However one defines an authoritarian regime, one of its hallmarks is a lack of press freedom.

Indeed, only about three weeks ago or so, an organisation called Reporters Without Borders published a report, which stated that Nepal's rank in the world, in terms of
press freedom, was 160 out of 167. Nepal did better than CERTIFIABLY authoritarian regimes such as Burma, Cuba and North Korea. Indeed, going by this report, it left
no doubt in anyone' mind that Nepal was/is indeed an authoritarian regime.

Surprisingly, at the time, everyone in Nepal seemed to accept this verdict WITHOUT challenging or questioning or even welcoming it. It became news and sort of died out after that.

[My uncharitable explanation for that silence is: Journalists did not want challenge it because (a) they don't have the basic background in stat to challenge the RWB's methodology, and (b) it's in their financial interest (i.e. to continue to have an easy access to donor funds for governance work to conflict-mitigation work to
whatever else that our 'conflict-jounalism industrial complex' has spawned in recent years!!) to continue have the rest of the world paint their situation as hopelessly khattam in Nepal.

They did not want to welcome it either, for they know that though situation is not
that encouraging in Nepal (especially for rural journalists), it's not horribly bad either, especially for most urban media elite (presumably the ones who filled out the survey questionnaires) who are basically well-paid NGO-wallahs!).

Besides the journalists had just received millions of rupees from the government, and, understandably they did not want to bite the hand that fed them.]

So that's Part I.

***

Part II is:

But when the old Panchayati hand Mohammed Mohsin dared to say that the country might well head toward being an authoritarian regime, watch how all hell broke loose.

From Khagendra Sangraula to Suman Pradhan, everyone jumped on Mohsin, some even asking for his resignation.

*****

Observations:

When foreigners tell us: "Based on your press freedom index, you ARE an authoritarian regime", Nepali journalists keep quiet -- and, assuming that to be true, do NOTHING to expand the degrees of freedom.

But when a Minister suggests that we might be heading toward an authoritarian rule, then everyone shouts at him as if any word against democracy is totally unacceptable.

********

Question:

Could it be that for most people in Nepal shouting at the Minister is a lot easier in terms of generating heat than challenging RWB's index?

After all, let's face it, an authoritarian regime does NOT exactly announce to all that it
is GOING to be an authoritarian one.

It just is.

oohi
ashu

When Girija Psd. Koirala was cornered by the Supreme Court, all Nepalese raised hell out of it. If he had been cornered by the King and put in jail, we would just sit quiet (ali ali khas khus hunthyo ani sabai chup). Like Deuba been sacked and reappointed.

In England, with a similar system of monarchy, if the Court cornered Prime Minister Tony Blair for some reason, people would think its lawful and take it as normal. But if the Queen sacked the Prime Minister, people would raise hell out of it.

There is no system and no respect for a lawful system in Nepal. Because 'we' including our leading comrades are still very feudal-minded, our concept of leadership, state and government (in this context) is camouflaged by predisposition towards feudalism. Hence the surprises we see in the streets of kathmandu...

Its almost as if Mohsin was conducting a test. Trying to see how many people would get angry if he said that.

I feel as if the present state of affairs in Nepal will continue until a day comes when people are so fed up that they will not want anything but security, regardless of the type of institution that provides it.

Bush came up with the Patriot Act after 9/11; Putin dissolved democratically elected local governments after Beslan. In the same way Mohsin will keep testing the waters until he feels its calm enough to play his trump card. u think?

In my personal opinion:

Mohshin does not speak himself. He is king G appointed man: chamcha
to check whats going on inside council of ministers. So, he with the help
(may not get direct /straight forward words from King G's advisors plus
Rana-Shaha family, but using body language: this is how leaders operate
when they have to deal with controversial stuffs: as in Abe Ghraib in Iraq
vs Rumsfeld) of these hidden / ghost advisors, Mohshin was testing the
public mood.

In this current political scenario, Deoba is just a baliko boko. Like in 2007
to 2015, it took 8 years to conduct election, King and Ranas were constantly
playing foul games, deoba govt. is part of it.

Funniest thing was Deoba was giving ultimatum to Maoists that if they
don't come for talks, he will go for election? I am not talking about whether
election can be carried or not under Maoist threat, but, whether its a way
the palace insiders will like to have real election even if Maoists for a moment
assume allowed to happen in their controlled areas? I am thinking that
Deoba is now acitng like an instrument for surgeons inside palace. So,
Mohashin is another instrument to test public mood and move a step ahead.

Who should take this blame? Its Girija, if he did not sack deoba and his
corrupt ministers from NC for the reason he sacked, all this mess up would
have been delayed or avoided.

GP

It is all about "Ghar Ko Baag, Bun Ko Sayal." Nepalis don't dare to challenge outsiders no matter how false the statement is made againts them. We bad-mouth India and Indians while in Nepal, treating badly the fellow nepalis from Madesh, but while we are in US, we go and work for the same Indians, and don't dare to speak up even if we are underpaid. from what I have noticed and from my experience, it is in the nature of south-east asians, here especially Nepalis, to just keep quite and watch being treated unfairly from outsiders but will create a havoc if same is done by their fellow brothers and sisters. No wonder how India, a country with such a large population and army fell infront of few British merchants.

I don't think we will be witnessing any change no matter what the system is. Whether it was 10+ years of democracy without democratic values and institutions or the present situation, things have remained the same. Authritarian dicatorship or a liberal regime or something uniquely Nepali, things will remail the way they are for a few years, if not decades to come.

Regarding Mohsin's comment, I think he was hinting at the worst possible outcome if the Deuba govt. fails to clean up the mess. Authoritarianism will be a drastic step, and I don't think the diplomatic community and the donors will want to see an authoritarian govt. in Nepal. I think the best course to follow will be to have a strong government which ahs democratic aspirations, i.e., that has sensible heads who can make important decisions and know how to implement those. Also, the new governmnet/system should strengthen democratic values and institutions, and hold talks with the Maoists. The congressi, UML, RPP, sadvawana, MajdoorKishan parities should let the new governmnet work, if there is one. And support the govt. on major issues. If they start their kach kach again, then its better to use the ancient "saam-daam-danda-bhed". And given their not-so-clean recent past, I am sure they will stop kich kich with "daam". We have to understand one thing: Our transition to democracy was without any preparation. You can't just make a sudden transition and make things work perfectly fine. We should have followed a step-by-step approach, i.e., by cleaning up the bureaucratic mess, developing good check-balance mechanisms, promoting/developing and strengthening a free and fair pres and by adopting market economy instead of the centrally planned-mixed one, and also by developing infrastructures and most importantly, by promoting education. We made the political transition without any preparation that is necessary to sutain the new system, and created more mess. Only the system changed but the majority's thinking remained the same, because they kept on facing the same problems. This is one major reason for the failure of democracy in Nepal. If there is to be a new form of governmnet soon, it should start focuing on these problems left unaddressed by the old ones, then hopefully, in 20-30-40 years, we will have a functioning democracy.



BTW, ashu dai, enjoyed reading your latest addition on the guild. Very well written. I beg to differ on certain points , so that instead of reaching a consensus, we can just discuss those issues, hoina ta? :-)

thinking remained the same, because they kept on facing the same = because it kept

IF, you said the following.
hopefully, in 20-30-40 years, we will have a functioning democracy.
I was hoping we could talk a bit more about that.

What is your definition of a "functioning democracy" or atleast the minimum requirements for one.

In the next 30-40 years, what do you see as an absolute requirement, for Nepal to be able to switch to democracy (from whatever) and continue as a democratic nation. My guess would be a need for increased political awareness, social awareness, higher literacy rate and infrastructure development.
How would you prioritize them assuming its unrealistic to try to achieve all of them.

lazywally,

kasto garo prasana!

I am in the middle of finishing my paper that's due soon, so will skip the details. given your own thorough knowledge of what's happening in the world and political science, i don't think i have to be very long and explaining to you.

Most scholars agree that to have a functioning democracy, you have to have a strong middle class consumer base, civil society etc. I think they make sense. You can't just have a democracy without meeting these two pre conditions. So first create economic oppurtunities which would in turn create a strong middle-class base. And when people have money, they will send their kids to schools and ask the governmnet to fulfill its "development" duties. Also, if not the first generation, the majority of the second generation will have some education, more consiousness and money to buy made in china/india or assembled in nepal computers and have access to the net, which in turn would result in more tolerant attitude and voila! nepal will be ready for a fully functioning democracy.

access to the net..

OK something got left out there..so, let me clarify before someone asks me to clarify how having access to the net creates a tolerant majority: When they will have access to the net, they can access Sajha and other forums, read newspapers from all over the world, come acroos all sorts of views, interact with all sorts of people, and will come to realzie that some of their own views need to be changed and they need to think more read more and understand more to support some of their ideas that are as dear to them as their ..whoever or whatever is important to them. and somehow realize the parts of "da tong" (big community) idea of Kang You Wei, a Chinese reformist of the late Qing era!

la aaja lai yetti nai.

I don't see calm returning to the nation soon. Maoists run pretty much quasi-government with all three functions-legislative, judicial, and executive from within. Singhadurbar folks who are even scared within their own house roar about establishing peace in the nation. Narayanhiti folks are busy arranging and watching nautanki at Singhdurbar. Common citizens have resigned, seems like, to their fate.

Maoists, whose confidence and number is on the rise, will not come to the table for talks unless at least one of their major demands is met. I don't see that happening at least not with this dazed govt. So, ceasefire only exists on talks for now.

Democracy is nothing but a magi khane bhado in Nepali politics these days.

All three political quarters -Maoists-King-Parties-severly lack confidence on their legitimacy, and true polularity.

Narayanhiti-singhadurbar folks should take Maoists seriously before Maoists seriously take on them. So much for the democracy.

Finally, perhaps IF is right. We may have to wait a few decades for the democracy to rise. Until then, should we just wait to be sacrificed?

To join in the conversation, I could not resist examining the following:

"When they will have access to the net, they can access Sajha and other forums, read newspapers from all over the world, come across all sorts of views, interact with all sorts of people, and will come to realize that some of their own views need to be changed and they need to think more read more and understand more to support some of their ideas that are as dear to them as their ..whoever or whatever is important to them."

Is it feasible to specify widespread internet use in Nepal as a necessary pre-condition for the establishment of a functional and vibrant democracy?

If so, what explains the anomaly of India as a democracy many decades before Tata Consultancy wrote its first line of code? That the UK was a bonafide democracy prior to the use of crude computing machines to break Nazi communication codes in WWII? Or that the Fifth Republic was a democracy before typesetters reluctantly adopted, with upturned patrician noses, FrameMaker/PageMaker/or equivalent to compose Le Figaro and Le Monde and access quotes from Agence France Press?

I agree the Internet has many political savants rubbing their hands in glee. For, undoubtedly, net access facilitated the meteoric rise of Howard Dean, humbled Dan Rather over the memo fiasco when bloggers shot down the Bush memo as questionable, and fund raising patterns changed as contributors were tapped directly.

Yet, easy availability and access to mind boggling amounts of information doesn't automatically translate into a better-informed citizenry that makes rational and sensible choices. Ask any disappointed Kerry supporter! [or nearly 80% of the rest of the world]

Good to have you around IF. This forum is the better for it. I trust all is well with you?

Czar wrote:

"If so, what explains the anomaly of India as a democracy many decades before Tata Consultancy wrote its first line of code?"

Well, using the Internet as an example is perhaps a bit too extreme here. For now,
let's take the plethora of 24/7 Hindi news TV channels as doing their bit to inform the
voters in India. As political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out:

"Hindi television media in particular now has a depth of coverage ? small villages, towns and bylanes of India ? to an extent that is unprecedented. So instead of going round and round on the same tired issues as the English media often does, Hindi television has the capacity for giving detailed coverage of individual constituencies and local issues. Instead of asking every MLA the same general questions, you could actually confront them with the realities of their own constituency: point a camera to a pothole or a non-existent road, show broken electricity wires or dry canals. Perhaps because there was no single dramatic event, the media finally found some time for governance."

Source:
-http://www.india-seminar.com/2004/533/533%20pratap%20bhanu%20mehta.htm


Incidentally, in Nepal too, while the Nepali-owned media dare not show the footage of the Maoists, as per Dinesh Wagle's blog, it was the Indian-owned and beamed-from-India Nepali-language channel -- Nepal One -- that showed the footage of warring Maoists, right from the battlefield.

***********

On another note, good old C K Lal is too is beating up on Mohsin now.

Now, to quote Denzel Washington from the movie "Philadelphia", somebody please
explain this to me like I am a five-year old: Did the five parties NOT launch a movement
"against regression" from February to July of 2004? Putting conceptual subtleties
aside, wasn't that "against regression" movement pretty much equivalent to "for democracy and against authoritarianism"?

At the time, the equation was:
Against regression = for democracy = against authoritarianism

Looking back, if one is to validate the "against regression" movement (despite its eventual failure to achieve its aims), then, one is pressed to admit that the country
has been INDEED an authoritarian one since October 2002, that is, for the last TWO years. If that is so, then, why jump on Mohsin NOW for his remarks?

Or, is by jumping on Mohsin now, are the journalists and commentators saying that forget their earlier actions and words, but that the country is still a democracy as of now and that the "against regression = for democracy = against authoritarianism" movement was something that never really happened?

I mean, it makes sense for ONLY those who believe that we have a democracy to protest against Mohsin's remarks. These jouralists and commentators have long been saying that we do not have a democracy now. If that's so, why raise hell against Mohsin for stating what they've been stating since October 2002?

oohi
ashu

Czar, you missed my point. I didn't jump on to say internetalize Nepal to prepare it for democracy. I said, create economic oppurtunities, so that there's a strong middle class base. When there's a strong middle class people will have money to spend it on their kids' education. And the next generation will have education and money, and then they will be able to afford luxuries such as the internet. It is a source of diverse ideas, and when people are exposed to it, they will certainly come to respect the viewpoints that are very different than their own, and this will create a tolerant educated and able majority who can change Nepal.

Bush won, kerry lost despite his heavy internet presence, but not a single democrat is asking Bush to sytep down or there's calls for Washington-New York Bandha, or Democrats planning to block the President from entering/exiting the White house. America has a tolerant majority/opposition, and that's because of education, economic oppurtunities and diversity of ideas.

I have never felt so inadequate as I am feeling now to see the great PARADOX Ashu is so easily seeing in our civil's society's denunciation of Mohsin, the mantri WITH royal BOARDER's, deliberate prophecy for the oncoming Mahashasan of Gyanendra Maharaj versus a silent acceptance of the result of a scientific survey made by an organization of Reporters WITHOUT BOARDER.

Mohsin and RWB represent totally different intities, interests, method, agenda and purpose. Even a elementary school kid can tell this much. What Mohsin was telling us and what RWB was telling us are totally different things- in content, in intention, in how they come up with and in just about everything.

How the hell did you see a paradox there, Ashu ?

There is no comparison. There is no paradox.

What is there in fact is your interesting failure to denounce Mohsin for the reason only you know and your spectacular failure to see that our civil society including the journalists have in fact reacted profoundly to the report of the RWB. Let me explain the latter for you.

To begin, what is there to react strongly to the report of the RWD ? That Nepal should not be ranked 160th ? Okay, would it have been more accurate if it was 155th ? Or 150th ? Okay, let me make you happier, how about 145th ? What the hell, let me show you my big heart, take 140th.

Now, tell me what difference that makes. Will that tell that our Royal Army and Armed Police do not rouse fear in the minds, for illustrative purpose, an ordinary journalist who would like to do an investigative work on royal member or publish it too ? Will that tell that our Kamredi janasarkaar is more liberal when it comes to the freedom of expression ?

No. The 140th rank does not do that. It still tells qualitatively the same thing that the 160th rank does.

So, there might be some % error more than that reported in the report. But still, the report of RWD, with it's appropriate scientific limitation, gives a general picture of how we are.

So, to me, a general silence was an appropriate and also a profound reaction, at least in a poetic sense, to that report. Well done, the civil society of Nepal !

It was quite entertaining to see Ashu jumping like a fish in a frying pan and complaining that nobody saying nothing and making grand hypotheses on the reason for that silence and what not.

There is one more comincal part in Ashu's chhatpati.

He complains that nobody is saying anything. But he is himself reluctant to say what he expects others to say. His cautious remarks like A BIT of surprising and then a lot of apologetic and non-specific remarks (this and the previous thread on 160th rank) does not measure upto his questioning to others.

Put your own view first. Then complain about others. The reverse order is also okay. But just complaining and not putting your own view is ..I don't know what it is called, but I know it is typical of Ashu. My three years of experience and 16 ana. Lajjaa.

Allah is the only God and Mohammad is his prophet
(Repalce Allah with Gyanendra and Mohmmad with Mohsin and a poster above)

A line from prophet Isolated Freak caught my attention:

Our transition to democracy was without any preparation.

Dude, we started this preparation since before 2007 saal when Chaar Sahid gave their life for the cause. It's been 60+ years already.

And there is no pre-requisite for democracy. Democracy is the pre-requisite for what you might be saying is the pre-requisite for democracy.

There is no way to democracy. Democracy is the way.

Besides you are prophessing that Gyanendratantra is the preparation for democracy. Well we will see that. Mohsin predicts a qayamat. He might be right. But what he is not doing is predicting what happens next.

Good luck to you Royalists.

ehh, i am here just to praise Ashu's article in guild, "National Consensus: Who Needs It?", i enjoyed it immensely. Infact it is true, none of us Nepalese have any courage to question, "how good was rana sasan,?" instead its always, "rana sasan is bad." it has always been a statement, rather than a question. We are always taught in the school that Prithivi Narayan Shah was a brave king who established Nepal, but never taught how many people he had slaughtered along the way for his sake of unity. Anyways, point i am trying to convey is we have never doubt anything rather just accepted it as it has happened. Maobadi's have been very famous, of this delima now, every nepali fellows are taught that maobadi's are completly wrong people. Hence, the conclusion: We have never learned anything, rather only have experienced it.

khoi i am very confused, abt one issue out here, and let me pose it right now..

I do not understand, why should there even be a Democray in Nepal. Half of the country is filled with uneducated people, and country is going through a major revolution, for god sake's there isnt any electricity in some parts of nepal. Why should multi party system exist in undeveloped and illiterate country like nepal. If there is one power, one person, handling this issue, wouldnt it be much easier to develop the country faster, and then slowly transist towards democracy. so why is democrary, such an important factor for Nepalese? because half of the nation have still been sruving in "pressure" of proverty and "pressure" of democracy, so they wouldnt even give a rat's ass about democrarcy, as long as they can be provided with education and good living standard. As much as i understand, Democracy, will only be favor the rich nepalese in nepal, ....anyway's this is only my opinated and not well resaarched two cents...

i agree with nepe ji ...
And there is no pre-requisite for democracy. Democracy is the pre-requisite for what you might be saying is the pre-requisite for democracy. There is no way to democracy. Democracy is the way.

very well said nepe ji

Nepe wrote:

"Good luck to you Royalists."

**

I don't know who he meant by that characterisation, but one has come to accept that hurling adjectives and colorful names at those who dare question/challenge or even disagree with his ideas is one of Nepe's predictable debating tactics.

(Nepe reminds me of kids who grow up being told how brilliant, how smart they are by
all who around them

With Nepe, there is never a room for doubt, never a room for grey areas or for ambiguities or even for ambivalence. He's certain about what he knows, and he wants
to stop at HIS certainty . . .contradictory evidence be damned, and he waves what he knows as the truth, even if that meant painting others in a bad, caricatured light.

When he can't get his deas across, especially to people who may not share his politics, he then tries to go for the laughs, attacking them personally.

One example: Nepe's palpable anger about the fact that I -- unlike some his Sajha heroes of the past, whose errors he easily forgave because they happened to
have sided with his ideology-- refuse to be a poster-boy for his brand of
republicanism and prefer to weigh in with my own judgment is interesting.

Faced with my 'obstinacy', what does Nepe do? After giving me an obligatory "gaali",
he starts PREDICTING and FORECASTING -- as though he were some wise sage with
a fool-proof crysytal-ball -- that I would turn into a hard-core republican someday. In other words, he assures himself that if Ashu is not in a repubolican camp yet, then he WILL be in future, and in that way, he tries to co-opt me whether I like it or not.

I mean, how is one supposed to argue with, of all things, one man's predictions and forecasts about other people?

Meantime, for all his high-talk about republicanism and unduly harsh judgements against others who don't share his views, he appears to have done NOTHING, NOTHING at all in the past few years -- except for waving some placards in a park in DC -- to put himserlf in harm's way. Then again, perhaps Nepe knows that it's easier to fight for principles from afar than to live up to them at home.

****

The paradox.

As things stand, what is Nepal right now?

If you accept that Nepal is a democracy now, then, what was that "movement against regression" all about? If Nepal is a democracy now, what does that do to the validity
of RWF's conclusion?

BUT: If Nepal is NOT a democracy now, then why jump on Mohsin for stating pretty much what RWF stated in a different way?

The point is that our discussions about democracy has become so muddled, so narrow, so self-serving and so alarmingly fundamentalist in Nepal that we don't demand that Mohsin explain why Nepal ranks just above North Korea and Korea in terms press freedom (despite all his propaganda), while we pounce on him for saying that Nepal might be heading towards an authoritarian rule.

That's the paradox I find hard to reconcile with what I know about democracy.

And, Nepe, for your information, one article that I have been forwarding to all my friends and acquaintances for the past several years with an aim to change their mind is this . . . so don't assume that I don't know a thing or two about democracy.

-http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/jod/10.3sen.html

******

Finally, some of Nepal's "finest" intellectuals -- many of whom fought for democracy and what not -- are now begging the King to come and save the Royal Nepal Academy.

Now, that's another paradox I find hard to understand.

oohi
ashu