Got this from Samudaya website.
Well said..
"
Historic DC Rally of May 15, 2005: some resentment
--Somnath Ghimire

I wanted to let you all know the outcome feelings of the people who attended
the Historic DC Rally.

More than 80 percent of the DC Rally Demonstrators have the following
queries: DC Rally became successful in quantity but not in quality.

1) What was the main agenda of the DC Rally?

2) Was it for the Pro-King, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Political Parties or for
Opportunists?

3) Why Speakers were not sorted out? Why were they not given a certain
boundary/topic to present in their speech?

4) If King Gyanendra suppressed the freedom of Speech in Nepal, why did
not we do that to all Mandaless/King's Supporters in their speech in the
Rally? Why was Prem Raja Mahat given a chance to present his speech instead
of singing a song? Is he a Pro-Democrat or Pro-King?

5) As it says in WWW.DCRALLY.ORG, DC Rally Committee, who are in the
committee? Why the names were/are not disclosed? Or the committee without
any names??..?

6) Was the DC Rally for launching ceremony of the book "Broken Pen"?
This was unknown to all of us. How did Murari Raj Sharma become the Chief
Guest in the middle of the Program?

7) Why & How was Murari Raj Sharma given a title of the Commander of
Democracy?

8) It was announced that, "it's raining now we have sorted our speakers
including Sherpa's": Why we need to say that, demoralizing lower caste
people, and we say that we need to be in diversity. Again, right after the
rain stopped and Sherpa was called back to podium, what is this nonsense? As
pointed out that T.Kumar of AI presented his speech under an umbrella, why
not Sherpa? There were people from Tamang, Rai and Gurung as well. Where is
the trend of respecting the all strata of life irrespective of all caste,
color, creed, gender, origin, religion and nationality?

9) Why Murari Raj Sharma got half an hour time to present his speech
and not others? Why did not we get the idea of "INCLUSIVE" instead of
"EXCLUSIVE"? People were frustrated.

10) Why people from NJ, MA, RI, Maine, Ohio, and South Carolina were not
given a minute to say their words of Democracy? As it was announced that
every representative from each States will be given a chance to speak, and
few got their chances including Girija Gautam, single man representing from
Tennessee. Isn't it a biased?

11) Why Nepalese Democratic Youth Council in USA became the platform for
the Opportunist and the Pro-King People? Why and how the NDYCUSA is
established? What is its aim? Why NDYCUSA is being used by Middle Ground
People? Can't NDYCUSA become in the Top Ground? We don't need the second
best; we need to be in the "First Best".

12) Why our people heard the words "Shree Panch Maharaja Dhiraj" in the
vote of thanks speech. Is this in favor of the King or against? Listen we are in the 21st Century."

and we are having miscommunication here: an authritarian ruler does nots ay, look I'll give you democarcy after this many years.. he inititates policies that will make the nation democratic (despite his resistance to it) in the long run. Like I wrote in my reply to DCGIRL, the economic reforms create the preconditions or conditions necesasry for democracy, and the nation democratzies itslef.. without any external influence or without affecting the internal social/political stability.

Democratization vs. Westernization vs. Capitalization

Although political democracy and economic capitalism have become integral pat of Western cultures, the formers need not necessarily be misunderstood as limited to the latter.

If you remember it well, ISO, I too vehemently opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq in the name of spreading democracy. I still believe that the key purpose of that invasion was not to liberalize the people of Iraq, rather it was desigend to liberalize the oil market to incorporate advantages to American companies. The most disturbing aspect of the whole process, though, is that in the name of "democracy," the Americans have been oblivious to the fact that they have been trying to "Westernize" the Iraqi society. This is a very common mistake that leads to obvious chaos, something that the opponents of democracy have been able to use against such processes.

Yes, I agree that every society has their own respective values; and notwithstanding the fact that some of those values may be antiquated and needs to be let go of, most of the other ujnique traits of respective societies needs to be fully respected. Nevertheless, I still belive that the principles of freedom and democracy, if NOT confused with westernization or capitalization, will always have rooms in every society.

Humans are innately freedom-yearning; and they are at their best, both in terms of daily functionings AND in terms of ability to achieve more, only when they are set free. That is why the freer societies (again, let's not confuse "Western" with "free") in general have done better than the societies which thrive in some form of authoritarian system(s).

Being free does not, and should not, mean being Western, nor does it mean embracing capitalism. There are societies that strongly uphold their traditional values (e.g. Japan) and have strong socialist influence in their economies (e.g. many european countries) that have done extremely well because they have chosen to set their people free. I am aware of the fact that few countries have been exceptions to this, but as I and others have already explained above, those countries had other exceptional advantages that allowed them to maneuver their political and social processes whatever way they chose. Still, regardless of how economically prosperous they may be, I wonder if Chinese or Singaporean people are as equally developed in terms of human growth, i.e., in terms of psychological and emotional aspects of life.

There's a soccer match.. but suddenly they (the players) decide to play volleyball after the half-time and decide to play it till the end.. so, the game changes. you cannot say they are still playing soccer. You have to agree that now they are playing volleyball. whether they interrupted the scoccer game, or departed for a while or put a temporary halt to the game or decided to play it later, the fact is at the present they are not playing soccer.

Nevertheless, I still belive that the principles of freedom and democracy, if NOT confused with westernization or capitalization, will always have rooms in every society.


I don't disagree, but we have to understand one thing: The democratci values and traditions from Umma (islamic community) to Panchayat (village councils) are not capable of adjusting to democarcy as we uinderstand the word today. If you want to implant a modern concpet in a mediveal setting, its not going to work. So to have the modern concept work, you don't have to westernize the society, but modernize the society, and only the economic growth fosters modernization by making education available to the masses.

" Being free does not, and should not, mean being Western, nor does it mean embracing capitalism. There are societies that strongly uphold their traditional values (e.g. Japan) and have strong socialist influence in their economies (e.g. many european countries) that have done extremely well because they have chosen to set their people free. I am aware of the fact that few countries have been exceptions to this, but as I and others have already explained above, those countries had other exceptional advantages that allowed them to maneuver their political and social processes whatever way they chose. Still, regardless of how economically prosperous they may be, I wonder if Chinese or Singaporean people are as equally developed in terms of human growth, i.e., in terms of psychological and emotional aspects of life. "

japanbese democracy works because Japan started the modernization process in 1864 under the rubric of Fukoku Kyohei (rich nation, powerful army) and Bunmei Kaika, which led to Japan's modernization, not westernization and its economic/industrial growth (of course this all later proved disastrous for Japan).

I think the Chinese and Singaporeans are equal to the Japanese or others, if they were not, their nations wouldn't have achieved this tremendous economic growth. And only the countries with emotionally mature populations can achieve what China has achieved in the last 25 years. My view.

Yo DC rally ta dherai bho, aba kuhiyera ganauna thali sakyo.........no comments at all aba dekhi hai.

aaba bholi kura garaula.. aaja sutne bela bhayo aaba.

good night.

Finally, a summary in the Nepali context.

We have tried authoritarian rules of one form or the other for over 220 years in Nepal. even if we discount the pre-Rana and the Rana eras are irrelevant, we still had 30 years of Panchayati authoritarian rule in our modern political history. They (it) got us no where. Instead, suppressed people were made so incapable of functioning freely that when democracy came, they may have lost some sense and chaos erupted. Precisely because we do not want this to happen in the future, I say, we MUST endure initals hardships that democracy entails, so that we will be better off in terms of responsibility and civility in the future, by having learned from mistakes in democracy.

12 years if democracy is nothing compered firstly to 30 years of Panchayat, and it is nothing compared to what might be required to see proper fruition of democracy. Political and social transformations take AT LEAST a generation to take positive effects. Nevertheless, despite all the problems Nepal faced during the 12 years of relatively free society, the society was atleast headed int he right direction. INterms of physical development, road networks were DOUBLED, electricity networks TRIPLED (refer to Kanak Dixit's article -- I even forget which one -- for exact figures. Upcoming ICG report, which I have had the opportunity to preview, states that overall growth rate during 30 years of Panchayat was 3.4%, compared to 5% during 12 years of relatively freer society, this DESPITE the Maoists problem.

Besides the numbers, ISO, let me give you an example that I can personally relate to as someone who has had spent significant numbers of years in the US as a student:

When I came to the US for the first time to start an undergraduate studies in 1989, and even until the early 90's, Nepali foreign student in the US were very few -- perhaps in the dozens -- and the vast majority of them were high school graduates of either St. Xavier's, or St. Mary's, or Budhanilkantha. Not only they came from those three elite high schools, many of them were from well-to-do families from the KTM Valley.

You look at the picture now. Not only there are hundreds upon hundreds of Nepali students in the US, majority of them (collectively) are not only from "other" high schools in the valley, but there are quite a few from small schools in the villages. I personally know quite a few of them who are doing PhDs here in the US. This is EMPOWERMENT. Something that those students' elder siblings or their parents could not even have dreamed of, they are enjoying it in reality now. all this was possible ONLY in democracy through better access to resources and information.

अब, भोली आएर कोई शहरियाले त्यो गाउँको केटोलाई हेपोस् त! "तिमीले मात्र पढ्या लेख्या छैनौ, मैले नि PhD गर्?या छु!" भन्न सक्छ उसले। "तिमी मात्र देश बिदेश खाएर शेष भएका छैनौ, म नि पुग्याऽ छु त्यो अमेरिका र जापान!" भनेर जवाफ दिन सक्छ उ।

From arts, to literature, to music, to formal education, to media (FM stations and various other news outlets)...who were increasingly running the shows? They were the people outside of the valley! The areas that were previously under the strict control of an elite social clique from within the valley were now being dispersed to various people of various jaats who came from various areas in "other" Nepal. THIS IS EMPOWERMENT!

I know a lot more needed to be happening, and many were still feeling left behind. But at least the process was started and it was heading in the right direction. The benefits were not reaching everyone, but it was reaching to the people that it never reached before. This is not to justify and/or to glorify the NETAS. They were loathesome corrupts full of sheer ineptitude. I agree with all of you when you spit disgust at them. However, just becasue they turned out to be bad need not mean that the system was bad. Yes, the system had some flaws too, but what needed to be done was to correct those flaws through strengthening of democracy, NOT uproot it all together.

The bottom line is, Panchayati-type governance brought us only human misery in the name of nationalsim and coerced homogenity and peace. Human development -- development of the minds -- through EMPOWERMENT is what we need; and this was slowly but surely happening in the past 12 years or so.

I am not even saying that the King may not be the right person for us. Maybe he is. Maybe you are right. BUT, let the people debate that in a free and open manner, in a democratic framework. Whatever we have been abel to do in Sajha forums -- debate, argue vibrantly -- I want to happen in a national level. Raja pani maidaan ma uttros. Nadarayera. Army ko pachhi nalukera. I just don't want the King, or anybody else for that matter, shove his idealism down my throat through force. Even the King himself, and his ideas muast be a subject of debate and arguments.

couple of quick points:

Panchayat in its early years came up with amazing stuff too. Purba Pashcim Rajmarga, Araniko Rajmarga, Bhumi Sudhar karyakram etc.

" Political and social transformations take AT LEAST a generation to take positive effects. Nevertheless, despite all the problems Nepal faced during the 12 years of relatively free society, the society was atleast headed int he right direction. INterms of physical development, road networks were DOUBLED, electricity networks TRIPLED (refer to Kanak Dixit's article -- I even forget which one -- for exact figures. Upcoming ICG report, which I have had the opportunity to preview, states that overall growth rate during 30 years of Panchayat was 3.4%, compared to 5% during 12 years of relatively freer society, this DESPITE the Maoists problem. "

The hardships we endure today is not going to institutionalzie demcoarcy in the future, it is actually going to make the matters worse. Because with modern mass media, people have access to the lifeways of people living in westren countries (forget western couyntries, China) and they want that kind of lifestyle too. Nobody wants to endure hardships and poverty so that his unborn son can have a FREE life.

"Empowerment" and just what that led to? I am for positive empowerment.. yes, everyone should have a say in nation's politics and tjheir licves, but in a democratic manner.. in Nepal, it just took the tone of ethnic nationalism and you saw the developmnet of ethnic militant movements.

" However, just becasue they turned out to be bad need not mean that the system was bad. Yes, the system had some flaws too, but what needed to be done was to correct those flaws through strengthening of democracy, NOT uproot it all together."

But how exactly could those flaws be corrected under the same curropt rulers? How long could we wait? 15 years in enough waiting, in my view. Of course, if we were still living in the early 20th century, then things would have been different and we could have waited for 50-70 years, but we happen to live in the era of information age, where we have access to developmnet and better life of people not only in western democracies, but Singapore, malaysia and China.. and that leads to discontent with the system. The system becomes and for right reasons, if i may add, synonomous for misery, violence and poverty.


" The bottom line is, Panchayati-type governance brought us only human misery in the name of nationalsim and coerced homogenity and peace. Human development -- development of the minds -- through EMPOWERMENT is what we need; and this was slowly but surely happening in the past 12 years or so. "

And what has the democractic govt. brought us? more political instability, more ethnic divisions, more violence.. more external interfarance in the govt. So you are saying we just rely on the lofty ideals of democracy and say, aaja dukha bholi sukha... and hope and pray for the things to turn good or do something concrete? What are the probability of democarcy correcting itself in Nepal say even in the next 20 years under the present parties and their dirty politics? I don't see any. Bihar democratzied in 1947 along with the rest of India.. its been what.. 60 years, and the people there are still hoping that democracy would make them better.

aaba debate hunuparcha, hunu ramro ho.. tara nepali society is not a debating society like that of the US. You can see how debates turn ugly even between the highly educated elites right here in Sajha.. so what do you expect from the people who do not have a liberal arts edcucation.

Regarding those people now in America, have you asked how they are funding their education? Couldn't they ahve come there not becaus eof the fact that Nepal's economy is developing itslef, but because their parents, sisters, brothers or other relatives are working outside of Nepal and supporting their education? The whole economy is based on remittance.. there are 800,000 nepali workers in the Gulf region.. is that a sign of success? No. when you have so much of your working people, young people abraod working in harsh conditions (for the most part) to support their families back home or help with their sibling's/offspring's education in the US or elsewhere, it is sad.

the kaank's artcile is Bastavik Chalang..

Thanks IF for responding. I think we are getting into a loop. Here I will try to summarize our discussions.

I'm not clear where you stand; I know clearly that you do not support democracy. With regard to authoritarian regimes, you've cited examples from military dictatorships to constitutional monarchy. So do your arguments advocate for a complete authoritarian regime or a democracy with constitutional monarchy in Nepal?

If it is former you advocate, your argument is that with authoritative regime, we can build a strong economic base, and civil society will develop in the mean time, fostering the process of democratization in years to come. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I disagree. For democratization to foster:

1. A state should be able to hold a free and contested elections. Elections could assume real significance even under conditions of authoritarian rule, but the government resulting from elections like these lack the power to determine policies in significant areas because legislative and judicial powers are still constrained by 'authoritarian enclaves'. In these types of governments, significant national, economic, political actors spend resources attempting to achieve their objectives of sustaining a non-democratic regime.

2. You need a Civil and Political society, that checks the state's illegal tendencies and also incorporate the mechanisms of transparency and accountability. A Civil/Political society is not feasible in an authoritarian regime, even after massive economic development.

A civil society means a society that has self-organizing and autonomous groups and movements that are geared towards articulating values and advancing interests, like the independent press, human rights organization, women?s movement, Dalit Sansthas.

Political society means a society where political actors compete for the legitimate right to exercise control over public power.

Dictatorial rule holds the concept of centralization of power within a group of elites to advance their political and economic interests. It is either a single leader or a group of people who enjoy the power to ignore, dismiss or alter other institutions- the legislature, the court, the constitutional limiets of power. It has very little, if at all, to do with the state and its polity. One reason why, during years of Rana rules, we didn't see any social/political organizations; for the most part, they would be banned before they can come into scene (you probably already know that Durbar High school was the first school opened in Nepal, very lately, and for many years, only the selected few, ruling elites were allowed to attain) Political society, and civil society to a large extent, is a direct threat to dictatorial rule. Authoritative regimes give no concessions to change and reform, hence there is no possibility a Civil society. There is no hope for a political society, because that would directly defy the interests of authoritarian regimes. This inability to relax their policies with regard to socio-political demands of the state, is also one reason why authoritarian regimes collapse. Because of extra-regional pressure, authoritarian regimes Today are opening up for concessions.


3. You need a State of law, which, also cannot sustain in authoritarian regimes. State of law, which means the government and the state are subject to law, and citizens could turn to courts to defend themselves against the state and its officials.

In a dictatorship, law and order is created and controlled by the ruling elite. The citizens are not a part of this system of rule, and they cannot question its fairness, and mostly, this rule does not apply to the ruling elites themselves. Remember Paras getting away a few times from charges of murder?

Whereas in democracy, a prime-minister (people-elect) who develops tendencies towards abuse of power is more likely to be checked (by institutions) than a president. If Girija were to defy rules, he would go to jail; in democracy. BUT, you saw the case of Girija defying orders of the Supreme Court, why? Because we have a weak democracy; we lack rule of law, and lack a strong civil society that could have otherwise questioned Girija's defiance. That is why time and again I always say, Nepal is not a democracy, but a country in transition.

In the case of England, with a full functioning democracy, if the prime-minister were to be sacked by the Court, the society would have accepted it, because a rule of law persists there; but if the Queen were to sack him, this society in entirety, would voice their disagreement. In Nepal, when the king sacked the elected government, the society was divided. And a democracy is only a full democracy when, a strong majority of public opinion, even in a major economic or political crisis, holds the belief that democratic procedures are the most appropriate way to govern collective life.

Therefore, your argument, that authoritative regime will bring economic development and in the mean time a state will open up for democratization, which will consolidate democracy in the long run, is false.

Final:

If it is the other regime that you argue for- democracy with constitutional monarchy, I will agree to it IF the constitutional monarchy upholds its definition of remaining within the boundaries of constitution. But for that, we need to change our constitution. Without this change in constitution, Nepal can no more move towards a democratic consolidation. The state apparatus, such as the military, has to be under the political leadership that govern democratically. Second, the prerogative rights of the democratic regime such as, creation and amendment of constitution, right to declaration of emergency, the right to dissolve the parliament, should be under the control of the polity, not a single dictatorial ruler. Only then, we can be assured that Nepal can and will move toward democracy, along with a constitutional monarchy on the side.

oh! and i found this article while browsing the net. A Critique of Farid Zakari's book 'The Future of Freedom' by Larry Diamond.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v014/14.4diamond.html

DC girl,

Thanks to you for responsidng too. gracias senorita! xie xie xiao mei.

"I'm not clear where you stand; I know clearly that you do not support democracy. With regard to authoritarian regimes, you've cited examples from military dictatorships to constitutional monarchy. So do your arguments advocate for a complete authoritarian regime or a democracy with constitutional monarchy in Nepal? "

I stand for democracy with constitutional monarchy in Nepal once this mess has been cleaned up.

Other things you mentioned, I won't call them false. It has worked in many countries in the past. Some have developed with democracy, but I having witnessed the East Asian gropwth personally, who are developing despite democracy, and the social/political stability there, have a hard time departing from my belief that they would have achieved the same developmnet level without democracy. The civil society, in my view, emerges itself when the economy is doing good, and that leads to rule of law and less interfarance of the state in people's daily lives. For example, one of the vocal critics of Chinese govt. Andrew Nathan of Columbia University, found out in his 1998/1999 study that only 28% of the people then thought that their lives were "controlled" or "influenced heavily" by the state. The remaining 72% thought otherwise. If he were to do the study today, in my view, there would be less than 14% who would say their lives were controlled by the state. So authritarion or dicattorships too, with economic liberalization, liberalize their political system. People are suing the govt. in China and are winning the cases.. so what I am getting at is, even in the authritarian setting, you can have the rule of law and civil society, which only helps sustain the transition later. Another example is Chile.


" Whereas in democracy, a prime-minister (people-elect) who develops tendencies towards abuse of power is more likely to be checked (by institutions) than a president. If Girija were to defy rules, he would go to jail; in democracy. BUT, you saw the case of Girija defying orders of the Supreme Court, why? Because we have a weak democracy; we lack rule of law, and lack a strong civil society that could have otherwise questioned Girija's defiance. That is why time and again I always say, Nepal is not a democracy, but a country in transition. "

Nepal's transition took too long. Ours is always a "shishu prajatantra"..just how long should we wait to get this shishu to walk and talk? I think we have waited enbough and this shishu is yet to eat cerelec!

" Therefore, your argument, that authoritative regime will bring economic development and in the mean time a state will open up for democratization, which will consolidate democracy in the long run, is false. "

Just because we think differently does not mean my argument is false. :-) hopina ra? there are a zillion thoieries on everything in humanties/scoial sicence.. you adhere to one beliefe due to your academic training and personal experience does not necessarily make all others that you don't agree with false.

" If it is the other regime that you argue for- democracy with constitutional monarchy, I will agree to it IF the constitutional monarchy upholds its definition of remaining within the boundaries of constitution. But for that, we need to change our constitution. Without this change in constitution, Nepal can no more move towards a democratic consolidation. The state apparatus, such as the military, has to be under the political leadership that govern democratically. Second, the prerogative rights of the democratic regime such as, creation and amendment of constitution, right to declaration of emergency, the right to dissolve the parliament, should be under the control of the polity, not a single dictatorial ruler. Only then, we can be assured that Nepal can and will move toward democracy, along with a constitutional monarchy on the side. "

yes, this is what I argue for- democracy with constitutional monarchy. I am not an expert on constitution or constitutional law, so I don't know what m,odificatiopns/amendments are needed, but based on what's happening in Nepal right now, I say, the monarchy with its control or support of the military, should act like the guardian of democracy the same way the military acts in Turkey. In the future when the problems are solved, I will have no problems writing in public using my real name that your VISION/VIEW is right.. but as for now, we need some extreeme measures to deal with the "extreme" problems in Nepal.

have a hard time departing from my belief that they would have achieved the same developmnet level without democracy.= have a hard time departing from my belief that they would have achieved the same developmnet level WITH democracy.

xie xie xiao mei

freetranslation.com: "will cost 49.95 to translate these four words!" :$

"there are a zillion thoieries on everything in humanties/scoial sicence.. you adhere to one beliefe due to your academic training and personal experience does not necessarily make all others that you don't agree with false."

i take that last sentence back.

"Nepal's transition took too long. Ours is always a "shishu prajatantra"..just how long should we wait to get this shishu to walk and talk? I think we have waited enbough and this shishu is yet to eat cerelec!"

Not necessarily, there are more examples of states taking 25-30 yrs in average to democratize, than states who have democratized in less than 10 yrs. it does take a painstakingly long time (only in some states that have a history of political society, less repressive authoritarian regimes, and numerous other factors that contribute to democracy, have democratized relatively faster than others. How many years has it been since the French Revolution?), but as Anil Ji in his posting has said, if we can endure, the end result will be worth it.

"People are suing the govt. in China and are winning the cases.. so what I am getting at is, even in the authritarian setting, you can have the rule of law and civil society, which only helps sustain the transition later. Another example is Chile."

China is an entirely different and an exceptional case. you might already know, given China's type of regime and economic development, critics are examining China as a separate domain of political and economic system (i had a friend who compared India's liberal democracy and China's communism to compare development in these two countries).

DC girl,

Xie Xie Xiao Mei= Thank You, Small Sister.. or thank you, Miss Beautiful:-)

" Not necessarily, there are more examples of states taking 25-30 yrs in average to democratize, than states who have democratized in less than 10 yrs. it does take a painstakingly long time (only in some states that have a history of political society, less repressive authoritarian regimes, and numerous other factors that contribute to democracy, have democratized relatively faster than others. How many years has it been since the French Revolution?), but as Anil Ji in his posting has said, if we can endure, the end result will be worth it. "

Waiting and enduring at this point is going to be more terrible, in my view.

" China is an entirely different and an exceptional case. you might already know, given China's type of regime and economic development, critics are examining China as a separate domain of political and economic system (i had a friend who compared India's liberal democracy and China's communism to compare development in these two countries). "

I don't know which critic is examining China that way since I have not followed up on new materials/scholarship on China lately. Please do provide me with the names of the books and articles that you read on this.

Thanks god, posts are getting shorter and shorther now. :-)

arko kura DC girl, if you don't take it personally:

Its easier to say that we will endure all hardships so that in the lung run we can have a functioning democracy when you are not in Nepal. The situation is really messed up there, and many people just don't give a damn about democracy. When there was this massive UML rally 2 years ago to protest the King's move then, more people were fighting and pushing each other at the BICC where some manpower agency was scrutanizing applicants for jobs in Korea. You see, its the economy that matters, nothing else.

ISO,

We can remain at odds with regards to effectiveness of democracy vs. autocracy. That is fine. You say we need economic/political stabilty and we need to build proper civil society before embracing democracy, I say we need democracy to achieve exactly those elements of stability in the long run. Example: You claim Nepali society is not ready for healthy debates. I say, the Nepali society will NEVER learn to engage in healthy debates unless they are free to engage in dirty debates first. विवाद नै गर्न नदिने हो भने सही ढंगले विवाद गर्न कसरी र कहिले सिकाउने?

Our differences on these aside, I also would like to see you answer the question posed by Indisguise and Dc Girl about the competence of the present King. ASSUMING that we are enjoying a national democratic framework, and let's say we are DEMOCRATICALLY debating whose leadership is good for Nepal, what makes you have this unquestionable faith in King Gyanendra, individually AND institutionally, on:

1. Resolving the Maoist crisis?

2. Empowering the people?

3. Building proper civil society? And finally,

4. Restoring democracy?

1. Resolving the Maoist crisis?

2. Empowering the people?

3. Building proper civil society? And finally,

4. Restoring democracy?


**
1. Resolving the maoist crisis through economic developmnet. it won't be an overnight thing, will take a long time, but it is possible.

because,

the maoist crisis is a class conflict, motivated by economic factors.

2. empowering the people through economic development. it won't happen overnight, will take a long time, AND it is possible.

because,

people are hungry, angry and poor. address their subsistence needs first, provide them food and education now.. in the long run, they will be educated and not come under the sway of any radical group. they will learn to question and once that happens, you won't see Girija and Makune reelected.

3. building proper civil scoiety, rule of law and less governance through economic development, and ONLY through economic developmnet, its possible.

because,

for economic development you need to have less state interfarance in people's lives. the state will have to come up with the necessary laws to ensure
i. private investors' interests
ii. independence of judiciary

when the people are FREE of state's interfarance in their daily lives, when they are doing well economically, when there is a strong middle class, all those things you mentioned will emerge.


4. restoring democracy through economic developmnet, and IT IS ONLY possible through economic development.

when you ahve a n educated, questioning mass which looks for its own interests, then you can have democracy..

if you think we can democratzie without feeding the hungry, educating the uneducated and pacifying the angry majority of the nation, i have nothing to say.. democracy, as you envision, in today's nepali context is "akash ko faal ankha tari maar"

This is what I have bene saying all along...

and to achieve all these aims, you need a strong governmnet, not popular or unpopular, democratic or authritarian, but a STRONG govt. that can provide stability which is needed for economic development. And the King can provide us with that kind of govt. at this time, hence my support for him.

feeding the hungry, educating the uneducated and pacifying the angry majority of the nation, i have nothing to say.. democracy, as you envision, in today's nepali context is "akash ko faal ankha tari maar"

feeding the hungry, educating the uneducated and pacifying the angry majority of the nation, i have nothing to say.. democracy, as you envision it, in today's nepali context is "akash ko faal ankha tari maar"

ISO,

Your answers are (excuse me, don't take it personally) very rhetorical. I would have liked to see you give SPECIFIC reasons as to why King Gyanendra (individually) and the monarchy (institutionally) is capable of bringing those economic developments in order to resolve Nepali crisis. ANYTHING from his past or present that supports his claim that he will, among other things, resolve the Maoist crisis and restore democracy would be great.

Pro-democracy people can also say "democracy will solve Nepal's problems by bringing economic developments". But what makes KingG different from anyone else that you should have such unquestionable faith in him?

Add to the list of questions above:

5. What makes you believe KingG's heir is going to make a good king as well?