Nepal agrees to abolish monarchy

[ButterflyBlood]

Source: BBC

Nepal's government has agreed for the first time that the 240-year-old monarchy should be abolished.

After more than two months of arguing, the leaders of the main political parties have finally yielded to pressure from Maoist former rebels.

The rebels demanded that a republican system be decided upon before elections rather than after them.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7158670.stm

---

Some good news.

[Alexander]

1. Good. King Gyanendra was abusing his power.

Hopefully this will prevent future despots in Nepal.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Bad. They shouldn't listen to a bunch of Maoists. What 'd they think Mao was? THEIR kind of monarch

[Alexander]

3. The Maoists were arrested under Gyanendra.

You don't have to agree with the Maoists to know that transforming from a despotic monarchy to a republican form of government is a step in the right direction.

[Zynx]

12. Many Republics have been worse than the monarchies preceding them.

Look at France and China.

[boricua79]

5. you're half right

Monarchy is not a better form of government than a republic with democratic processes of governance.

But, Mao was just another cult of personality dictator...and he was autocratic.

The Maoist demand for a republican system is not bad at all. In fact, I'd think it positive that they're asking for a chance to have a political system where they can run for elections and let the people decide who they choose.

This might provoke a disarmament and an end to the conflict there.

[ButterflyBlood]

6. The Maoists aren't taking power. They're just another party in a democratic republic.

I'll take a Maoist minority party over an unelected autocratic despot.

[harmonicon]

7. Do you think Mao is alive and leading them? Calm down, it's just an adjective.

This is a great thing. The maoists rebels have fought long and hard for simple basic human rights - things like equal rights for women and education for all. Now that the monarchy has dissolved, they aren't trying to seize power, but instead are supporting democratic elections. The real shame is that so many people had to fight and die for such basic things that we nearly take for granted. I say this is great news.

[Tab]

4. I'm not totally sure what to make of this story

I was in Nepal in 1990, when they had the "revolution". I had gone there to go trekking in the Himalayas, but just before I left, little old Nepal, never in the news, was suddenly front and center.

I flew to Kathmandu, we got up to the mountains. It was a great trip - even met and spent about 20 mins with Sir Edmund Hillary in his tent. On the way out, though, we barely made it - Royal Nepal Airlines was going on strike (the mechanics, I think). One more day and we would have been up in the mountains for... I have no idea, but it wouldn't have been just a quick stay. Kathmandu was under martial law when we returned. There were tanks in the street, but in an odd Nepalese way, everyone was kind of enjoying it. Still, there was a curfew, and we made it a point to be back by 9 or 10 p.m. lest we be shot. I was at riots, and if someone wants, maybe I can scan some of the negatives and post the photos. Nevertheless, what I understand was that the King and Queen had split, and one controlled the military, and the other the police, and there was strife from that.

Since then it's really deteriorated.

I don't know where they're going, but I hope it's to a democracy. I think it was sort of an English-modeled democracy (King and Queen, yet a parliament). They're a wonderful people. They don't have much, but they're wonderful.

- Tab

[ellisonz]

8. I prefer a return to constitutional monarchy...

The King, despite the criticisms that can be rightly made, provides a bulwark against the possible excesses and corruptions of republican democracy.

The Reuters article is a little less superficial:

Nepal to End Its Monarchy in a Deal With Ex-Rebels

Published: December 24, 2007
KATMANDU, Nepal (Reuters) — Nepal’s government agreed Sunday to abolish the centuries-old monarchy in a political deal with Maoist former rebels, but the decision will go into effect only after next year’s elections, party officials said.

Three months ago, the anti-monarchy Maoists, who ended their decade-long civil war last year, left the government. They were demanding an immediate declaration of a republic, a step that indefinitely delayed a constituent assembly election that had been set for November.

That election, Nepal’s first national vote since 1999, was intended to map the country’s political future, including that of the monarchy, and was expected to cap the landmark 2006 peace agreement that ended a conflict that caused 13,000 deaths.

-----

The twice-delayed elections will now be held within the Nepali year, which ends on April 12, and the Maoists will rejoin the government, said Arjun Narsingh K. C., a spokesman for the Nepali Congress Party, the country’s biggest political party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24nepal.html

This deal could collapse before then if the following occur: (A) Riots between pro and anti-monarchy forces (B) Renewed significant Maoist activity (C) Further political jostling.

[MetaTrope]

14. There is that little thing about how a good portion of the populace believes Gyanendra

killed his brother's family to take the throne...and having been in close cahoots with the CIA for decades didn't help his image much...

[ellisonz]

15. He's still king...

And that hasn't been proven. In a country with little functioning political institutions, you go with what's known.

[David__77]

18. There are very few "pro-"monarchy forces in Nepal.

Congress only prevaricates because they worry that a real democracy will bring the Maoists into power and want the king to anchor society to the old ways. Many Nepalis are indifferent to the monarchy and aren't especially republican in inclination, but the moral force of the monarchist forces was depleted in mid-2006 when the people forced the king to, in effect, step down.

[ellisonz]

20. Pretty much what I said.

[robcon]

9. Does ANYONE think the Maoists will allow a democracy?

Power-sharing with Maoists is the same as power-sharing with Nazis. Very little sharing.

[Captain Hilts]

10. BINGO!

Hail to the Redskins!

[paulk]

13. they might - it really depends on the public reaction

a lot of the support for the Maoists, especially in rural areas, was because of the abuses of the military, which was controlled by the King. A lot of it was also coercive - so it was hard to tell how much support the Maoists actually had. Whichever - they certainly had enough power to hamstring Nepal's economy. That was there real trump card.

They never would have been able to take over or control Kathmandu - in fact, the uprising that overthrew the monarchy was not led by the Maoists, but was a general revolt against the King's usurpation of the Parliament.

The battle in Nepal has been between bad and worse - the Monarchy and the Maoists, with an inneffective Parliament looking on. A true republican democracy might be worth a shot...

Personally, I don't think that the people of Nepal will be willing to get rid of the monarchy. They hated the current king and the current crown prince (who is a real piece of work) more than they hated the institution. Every shop in Kathmandu has a picture of the royal family hanging in it - although last time I was there there were more of the old, murdered King than the new.

[robcon]

16. You must have missed my point.

"Popular support" of the Maoists is totally unnecessary for their assumption of power - any more than Mao held an election to assume power.

They will seize power, or attempt to seize power. If they gain power they will install a dictatorship with or without "support" from the people.

[David__77]

17. The are many parliamentary communist party around the world.

They democratically govern in parts of India and share power democratically in many other countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. There is no reason to believe the Maoists will not do likewise when they have adhered to the peace process. A democratic republic is being born in Nepal, and this is reason to be glad.

[killbotfactory]

19. Not all communists are the same

and capitalism, as has been proven time and time against, is no defense against tyranny.

[paulk]

21. there is a Communist Party in Nepal that has no affiliation

with the Maoists. The Maoists have spurned the democratic process before, I think it is justifiable to question their motives this time around.

[JCMach1]

22. Not to defend them, but they spurned corrupt plutocracy

and monarchy... not democracy...

So far, so good... the Maoists held political feet to the fire to get rid of the monarchy... Good riddance to bad rubbish in the form of the King :puke:

[paulk]

26. that's not true, actually

http://www.preventconflict.org/portal/nepal/nepal_resources_history_maoist.php

The Maoists were a splinter group that broke off in 1995 from the Communist Party in Nepal that was participating in the Parliament. Their goal was civil war and imposing their view of how Nepal should be governed through the force of arms. These people are truly extremists.

The argument could rightfully be made that they did spurn democracy.


-----------------------------



A true republican democracy might be a good thing for Nepal - I don't know. I don't see how it could work. One of the reasons the Parliament was so ineffective is that tribal leaders still have more local power than the government does. The place is barely past feudal. I remain unconvinced that getting rid of the monarchy, at least as an institution, is a good thing. Nepal is a very fractured place - many different religions, many different tribes - one of the things that has held them together - given them an identity as a nation - is the monarchy. Geting rid of it could lead to a situation even worse than the one they're in now.

[JCMach1]

28. Don't forget caste... some of the most recent unrest has been along these lines

and NOT organized by the Maoists...

[robcon]

25. I'm speechless at your naivete.

n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

11. So, what do you do with leftover members of the Royal Family when you do that?

I mean, it's not like they were ever trained to do anything useful or anything.

Maybe the Bolshies had the best solution.

[JCMach1]

23. Not many left! Massacre happened in 2001- Royal family values at work

According to the official report, Crown Prince Dipendra had been drinking heavily and had "misbehaved" with a guest which resulted in his father King Birendra telling his son to leave the party. The drunken Dipendra was taken to his room by his brother Prince Nirajan and cousin Prince Paras.<1>

One hour later Dipendra returned to the party armed with an assault rifle and fired a single shot into the ceiling before turning the gun on his father King Birendra. Seconds later Dipendra shot one of his aunts. He then shot his uncle Dhirendra in the chest at point blank range when he tried to stop Dipendra.<1> During the carnage Prince Paras suffered slight injuries and managed to save at least three royals, including two children, by pulling a sofa over them.<1>

During the killing spree Dipendra darted in and out of the room firing shots each time. His mother Queen Aiswarya who came into the room when the first shots were fired quickly left looking for help.<2>

Dipendra's mother and brother Nirajan confronted him in the garden of the palace where they were both shot dead. Dipendra then proceeded to a small bridge over a stream running through the palace where he shot himself.<1>

Aftermath

Dipendra was proclaimed King while in a coma but he died on June 4, 2001.<3> Gyanendra was appointed regent while his nephew Dipendra lay in a coma and assumed the throne following Dipendra's death. While Dipendra lived, Gyanendra maintained that the deaths were the result of an "accident" but he later said that this was due to "legal and constitutional hurdles" because under the constitution and by tradition Dipendra could not have been accused of mass murder had he survived.<4> A full fledged investigation took place and Crown Prince Dipendra was found guilty of the killing. Numerous conspiracy theories suggest an alternate conclusion but there is no evidence to support them.

The widely accepted motive is that Dipendra was angry over a marriage dispute.<5> Dipendra's choice of bride was Devyani Rana, daughter of Pashupati SJB Rana (C Class), a member of the Rana clan, against whom the Shah dynasty have a historic animosity (in recent times, though, Shah kings and princes have married almost exclusively members of the A Class Rana family.) The Rana clan had served as the hereditary prime ministers of Nepal until 1951, with the title Maharaja, and the two clans have a long history of inter-marriages.<6>... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre

[paulk]

24. Interesting note - I have never met a single person in Nepal

who believed the "official" story. Not one. I've been there twice since the killings, the first time only two months after the regicide.

Most people believed that it was a straight palace coup, engineered by the current Crown Prince (Paras)and his father (Gyanendra), with help from the military. Some of the biggest questions concerning the killings were - how does a left handed person (Dipendra) shoot himself behind his right ear with an M-16? What happened to the Palace staff? The witnesses? What was in the two military trucks that mysteriously left the Palace grounds for parts unknown in the middle of the night?



----------------


Why a coup? The predominent speculation was that the military was tired of it's hands being tied by King Birenda in regards to the Maoist insurgency. Birenda had a policy of appeasement and trying to work with the Maoists rather than trying to affect a military solution. Gyanendra was more willing to go after the Maoists directly (a policy that didn't work too well).


--------------------


It's fascinating that the "official" story is in Wiki, and I guess it's well on it's way to becoming the "truth".

[struggle4progress]

27. What a charming and colorful way to pick the national government!

Surely the heavens bless this beneficent monarchy

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. That's the system whose passing some people here are mourning.

All because the FAR LEFT OOGA BOOGA!!111!!! advocated for its end.

Hey, I heard Communists believe breathing air is good!