The sub-committee formed to settle disputes over the new constitution has started discussion on the report of its taskforce regarding the the form of governance, which has proved to be one of the most contentious issue, from Thursday.

Not that we have any say on the consitution drafting process, but if you were to suggest a form of governance, what would you suggest?

President as the head of state or Prime minister? King? or some new form of governance?

Here are what major parties are advocating:

Nepali Congress:      Westminster model (Prime minister is the head of state, elected by the parliament)
CPN (Maoist);             Directly elected Presidential system.
CPN (UML):                 French model (directly elected president, PM elected by parliament). President shares exec power with PM.
Sadhbhawana:           French model

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 Nas makes a good point

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

 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

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.