Samsara -

I dont mean disrespect but I see so many holes in your argument, I am not sure where I should start addressing them. I'll take them sequentially in the order you raised them:

"Your statement makes me think that you're still living in an imaginery perfect world where everyone follows the law, people open doors for the next passer-by or even pick up and hand you the change that fell outta your pocket. This is the most naive statement I've ever heard so far. You're assuming the realms of Western democracy here which is a far cry from what we have in Nepal."

I am not sure where you get that from - if it's from any of my statements here, then all I can say is it is a mis perception. I dont claim to be an expert on politics but if you do not see power sharing as the key to good governance and successful politics, then that is what is really naive.

"Here polls are manipulated through terror and local goons (brought into the village where the polls are being held in busloads) who can sway the voting public with their presence around the poll booths. Yes, the damn cops are there but they've either been paid off before-hand or are too friggin scared coz their jaagir is at risk. How do I know this? I have seen BS like this take place firsthand as my very cousin (no names here) was among the hired political pawns for a certain party where every election period (back in the days), he took busloads of local hoodlums to the areas outside Ktm...

I don't doubt that. Unfortunately stuff like that happens in an evolving third world democracy whether it is Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or any place else. Elections are not perfect and I accept that. Such things happened when the King was in power and some of it continued to the two or three elections we had under a multi party system and we saw it big time when King Gyanendra and Kamal Thapa conducted a farce of an election. But I'd argue elections have been more free, but not perfect, under a democratic system than under the King. The Monarchy has proved it is not interested in holding elections - let alone sharing power - so it's rather absurd to criticize the democratic system for not holding a perfect election and then turn around the next minute and endorse a system that does not even believe in elections!



"I'm stating facts of Nepali elections here. Anyone from the villages here in sajha would coorborate fo sure. I'd suggest you and most of our sajha democrazy enthusiasts to find out what happens in the village polls this election period (if you have anyone who lives there). The parties as you said do not "represent the aspirations of the people" but rather, forces its aspirations as a yoke on the people.

I disagree. The parties werent interested in re-structuring the state for example. That was something that came from bottom to and some would say took them by surprise. Likewise with the Congress and Monarchy. The decision to go neutral was the result of grassroots pressure. That said, there is still a lot of top-down agenda setting going on and that's what federalism and devolution of power are about.

"And power transfer to the public? When has this ever taken place?"

Never. That's why we are in so much trouble and need to have more devolution of powers.

"This, my friend will never ever happen as long as the same netas continue with their tight grasp over Nepali politics. And power moving out of Ktm you say? The exact opposite happened during the 17 years of democracy. I still remember back during the late 80s (before democracy)when the govt begain a process of decentralization. Pokhara, Biratnagar and the whole Nepalgunj area were being developed as other industrial towns (industires outside Ktm sprung up in Hetauda, Lumbini, etc.). After democroacy came about, where else did this branch out? Instead all these village netas moved into Ktm and brought their cronies and other villagers there too (and these cronies brought others too)."

I disagree. The Panchayat model was not workable because it did not go far enough. The development centers it created had little impact because these regions did not have administrative and executive authority. They were created to facilitate the process of central planning ( oh what a "commie" concept, no?).

" Note that in Nepal, a minister wins the election from his district but ironically lives his term in Ktm instead (my neighbor was the minister of Labor and he hailed from a certain village where he visited only during election time). How on earth is this minister supposed to know what ails his village? If the kids are going to school? If they have enough security? If there's enough to eat there? It ain't like the US where the governor of a particular state resides in his own state. Imagine if they lived 24/7 in DC instead? A public outrage."

Such behavior is deplorable. I can only hope such politicians get voted out. But how is this a rationale for not having democracy? If such a thing is happening in a system where politicians are elected, it will probably happen more in a system where they are not elected and are not even half as accountable to parliament and the people as they would be under a democracy. I'd argue such apathy on the part of politicos was way more prevalent during the Panchayat - especially it's later years than during democracy. I'd even go as far as saying the parties seem to be able to gain support popular in spite of all their screw ups precisely because of this - the King is seen as simply not able to connect to his people even half as much as the parties have.

"Please note that I'm blaming the netas for all the destruction we've faced so far. The royals did impediment years of development but they in my view have done more than these chor netas have for the past 17 years of negative development: both monetary and social (If we factor in the fall in the currency exchange rate/the polulation discplaced by the maoist violence/the total dead or missing/subsistence farmers losing the lil they have to feed the rebel militia/etc). "

This goes back to my previous point about misplaced blame. Yes the economy has screwed up and the parties share the responsibility for it. But, if you look at the reasons for economic downturns (in some areas certainly), they point to a flaw with the way society is structured and organized and unless we change this, you are unlikely to see the environment that is needed for good economic growth. In order for political stability (imperative for economic growth) to come, we must address the reasons for instability - namely the disparities that are causing people to take to protests. I am confident political stability will not come to Nepal if the King takes over. In case you forgot, it did not 2 years ago and I dont see how it ever will.


"Now where on earth are these farmers and villagers on the brink of starvation and nothing to their name gonna go to? The city where though overcrowded polluted and a hotbed of crime, there is a better chance for survival. This has made towns that were once on the path to industrialization and filled with job opportunities (the lil industrialisation today we have started back in the 1970/80s) become places that are today diseconomies of scale. The whole rebel movement brought about by this 17 year fiasco has crippled life outside Ktm as the netas never thought of giving importance outside Ktm (and not the King) during their entire 17 years of governance."

Nepal's decline started in the 80s right under the nose of the Panchayat and it hasn't gotten any better. I hold both the King and parties responsible. On this account, I have zero sympathy with anyone - King or parties. The primary reason for decline, as I see it, was explosive population growth, corruption - Panchayati and Bhudaliya - and the lack of investment in education. I am not sure when towns were "filled with job opportunities" - certainly not in the 80s when the current trend of migration to India accelerated and Nepal's villages started emptying.

Also, the rebel movement was not brought about by democracy alone. In case you missed the signs, the seeds for it were sowed long before we had democracy in Nepal. I am actually surprised it started so late. I suspect that might have been because the NC and the UML acted as a buffer for a while.

"I still claim that democracy under the netas we had/still have was the biggest mistake ever. We need people who will lead us rather than those looking to loot us. I and we all know that for the past 17 years the public are the ones who suffered most. And you still say we have aspirations in the parties?? Never have, never will. Give me an army rule anyday rather than these friggin netas or worse, the fuggin commies!!"

You are entitled to your opinions but you might be out of touch with public opinion in Nepal. Opinion polls have shown people favor a democracy over a dictatorial Monarchy by huge margins. You could argue opinion polls are not always correct, but they are the only indicators we have had in the absence of elections. I can provide the links to the polls here if you need verification.

As for Army rule, I think it's the last resort of delusional and defeated Monarchists. If they could have taken over, they would have. It is simply not sustainable. If the Army ever takes over they will end up handing back power to the parties sooner or later.

Democracy in Nepal is here to stay. The focus, IMO, should be how to strengthen it, make our elected representatives more accountable and have as good a union as we can under the circumstances. Trying to fight democracy altogether - however imperfect it may be - is a loosing battle as it has been shown the world over.


It has been interesting talking about Monarchy in broad terms but I think that is a topic that has been exhausted here on Sajha. I am happy to talk about the nationalization of the King's property - or something specific - as that might produce more meaningful ideas than a broad based discussion about the Monarchy.

{Argh, typos everywhere, please excuse those that slipped editing}