? 
why this is so fantastic? and what msg she is trying to give?-that king gyanendra was absolute dictator and political parties launched peacful protests back in 2006? and now the same people are in power who once she supported she sort of back track and put the blames on the others- india, was indian not there in 2006?
Nepal’s Stalled Revolution
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23thapa.html?_r=1&ref=asia)By MANJUSHREE THAPA
Published: February 22, 2011
“Really?”
“He left Cairo for Sharm el-Sheikh. The army’s taken charge,” she said. No one at that Feb. 11 party, neither the foreign-educated Nepalis nor the expatriates who call Nepal home, had any connection to Egypt. Yet the victory felt personal. A bottle of wine appeared and we toasted Egypt.
As protests spread in Bahrain, Yemen, Iran and Libya, what is emerging as the “Arab Spring” continues to resonate here. Just five years ago, the world was watching Nepal as it now watches the Mideast and we had our dreams of democracy.
“I don’t know why, but I love to see people revolting against their leaders,” Jhalak Subedi, a magazine editor, wrote on Facebook.
“We Nepalis, we grew up with political movements,” he explained over a cup of coffee. He had came of age amid student politics, was even jailed in 1990 for his activism. “Despite all our movements, we still haven’t been able to have the kind of change our hearts are set on,” he said. “I think that’s why we feel so happy when we see change taking place elsewhere.”
We also approach world events seeking correspondences between our history and that of others. India’s struggle for freedom from British rule inspired Nepal’s first democratic movement in 1950. Forty years later, our second democratic movement was energized by events farther off: the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in Eastern Europe.
Our third and most recent movement took place in 2006, when democratic political parties and Maoist rebels united against King Gyanendra Shah, ending a 10-year civil war. Millions of Nepalis participated in nonviolent demonstrations in a show of support. Nineteen days after that, the king relinquished power; two years later, a newly elected Constituent Assembly abolished the 240-year-old monarchy with a near-unanimous vote. With the democratic political parties and the Maoists vowing to work together peacefully, a “new Nepal” felt attainable. ( was 240 year old monarchy is that evil, has she ever read what king mahendra did in the devlopment of nepal and protect country's sovereignity? not to mention to make her father a top notch diplomat/minister?-this seems good material for the west)
Five years later, it still has not taken shape.
Instead, we have learned that it is easier to start a revolution than to finish one. Overthrowing the monarchy was difficult, but institutionalizing democracy is harder still.
Our democratic parties are inexperienced, deferring to “big brother” India on all matters political. But India has backed an inflexible policy of containing the Maoists. And the Maoists have also been unwilling to compromise, holding on to their 19,000-troop army and their paramilitary group, the Young Communist League, and refusing to turn into just another political party. (sort of retraction ??)
The result has been a bitter polarization between hard-liners of democratic and Maoist persuasion.
The May deadline set for finishing our new constitution is less than 100 days away, but the document remains in rough draft. The will to complete it — among the democratic political parties and the Maoists, as well as in India — appears to be wholly lacking.
And now Kathmandu is rife with rumors that the Constituent Assembly — the country’s only elected body — will be dissolved through a military-backed “democratic coup.” Equally dismal scenarios in the public imagination are a return to civil war, the escalation of localized conflicts or the rise of the criminal underworld. ( mere sensalization to gain attention??)
Whether or not the worst comes to pass, it is clear by now that the democratic political parties and the Maoists prefer to prioritize their own struggle for power. They have left it to us to find our place in the world.
This, we increasingly do by leaving. Unable to earn a living wage at home, up to 1,000 Nepalis are estimated to leave the country every day to work as migrant laborers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the Middle East and the Far East, often under very exploitative conditions. As many as six million Nepalis live in India, and hundreds of thousands more have migrated to the developed world. In London and New York and Toronto, Nepali is now spoken on the streets.
“Those who could lead a new movement — you could call it the Facebook generation — have left the country,” says Mr. Subedi.
And there is no single tyrant against whom to direct a movement. What we have in Nepal is a “ganjaagol,” a mire.
“The thing about movements,” Mr. Subedi says, “is that at a certain point, the ordinary person experiences power. Beforehand and afterwards, nobody pays him any attention. But at a certain point, the ordinary person feels his own power.
“That feeling,” he says, narrowing his eyes. “That feeling ... .”
He does not complete his sentence, but we both know what he means. So many Nepalis have experienced this giddy sense that change is possible.
For now, we watch others in the Arab world feel their power. We wish them well, and worry for their safety, and share in their victories.
They inspire us. They make us feel wistful, and also a bit envious.
Has Democracy Collapsed?
(http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2011/others/guestcolumn/apr/guest_columns_06.php)
By Yubaraj Ghimire
The rule by a majority obtained through a fair election process is the main feature of democracy. In its conduct, the majority needs to stick to a set of principles, at the political and the party levels. In governance, it needs to adhere to the principle of accountability. The absence of accountability in politics and governance is an anti-thesis to democracy. Minority voice or dissent within the party is another parameter for the measurement of democracy. The practice and principles of democracy elsewhere entail a guarantee to certain freedoms and rights, namely, freedom of expression, right to own property, and right to uphold human dignity, among others. In the days to come, the right to a dignified livelihood, that essentially means the right against poverty and hunger, is likely to be included among the fundamental rights. An independent judiciary free from any executive interference, and a free and fair electoral system, unaffected by money and muscle power,are essential ingredients of a truly democratic practice that we set out for during our democratic struggles.
Where are we in this journey that started in April 2006? The beginning was full of euphoria, but commitment and character were lacking. Political vendetta and quest for revenge were the weapons that the neo rulers under the leadership of G P Koirala, of course with the support from the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) and the Maoists, and with full backing from the international community, used against political opponents. The rulers turned the country into a fief (birta)—as noted scholar Kedar Bhakta Mathema says—instead of a democratic state. The parliament, which was dissolved in May 2002, was revived by invoking the doctrine of political necessity four years later. It then turned into a crowd of ‘yes men (and women)’ with no institutional pride. Two leaders- Nepali Congress’s G P Koirala and Maoist Chief Prachanda—enjoyed a position much above parliament deciding things in their room jointly and imposing the decisions upon the parliament. Dictators always use the so-called representative bodies as a ‘rubber stamp’ and the collective willingness of that institution to succumb to individuals made democracy and democratic institutions weaker.
They were given the status above accountability. And gradually, they roped in some other parties—UML, Madheshi groups—and as per the composition of parliament (and later Constituent Assembly) and the government, and also began a system of distributing key positionsamong their loyalists and supporters. They did that all in the name of pursuing a progressive politics and abolishing feudalism. The civil society, the media and the international backers were either meek in their response, or they started playing second fiddle in a way that was both against their expected roles as well as Nepal’s sovereignty.
And worse, they never said democracy was facing its worst trial, much worse than it was during the Royal takeover. Yes, King Gyanenndra misinterpreted the constitution and took over. But the new dispensation totally attacked the principle of constitutionalism and democracy. Opposition was crushed as the first two leaders, then four parties—Nepali Congress, UML, Maoists and the Madheshi groups –became the self-proclaimed champion of ‘politics of consensus’ and that consensus became more powerful than the interim constitution or undermined the principle of constitutionalism.
The Supreme court has recently convicted a Nepali Congress leader and a former minister in corruption cases. But as the country turns into a ‘birta’ of four parties, not a single political leader belonging to the parties during the ‘progressive regime’ of the past four years has been booked for corruption, although everyone knows the scale of corruption and misappropriation of government funds in a discretionary manner were the largest ever for the country.Democracy never got practiced in actual sense. The leaders and rulers of the past four years have refused to accept the system of accountability. Economy has almost collapsed. The country prominently figures in the list of fragile states. And yet no accountability has been fixed for this colossal failure. Yet, some leaders are making dangerous statements that the country’s sovereignty is less important than the peace process and constitution making.
The parliament, which is also a Constituent Assembly of 601 members, cannot survive indefinitely at the cost of taxpayer’s money. It has neither debated the people’s problems nor their general insecurity, price rise and other myriads of issues concerning them. It has lost faith and hope that the people reposed in it earlier. There are no signs that it will deliver a complete and democratic constitution. Nor is it likely to settle major issues or debates on federalism and its bases. The king was held accountable for what he did, and perhaps, what he did not do. But will these leaders and the House be held accountable for their collective failure?
It will be interesting to watch if even a single member of any party resigns on the call of conscience questioning the moral authority of the House and his or her own to continue being there? Absence of accountability and a politics sans morality will pave the way either for authoritarianism or anarchy.