold public office or fill positions in the bureaucracy wield enormous power over the population. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is we the people who should limit the power of the government through our constitution. Each Nepalese must understand that we are the Sovereigns and that it is through us that we form a CONSENTUAL government not for our welfare as in providing us with healthcare, food, education and other entitlements but to protect our individual freedom and liberty.  God Bless Nepal and the aspirations of Nepalese to be truly free for the first time in the history of Nepal.  But unfortunately I doubt we will ever be.  

Nas · Jun 30, 2011 10:32 AM

Also....India is in full force trying to stop Nepal to go with direct presidential rule.......that is why there has been no consensus. The head of the state and the state restructuring has been the ultimate disagreement for the delayed constitution making process. Those are the two issues political parties could no come to agreement on. India is in full force to avoid presidential system in Nepal. As people may elect someone like Prachanda( mao Party)  or Rukmangat (Monarchists)  in a hype. India wants the westminister style politics where it can trade lawmakers between the parties to get their way.

sidster · Jun 30, 2011 11:05 AM

Nas bro, Good thinking but most Nepalese do not understand the concept of Liberty and Individualism. They want to be herded by a good/loyal/honest leader. Liberty and Individualism is something that a nation needs to grow into and not transformed into. Just my opinion.

sidster · Jun 30, 2011 11:07 AM

Nas broAgree with your first para completely. Second para is where we could have some differences. I do think that the government shouldn’t be everywhere like it is prevalent in US, but I also don’t want the radical idea of stripping every power the government has other than the bare essential items. Socialism is a good concept and so is Capitalism; what we need is mix of both; if any one idea dominates other it becomes a doctrine. As for the governance model, as long as we have the checks and balances everybody mentioned in the former posts, I like the French model. Here the president has exclusive rights as long as his party has the majority. If Prachanda gets elected president and UML wins the majority then his power will be limited; otherwise he will exercise exclusive powers..but then you can argue that the people gave him the mandate..for 4 years. Totally against Westminster model; name one PM who has served full term since the “Democracy” came. We have seen this happening in India too; political parties are too busy “compromising” and pleasing other parties that they forget about people. Agree with Sidster.

Stiffler · Jun 30, 2011 12:40 PM

"Socialism is a good concept and so is Capitalism; what we need is mix of both;" Stiffler Bro, my personal opinion is that government should have a very limited role in the economy. When we talk about individual’s freedom and liberty, economic liberty is inherent to it and not exclusive. The fruits of individual’s labor is a private property. When the government tax our labor in the form of income tax, it’s essentially the government deciding how much you get to keep from your earning. In this sense we are truly not a free individual and we are paying tribute to the government as in the feudal societies. Wealth is created not by the government but the innovations, ingenuity and entrepreneurship of individuals. So the role of the government is to protect the free-market economy and make sure individuals and corporations honor the contract. It is precisely because of these reasons America, a fairly young nation became so prosperous and wealthy that is unprecedented in the history of mankind. But today she is totally deviated from her original principles. Socialism is social or government control of the means of production and central planning of the economy which is very destructive and unproductive. It is important for me to illustrate what I have said above. I am not against socialism but my belief is that socialism should not be enforced by government. When government tax your income to provide social welfares to others it’s basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. Socialism should be the natural fruits of Capitalism meaning it should be the natural outcome from the abundance in wealth created by free market capitalism. Individuals can privately open charity organizations to help the destitute and down trodden. This idea that some people have a moral obligation to give to others and ought to be forced to do so runs directly counter to what a free society means. This is a socialist and communist premise. Only non-governmental, and non-coercive methods should be used to promote socialism in our society.

Nas · Jun 30, 2011 3:43 PM

Talking about charity and individual productivity in social causes, take for an example, our honorable Anuradha Koirala ji and her Maiti Nepal. One individual and her NGO had made such a tremendous impact in our society and beyond that our Nepalese governmental agencies could only have wet dreams. Those unproductive lazy bureaucratic bastards are seer wastage of tax payers money.

Nas · Jun 30, 2011 4:01 PM

I find myself defending capitalism when speaking to a socialist and vice versa. Without going too much off tangent from the subject, I want to point out few things on the role of government. Capitalism is good for people who have capitals, I guess socialism is good for those who don’t. But just because select few are fortunate enough to build the wealth, doesn’t the mankind have a role to support the unfortunate others? You might say that helping others should be a matter of choice not law, I can see that point but given a choice between a not-for-profit org and government, I trust the latter. Besides, government’s role is not just to help but provide stability for sustainability. I don’t believe in absolute free market, I know market adjusts itself but the cost of adjusting itself might be too huge….if we can decrease the damage why not do so? I don’t think a government should be interfering in housing (Fannie May, Freddie Mac), neither do I think every other tax imposed are appropriate. Heck, I was surprised that I had to pay tax for my library when I didn’t even use it, but the distribution of burden does help achieve things that one person might not find important..but in larger scheme of things it might be beneficial. If absolute capitalism was allowed, we, from the third world, would never have the privilege of debating this issue here. Government role should be reduced, but we still need it in many things. You say take away Government, I ask what's the option? Corporate running those programs (medicaid and all)? I trust the government more.

Stiffler · Jun 30, 2011 4:04 PM

Nas Bro, It is precisely because of these reasons America, a fairly young nation became so prosperous and wealthy that is unprecedented in the history of mankind. I hear this over and over from the Right Wingers....What led USA ahead of the rest of the world had a lot to do with free public school made available to every WHITE person in the country. Mass education that was handed out freely by the government is the key to American prosperity. While education was only available to the riches and upper classes in Europe and the rest of the world Americans socialized education and left the world far behind on prosperity. No other nation achieved what Americans achieved in science and technology and that is what helped them to come ahead of everyone. So yes..public education is the only catalyst that fuled the innovations, ingenuity and entrepreneurship of individuals in this country and only government can offer public eduation. America would not have been America if only the rich and fortunates were able to go to school back in the day.

sidster · Jun 30, 2011 4:33 PM

1024x768 Normal 0 false false false st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} But just because select few are fortunate enough to build the wealth, doesn’t the mankind have a role to support the unfortunate others? Your premise is flawed, with all due respect. First of all who is stopping the rest of the unfortunate to strive for wealth the same way those fortunate few strived. If they don’t want to work hard, then they really can’t expect to get wealthy. But yes as an individual of conscience, we should take care of the unfortunate others. The only way to do is voluntarily and without coercion. When government is involved it uses force against the individuals, the involuntary power of taxation.  A free market capitalist economy is the only economy that produce wealth and prosper the society. Healthy competition and personal innovations drive the price down of goods and services and benefits the society. Take for example, the electronic industry, the least government intervened market in the U.S.A and the health care industry, one of the most government intervened market. The prices of electronics are becoming less and less expensive. What used to be the luxury of few in the past has become the necessity of many today while the cost of health and medical expenses are sky rocketing.  If you are talking about the global wealth being concentrated in the hands of few, then you are not really talking about free market economy but a Fascist-Corporate economy where the corporate interests colludes with the government. That is the prime reason for most of the world’s suffering. Multinationals robbing the third world of their resources. That is why I am staunch opponent of globalization. given a choice between a not-for-profit org and government, I trust the latter. Besides, government’s role is not just to help but provide stability for sustainability. I would leave that on your discretion to decide what an NGO like Maiti Nepal has accomplished in areas of human trafficking and what Nepalese government could only wish they could be as efficient and productive as Maiti Nepal. I know market adjusts itself but the cost of adjusting itself might be too huge….if we can decrease the damage why not do so? The cost of adjustment is high precisely because of government involvement. Quasi governmental agency like FED creates bubbles by inflating and then deflating the economy. In a free-market economy, failure is rewarded with bankruptcy and liquidation. In corporate state like the USA, government forces taxpayers to reward failures with “bail outs” so those filthy rich bastard could have billions in bonuses. And they feed good individual like you by saying “if we can decrease the damage why not do so?”.  but the distribution of burden does help achieve things that one person might not find important..but in larger scheme of things it might be beneficial. Distribution of burden, distribution of wealth is a communist philosophy. If you are a communist, then there is not much to say here. You can’t believe in individual freedom if you don’t believe in personal responsibility. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you want government to take care of you from cradle to grave, may be North Korea is better option for you. If absolute capitalism was allowed, we, from the third world, would never have the privilege of debating this issue here. If absolute capitalism was allowed, we would not be calling ourselves from the third world. Government role should be reduced, but we still need it in many things. Government role should be reduced and we need it for only few things – national defense, non interventionist foreign policies, protecting individual’s freedom and liberties to name few.  

Nas · Jun 30, 2011 4:55 PM

 Nas makes a good point

oi oi oi · Jun 30, 2011 9:00 PM

 Constitutional Monarch as head of state and executive PM as head of government.

NALAPANI · Jun 30, 2011 11:28 PM

 Hi Nas Bro, Can you give me the name of one single nation which is close to if not totally based upon your libertarian views? A country where paying taxes is an option? Excuse me, but I think total libertarianism is as unpragmatic and unrealizable as total communism.  Thanks

jay-z · Jul 1, 2011 7:56 AM

Something to ponder: "One of the oldest puzzles in politics is who is to regulate the regulators. But an equally baffling problem, which has never recieved the attention it deserves is who is to make wise those who are required to have wisdom." - John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash 1929.

Megalomaniac · Jul 1, 2011 9:06 AM