Election: Prestige or necessity ?
BY ANIL PANDEY anilmelvin@hotmail.com
California


The failure for the King and political parties to work together may be called as unfortunate, paradox or manipulation by foreigners. But it is easier to understand it has the clash of egos. Both of them accept that the only way to bring about peace and stability in the country is to follow the Constitution of 2047.
Although the seven political parties have said that they would accept for no less than election to constituent assembly they will not be able to carry for long that slogan of the Maoists that would only help the authoritarian rule. There is no doubt that the political parties will have a secure future in carrying the King's thinking than to carry the Maoists guns. This scribe cannot believe the claims seven parties, which do not understand this simple logic, that they are running the agitation. It is proved beyond doubt that peace and prosperity in Nepal is possible by the joint endeavour of the King and the political parties. But the parties, which ignore the King and the King who ignore the political parties cannot bring peace to this country.
No one can deny that King Gyanendra has really tried to do something good for the country. It is true that the political parties had failed to hold the election and the political situation of the country was thrown into confusion and disorder in the absence of general election. Everybody knows that the only alternate to election is another election. Everybody has felt that the balance of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy was disrupted because of the outdated thinking, and personal ego and arrogance of the political leaders. Everybody knows that this haughtiness on the part of the political parties has now led to the danger of foreign interference and Maoist intervention. Still, there is no sign of tearing down the cloak of vanity and attempt for conciliation. Because of their arrogance, the political parties are feeling shame to participate in the local and national election called by the king. But if the parties are willing to accept that the King has been traditionally being honoured as guardian of the country, the process of reconciliation will take speed.
In his every speech, the King has been repeatedly expressed his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. The King has also committed that he would bring the derailed political process back on track and hand over the responsibility of running the country to the people through election. Doesn't the King have the right to find way to return back to the preamble of the constitution? Shouldn't he get the cooperation and support to make it easy for the people's representatives to take over the reign?
The parties and the people can only doubt the King's intentions if he do not return the executive power to the people within the time he has asked for. Only then the parties and the people can say, why should they participate in the election called by the King. It is nothing but the example of the meanest level of thinking on the part of the political parties to say that if they will become inferior and the King will be superior if they participate in the election conducted by the government headed by the King. Therefore, it would not surprising if the King do not agree to the parties' expression that they would want to rule without the King. However, there is no evidence that the King has any ulterior motive. In his earlier and lately the address to the nation on February 1, the King has expressed full commitment to make it easier for multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. The King has also called on those who are taking up arms to join the mainstream politics.
It would be wrong to think that the King has ignored the political parties by calling them to participate in the elections and to form their government. It would have been wiser for the parties to participate in the election just to apologize to the people that it was their mistake, which gave rise to Maoist insurgency. All the political leaders should understand that they should rather promote the feeling of nationalism than to continue playing dirty politics upon the lives of people. Our politicians have failed to gauze the people's nerves and understand their feelings. People now do not want constituent assembly and another constitution. Because no matter how good a constitution may be, it can be only as good as the people who handle it. Nepal's true friends and well-wishers have rightly concluded that democracy in Nepal can be promoted only if the King and the political parties join hands and work together.

If the political parties didnt like to participate in the elections for any reason there is nothing anyone can do anything about.

There are more options left other than just normalization of relationship between political parties and the king. Why not king open his grip on Nepal's military so that the military can be loyal to its taxpayers rather than the one who doesnt even pay taxes ?

"No one can deny that King Gyanendra has really tried to do something good for the country" - This is the funniest statement I have ever read in my life time.

Pandey dude
I strongly believe that your sight is limited to the year 1990. Yes I agree that political parties and their failures were somewhat responsible for bringing this grave situation however they are not the only factors in this soup. Many factors come together for a situation to arise. It will be rather an ignorance to give full credit to the political parties for the rise of Maoist insurgency.

Socio-economic and socio-political situation of Nepali society had reached a point where
some form of armed insurgency would have arisen even if the democracy had not been restored in 1990. Look at centar and south American countries for examples.

Both of them accept that the only way to bring about peace and stability in the country is to follow the Constitution of 2047.
 Not necessarily. The parties are saying they are ready to go for a constituent assembly, which implies that the constitution of 2047 is obsolete for them! Moreover, their demand is to bring the army under an elected government, which contradicts with your blind assertion that the parties accept the 2047 constitution.


Although the seven political parties have said that they would accept for no less than election to constituent assembly they will not be able to carry for long that slogan of the Maoists that would only help the authoritarian rule.
 Whose authoritarian rule?


There is no doubt that the political parties will have a secure future in carrying the King's thinking than to carry the Maoists guns.
 Good thinking! So the king has brain and the Maoist has guns! Unfortunately, honey, all the evidence lies on the other side of the barricade: seems like both have guns and no brains. It’s the king’s ministers who said the army could shoot peaceful protestors (use “those disrupting the polls” for a sexy escape, but everyone knows whose “disrupting the polls” refers to: peaceful protestors!).


This scribe cannot believe the claims seven parties, which do not understand this simple logic, that they are running the agitation.
 Well, that “scripe” clearly seems to have understood things! I have been reading that scribe’s writing here in Sajha and elsewhere and for someone with a phd attached to his name, that scribe’s arguments are usually, if not always, lame. Not because that scribe supports the king (there are many people here in this forum whose arguments I respect despite the fact that they support the king, but “[that] scribe” is certainly not one of them!


It is proved beyond doubt that peace and prosperity in Nepal is possible by the joint endeavour of the King and the political parties.
 When was it proved? The king and the parties worked “together” for 12 years, didn’t they? And when you say the 12-yrs of democracy failed and when you say the king and the parties should work together, aren’t you contradicting yourself? Or are you saying that they should work “together” only that the king should have more power?

No one can deny that King Gyanendra has really tried to do something good for the country.
 Like somebody above, I like your sense of humor!

It is true that the political parties had failed to hold the election and the political situation of the country was thrown into confusion and disorder in the absence of general election.
 Now that the elections are over and “successful” with 20 – wait, did I hear 20? – percent participation rate, what has changed?


Everybody knows that the only alternate to election is another election.
 Add “municipal” before the first “election” and “constituent assembly” before the second “election” and we will probably agree with each other. Otherwise, those are Panchayati ghost Tulsi Giri’s words; he owns the copyright, not some random pandey in California!


Everybody has felt that the balance of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy was disrupted because of the outdated thinking, and personal ego and arrogance of the political leaders.
 Oh, yeah, and your king has been so accommodating so far!

Everybody knows that this haughtiness on the part of the political parties has now led to the danger of foreign interference and Maoist intervention.
 Buying weapons from China is NOT interference. Generals visiting Pakistan begging for weapons and support is NOT interference. But the U.S., India, Japan and EU saying that the elections were a hollow attempt at legitimizing Gyanendra’s rule are all interference!


The political parties are feeling shame to participate in the local and national election called by the king.
 Call it whatever.

But if the parties are willing to accept that the King has been traditionally being honoured as guardian of the country, the process of reconciliation will take speed.
 Why should they? Why should person A consider another person B his guardian? What makes the king the guardian of the people? Guardian of the country? Why should the king have the special power? In a country where Hinduism is one of the MANY religions, the king shamelessly calls himself a Hindu King! How can he be the patron of people with different faiths? Again, why him and not somebody else?


In his every speech, the King has been repeatedly expressed his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy.
 Prachanda has said cool things too, honey. But what matters to people is not what these idiots say, but their actions! And, like I said earlier, there is A LOT of room to question the king’s intentions!


Doesn't the King have the right to find way to return back to the preamble of the constitution?
 1) Preamble?
2) Return BACK (where else would one RETURN? – sorry couldn’t help on this one!)
3) Of course he has the right, but he can’t force people to accept his new, modified interpretation of the constitution. Unless, of course, he agrees to go to constituent assembly and people vote for him!


The parties and the people can only doubt the King's intentions if he do not return the executive power to the people within the time he has asked for.
 Why not? Why can’t we doubt his intentions?


It is nothing but the example of the meanest level of thinking on the part of the political parties to say that if they will become inferior and the King will be superior if they participate in the election conducted by the government headed by the King.
 “Meanest level of thinking”….You crack me up. As always!

Therefore, it would not surprising if the King do not agree to the parties' expression that they would want to rule without the King.
 No need to give 200-words of Mahabharat only to say that the king is great. State it forthright!


However, there is no evidence that the King has any ulterior motive.
 Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the kind does not have any ulterior motive either.


In his earlier and lately the address to the nation on February 1, the King has expressed full commitment to make it easier for multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy.
 Easy for the “constitutional” monarchy. Certainly not for multi-party democracy.


The King has also called on those who are taking up arms to join the mainstream politics.
 If only words meant anything!

All the political leaders should understand that they should rather promote the feeling of nationalism than to continue playing dirty politics upon the lives of people.
 Nationalism, my $%#! Why is it hard to see any supporter of the king who does not retort to this nationalism? Nationalism is not something you can’t impose on people. Period. And it’s not your pet – get it! – for you to label everyone who does not agree with you as not understanding nationalism.

People now do not want constituent assembly and another constitution.
 That’s why SO MANY people voted in the election. Face it, Mr. Pandey, supporters of democracy are in the street NO MATTER WHAT, even to an extent when one of their people has been shot dead by the king’s army. If the people cared SO MUCH about this constitution and the KING, I am positive they would have shown up in the street somehow! Oh, yeah, I forgot, there was this huge rally of 100 motorcyclists in DurbarMarg supporting the king! What a huge number!

Because no matter how good a constitution may be, it can be only as good as the people who handle it.
I agree.


Nepal's true friends and well-wishers have rightly concluded that democracy in Nepal can be promoted only if the King and the political parties join hands and work together.
 This statement is amazing because if the "friends" did not say that, they would not be called “true friends” or “well-wishers” by you.

Well Mr, M.P
I like some of your line but reading all your view I do not agree most of them.
By the way you do not need to tell me about the nationalism. I know very well about ok. But do me big favors please give speech to all you’re so called leader and please tell them to open their eyes what and how they ruin Past12 years when they were in power. Please tell and teach to all you’re so called leader that how they can become Nationalism .And one more thing if we are Nepalese we should not forget our culture Traditional and respect to elder and love to juniors.
If we know the basic we wouldn’t be here today. Talking about special power
Why can't your parent have right to tell if you do stupid mistake? Ok then.
Let me tell you something Parties have to accept the king doesn’t ask me why? You will understand latter why. And I do not like to bring religious in this matter that will be anther topic.

NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS ?
well how do you expect democracy to work without critics and criticisms ?

British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship Symposium

The 12th annual British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship Symposium will be held at the Academy on 26 April 2006. Speakers will make short presentations about aspects of the work for which they have been awarded Academy Postdoctoral Fellowships. The talks will cover the full range of Humanities and Social Sciences, with titles including Migration, invisibility and displacement in the context of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and Popular newspapers and their critics: challenging the ‘freedom of the press’ in twentieth century Britain.

More information, including the programme and abstracts is available from:
www.britac.ac.uk/events/2006/pdf-symp/
Tel: 020 7969 5235
E-mail: pdfsymp@britac.ac.uk

There is no admission charge for attendance at this event, but if you wish to join us, it is essential to inform the Academy in advance of your intention to do so. The booking form is available online.