Go Nepal ... I think

[herufeanor]

Nepal just overthrew their monarchy and established a Republic. By most measures, this is a Very Good Thing, and I applaud them for taking a massive step in the direction of becoming a modern and productive member of the global community

Comments

[maniakes]

Knowing almost nothing about Nepal's particular situation, my first reaction is to wonder how much of an improvement Maoists will be over a monarchy. I'm worried about the common third-world "Elections only once" problem.

[herufeanor]

You're having roughly the same reaction I am then. I'm glad to see mention of other major parties involved, so it's not a one-party state. At least, not yet. I do not see any mention of any real details about their constitution, so it's hard to say what sort of future elections are mandated, and how easy it might be to squirrel out of those elections.

[herufeanor]

Further reading shows that this was a long time in the making. Nepal moved from a full monarchy to a constitutional monarchy in 1990, but their government has been very unstable. The King apparently dissolved Parliament before their term was up on a fairly regular basis

[squid314]

I've been doing some reading, and it's come to my attention that most of the parties other than the Maoists are hopelessly corrupt. The Maoists are too stubborn and ideological to be corrupt, which is one of the main reason they have so much support. The non-Maoist parties won't be a solution to anything unti they get their act together and become the sort of parties that reasonable people could vote for.

There aren't a lot of details about the constitution because people are still debating it. This morning they announced that there would be a ceremonial president and a more powerful Prime Minister, and that the president would be nonpolitical. The non-Maoist parties want lots of checks and balances to control the Maoists, and the Maoists want fewer checks and balances so no one can control them. Other than that, not a lot has been decided.

[herufeanor]

Well, if the non-Maoists want lots of checks and balances, then they are having a positive influence on the system. That's probably the biggest thing that could address maniakes' "elections only once" concern.

[maniakes]

My other concern is that elective government is positively correlated with freedom, but not absolutely so. There's always the "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" problem, and a parliament with a Maoist plurality and hopelessly corrupt non-Maoist parties does not fill me with hope on that front. For me to be truly happy, the checks-and-balances need to include guarantees for civil and economic liberties, and they have to actually mean it.