Talk:Politics of Nepal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Himalaya region Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Nepal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] dynasty name

When a name is written partly in all caps, that means that the part in all caps is the family name. I thought that Gyanendra is the given name and Bir Bikram the family name. Which is it? -phma

I think this has been covered on another talk page but the family (and dynasty) name is Shah. Gyanendra is the given name; Bir Bikram are middle names.

[edit] Constitutional Monarchy

I understood that Nepal was an absolute monarchy with the monarch retaining considerable powers as head of state; suspend parliament dismiss the government etcetera.

There's is a lot going on now since the maoist movement and the seven parties have a new proposal of restricting the absolute power of the King. See BBC's good article on the situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4467408.stm (sorry, I now have no change to make the article better)

[edit] POV

this article is totally biased against the maoists and the people's war. it's written from a CIA viewpoint with even world factbook info posted verbatim. we should have a more balanced view of both the people's war and the injustices of the king's government which are hardly gone into.

That's pushing it - the article doesn't seek to draw conclusions, or give you information with which to draw conclusions, about which side is justified. It seeks merely to relate the most important information that someone wanting a rough overview of the political situation would want. A more 'balanced' view seeking to present the views of one of the sides would be a terrible idea, all it would do is open up the article to a war over which side is 'justified' or who has commmited 'injustices' while all it should be doing right now is explaining the major events and history.

I agree with the first poster. The article pushes the notion that Nepalis are getting into a position of being able to choose between monarchy and various shades of democracy including watered-down Marxism-Leninism, which should be enough choice for anyone so who needs these Maoist crazies anyhow?

Unfortunately democracy hardly amounts to more than an opportunity to help pick which middle aged, relatively affluent, male Pahari Brahman or Chhetri, or possibly Newar will lord it over the rest of the population that is none of the above. It's not unlike giving slaves the opportunity to elect their Massa. Gee, if they play their cards right, they might get to stop work half an hour earlier on Saturday night!

Well, Nepal is composed of fifty or more aboriginal peoples, all of them politically and economically under the thumb(s) of descendents of Aryans who colonized far western Nepal perhaps a thousand years ago or fled India's Muslim invadors during the Middle Ages. The Shah dynasty unified the country and concentrated power in the hands of a few extended families, but it was also symbiotic with the larger constituency of Pahari Hindus and to a lesser extent Newars.

Democratic reform essentially throws the game open to any prominent male member of these fairly broad elites. Unfortunately democracy as practiced in Nepal still disenfranchises about 3/4 of the population: women and/or members of other castes and ethnic groups. This 3/4 is the Maobadi constituency. Even if the Maobadis might eventually take Nepal down the Pol Pot road, it behooves us to understand this struggle from the point of view of its protagonists.

[edit] Old Cleanup Archive

Taken from the old Cleanup entry…Archived by HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nepal not the worlds first communist led monarchy

That was Mongolia in 1921.

I guess one could say Norway was before too. DNA 1928 govt still hadd proletarian dicatourship and revolution on the partu programme, even if the party had left the Komintern.

guess there mightavebeen SEVERAL others.

Togrim 2006-01-06

And Bulgaria and Rumenia in 1945 too. Yopie 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

[edit] Political history needs to go back another 50 years or more

Nepal's difficulties choosing between monarchy and democracy certainly go back before the era of the brothers Gyanendra/Bhupendra to their father Mahendra who ruled from the early 1950s until his death in 1972. Mahendra tolerated democracy for about his first decade, then threw a coup in 1961, jailed democratic leaders and started up the "partyless" Panchayat system.

Had Mahendra been less reclusive, more receptive to democratic evolution, done more to enfranchise minorities, and paid more attention to development outside the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal today might be a much less divided and violent place. Whether it was already too late by the time Mahendra died 1972 is another topic. Perhaps not, since the Maobadi revolt only began in 1996.

[edit] Cleanup, sectioning, current events

With the agreement on Sunday that the monarchy would be abolished, I've put a {{currentevent}} tag on the article. Reading over it, that "Political conditions" section was a confusing timeline, so I've put subheadings on it.

I must note here that I hardly know anything about the politics of Nepal in detail, so would like someone who does to have a good look at what I've done here and edit accordingly! - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gap

There seems to be a break in or loss of information, nothing explains "King Gyanendra took control once again on February 1, 2005." When/how did he lose control? Chris (クリス) (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Head of state/PM

So, as of today there's no monarchy of Nepal, and Girija Prasad Koirala has become "head of state." However, most articles here still call him Prime Minister. There's a disconnect in that: a prime minister has to minister, or advise, someone, but Koirala has nobody to do that for anymore; he can't be prime minister to himself. So, is he president? Is he titled as Head of State? Is he the head of state but still, bizzarrely, titled as Prime Minister? Some clarification is needed. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He's Prime Minister & Interim Head of State (until Nepal chooses a Head of State). Koirala's current status is similiar to what Vladimir Putin's was from December 1999 to May 2000. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So, then, he is prime minister to himself? --G2bambino (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, he's his own PM. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? That's what I said: he is prime minister to himself. What a stupid arrangement that is. --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think s/he means something like caretaker/regent/acting prime minister. Putin was acting for Yeltsin during that period mentioned above. As far as I know, he is not the president, but he is interim head of state. w_tanoto (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
He's Prime Minister & interim Head of State. My guess is there'll be a Presidency created (though not certain). GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If he's been given the position of head of state (whatever title that accords him) while never giving up his post as prime minister, then, technically, he is his own main advisor. Essentially, the situation becomes similar to that of the UK prior to the Glorious Revolution, when the King remained the head of the Cabinet. Seems a step backwards, to me. Anyway, I think we should avoid making statements like "the Prime Minister is head of state"; it appears the two positions are separate, though both occupied by the same person. --G2bambino (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Some countries, including Indonesia, have president that is both head of state and head of government, but in nepal, it will only be temporary as the presidency will certainly be created (as far as I know fro reading articles on the internet) w_tanoto (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but they are presidential republics. If Nepal still has a PM, then it's not a presidential republic. Perhaps someone else will be put in as President of Nepal soon enough, but... who knows? --G2bambino (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
you are right. As I said, in Nepal, the arrangement of Head of state being the same as head of government is only temporary. w_tanoto (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In agreement, the interim HoS position & Prime Minister are seperate positions (until further notice). We should treate them as such. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
PS- The Nepal article uses the title Acting President (its external link points out, a Presidency is to be created). GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Structure

Under the Constitution which came into force in May 2008, Nepal is proclaimed a federal, democratic republic. The word 'federal' implies that there are sub-national autonomous or semi-autonomous sub-divisions of the state territory, but the article does not make clear what these are, even on an interim basis. The reader might presume that the five development regions exist as the provisional first-tier sub-divisions within this federal structure, but there is nothing to confirm or to refute this assumption. There is a need for someone to address this matter and to state which are the first-tier autonomous communities within Nepal; the articles on Zones of Nepal, Regions of Nepal and Districts of Nepal need to be brought into line with current information - I understand that the situation is that the former Zones no longer have any administrative or political function. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)