Monarchy Abolished in Nepal

[French Ninja]

...only to be replaced by something potentially much worse...
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MMAH-7F48PJ?OpenDocument&RSS20=02-P

Republic of Nepal celebrates abolition of monarchy
Nepal celebrated a new era as the world's youngest republic Thursday after consigning its centuries-old monarchy to the history books and ordering god-king Gyanendra to quit his palace in two weeks.

In an unprecedented vote capping a peace accord between Maoists and mainstream parties, a new constitutional assembly voted just before midnight on Wednesday to abolish the 240-year-old monarchy and establish a republic.

On Thursday morning, the flag of the Shah dynasty was taken down from the main palace in Kathmandu, which will now be turned into a national museum.
"The royal flag was replaced by Nepal's national flag inside the palace," a palace official said on condition of anonymity.

"The flag has been changed as part of the government decision to implement a republic."

Thursday and Friday were declared national holidays in the new republic, where supporters sang and danced on Kathmandu's streets after waiting all day for the vote.

The Maoists, clear winners of last month's elections, waged a decade of war to overthrow what they view as a backward, caste-ridden structure that kept most of Nepal's 29 million people living in dire poverty.

They have repeatedly warned King Gyanendra he faces "strong punishment" if he refuses to bow out gracefully.

"The Nepalese people have been freed from centuries of feudal tradition and the doors have now opened for a radical social and economic transformation," Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara told AFP after the vote.
The country's press hailed the republic.

"Turning Nepal into a republic is the biggest achievement of the people in the history of this country," wrote Kathmandu Post editor Prateek Pradhan in a letter to readers.

Many ordinary Nepalese are delighted to see the back of the dour, unpopular king as well as his son and would-be heir, Crown Prince Paras -- notorious for his playboy lifestyle.

"There was no development under the monarchy," said Prakash Karki, 26, a businessman, as he bought a newspaper. "There will be now that the people will run the country."

United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon welcomed the vote, saying Nepalese "have clearly spoken for peace and change."

The United States, which continues to list the former rebels as a foreign "terrorist" organisation, urged "forward political developments" in Nepal, US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington.

The vote in the 601-member assembly saw just four lawmakers oppose the declaration transforming Nepal into a secular republic.

"All the privileges enjoyed by the king and royal family will automatically come to an end," the declaration states, noting that the day will be known as "Republic Day."

The ultra-left Maoists won over a third of the seats in the assembly and are set to lead the new government, although many remain sceptical of a movement whose loyalists are regularly accused of using violence and intimidation.

And the ex-rebels face a difficult task improving life for a people weary of civil strife.

"Whenever I go out there's a bomb blast, a strike or a demonstration. These are the daily worries," said Seema Pradhan, 25, at her family's neighbourhood shop.

"I hope they will be able to make things better."

Gyanendra ascended the throne amid grief and suspicion in 2001 after most of the members of the royal family were slain in a palace massacre by the then crown prince, Dipendra.

Dipendra, who had been forbidden from marrying the woman he loved, gunned down his parents, the king and queen, and seven other royals before apparently turning the gun on himself.

Gyanendra was at the centre of many conspiracy theories linking him to the killings, and his unpopularity only deepened when he sacked the government and embarked on a period of autocratic rule in early 2005.
That came to an end after weeks of deadly nationwide protests organised by the Maoists and mainstream parties, who teamed up to sign a 2006 peace agreement.
bur-sjt-tl/bp/cc

I'm absolutely sure now that Maoists have great power in government, their policies will just work wonders for Nepal. Just look at China, circa 1958.

:|

 

[Adabiviak]

Almost any socio-econo-political system should work if everyone thinks it's great. The problem is that a great many of these systems aren't truly geared towards the benefit of the majority of the people and the now disgruntled masses will strive for change. Are the Nepalese people truly into whatever system the Maoists cook up? I'd be a little skittish if I were them. This is, however, pretty big news, and I hope things turn out for the better.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I hope this works out for them, 'tis good that democracy has birthed there.

 

[Solaris]

Long live the marxists.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Maoists are ****ing crazy.

 

[The Monkey]

I hope this works out for them, 'tis good that democracy has birthed there.

They're Maoists, don't get your hopes up.

 

[kirovman]

Long live the marxists.

Wrong communist party. Long live the Maoists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Constituent_Assembly_election,_2008#Parties

 

[Mr Stabby]

Reminds me of this.

 

[Nitre]

Augh damnit, 'Abolishing Monarchy' just sounds wrong to me for some reason.

 

[Tagaziel]

Long live the marxists.

Something denied to the millions of people killed in the name of the hammer and sickle.

 

[Eejit]

Augh damnit, 'Abolishing Monarchy' just sounds wrong to me for some reason.

Sounds good to me.



I wouldn't get worked up about "teh maoistz!" just yet, they only have 1/3rd of the seats.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The Marxist-Leninists and Maoists combined have a majority.

 

[Nitre]

The Marxist-Leninists and Maoists combined have a majority.

Oh hooray, that's great.

 

[Solaris]

It'll be curious to see what happens with a fresh communist regime in a 21st century world.

 

[Beerdude26]

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/3122/newbitmapimage13ks6.png
Good Lord!

 

[Tagaziel]

It'll be curious to see what happens with a fresh communist regime in a 21st century world.

What usually communists do. Human rights violations, atrocities, you know, the usual stuff...

 

[Gray Fox]

It's inevitable, much like the decline in intelligence as direct result of your posts.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

What usually communists do. Human rights violations, atrocities, you know, the usual stuff...

This.

It's inevitable, much like the decline in intelligence as direct result of your posts.

I like how you just insulted Grizzly but didn't actually reply properly. Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Solaris]

Yeah I'm kind of worried about what might happen.

It makes me uncomfertable that every communist regime, doesn't only fall, but ends up in the worst, most monsterous violence, famine and genocide imaginable: Cambodia, China, North Korea, Russia to name a few...

I cannot understand why this happens, perhaps it's the peasents revenge, after centuries of oppression the people otherthrow the ruling classes in a river of blood.

 

[Que-Ever]

I can't help but feel you're taking the piss.

...out? Taking the piss out? Damn british slang.

 

[Solaris]

Lol it's taking the piss. And I'm not, In Cambodia everyone who wore classes was killed for being an intellectual. People were sent to labour camps and those who grew their own food in secret becuase they were not fed properly were executed for private enterprise. Between a fifth and a third of the population was killed by the regime. However, they beleieved that the peasentry were the prolertariat and the urban working classes were bourgesie or whatever so maybe that lets Marxism off the hook.

Even Lenin knew the dangers of the peasentry, it was why he closed down the constituent assembly when they elected somebody who was not him.

 

[Gray Fox]

This.



I like how you just insulted Grizzly but didn't actually reply properly. Obvious troll is obvious.

I like how you believe his statement deserves any kind of intelligible answer.
Apart from being stupid, generalizing, incorrect and purposefully so. Like
any opinion expressed by grizzly it's insulting, since he apparently doesn't
have the mental maturity to express anything he writes without insulting
someone, be it political opinion or relating to games.

But you set the standard way to high for me by repeating a 4chan meme,
and seeing as I clearly don't have the intellectual capacity to compete with
you I'm signing out for now.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Lol it's taking the piss. And I'm not, In Cambodia everyone who wore classes was killed for being an intellectual.

classes or glasses? wiping out intellectuals wasn't confined to Cambodia, every communist country did it. Although Pol Pot was no peasant.

People were sent to labour camps and those who grew their own food in secret becuase they were not fed properly were executed for private enterprise. Between a fifth and a third of the population was killed by the regime.

According to communism, free enterprise is the bane of humanity, so what did they do wrong from a Marxist viewpoint?

However, they beleieved that the peasentry were the prolertariat and the urban working classes were bourgesie or whatever so maybe that lets Marxism off the hook.

Cambodia had little to no, industry, so it didn't have factory workers, surely the peasantry are proletarians though, how else would you describe them. Cambodia was also horrendous for the peasants too.

Even Lenin knew the dangers of the peasentry, it was why he closed down the constituent assembly when they elected somebody who was not him.

'People who don't support me are dangerous'

 

[The Monkey]

Yeah I'm kind of worried about what might happen.

It makes me uncomfertable that every communist regime, doesn't only fall, but ends up in the worst, most monsterous violence, famine and genocide imaginable: Cambodia, China, North Korea, Russia to name a few...

I cannot understand why this happens, perhaps it's the peasents revenge, after centuries of oppression the people otherthrow the ruling classes in a river of blood.

It happens out of two reasons:
1. A planned economy is unable to uphold a country that's gone through industrialization.
2. Communism is unable to prevent corruption and abuse of power, because it lacks any instruments of controlling the leaders.

 

[Polaris]

3. Human nature

Their leader Prachanda launched the Nepalese People's War in which about 13,000 Nepalis were killed. Nice to see a fresh communist regime in a 21st century world.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I like how you believe his statement deserves any kind of intelligible answer.
Apart from being stupid, generalizing, incorrect and purposefully so.

Name one communist regime that hasn't turned into what he said. Seriously. His "generalising" was accurate.

Like
any opinion expressed by grizzly it's insulting, since he apparently doesn't
have the mental maturity to express anything he writes without insulting
someone, be it political opinion or relating to games.

But you set the standard way to high for me by repeating a 4chan meme,
and seeing as I clearly don't have the intellectual capacity to compete with
you I'm signing out for now.

...

 

[kirovman]

Communism is fine as long as you don't practice socialism and centralisation of power. And make sure the peasants know their place.

 

[Thunderclap]

I think that's called feudalism, kirovman.

Not that I wish to imply anything bad about feudalism. It worked splendidly for a millennium, longer in some places.

 

[Solaris]

classes or glasses? wiping out intellectuals wasn't confined to Cambodia, every communist country did it. Although Pol Pot was no peasant.

I meant to type glasses, sorry. The Kyhmer Rouge were so extreme in their hatred of intellectuals they killed everybody who wore glasses. Also, I assert that any country which 'wipes out'n people for being intellectual is not communist. Lenin once said "Socialism needs democracy like the blood needs oxygen" and I believe this. The only problem was, to acheive socialism, Lenin needed to remove democratic apperatus such was the severity of the situation he was in.

According to communism, free enterprise is the bane of humanity, so what did they do wrong from a Marxist viewpoint?

Free enterprise should be unnessacary under a socialist regime. But no Marxist would kill people for just growing food to kill themselves that's a sick parody of Marxist ideas.

Cambodia had little to no, industry, so it didn't have factory workers, surely the peasantry are proletarians though, how else would you describe them. Cambodia was also horrendous for the peasants too.

They were not prolertarians, they were the peasentry, with all the backward, ignorant and often racist viewpoint that the peasent class in all countries have held.

This is why Lenin shut down the constituent assembly. The peasentry was 90+% of the country and they had elected the Socialist Revolutionaries as the largest party in the Assembly. Lenin knew how bigoted and utterly backward these people were, he did absolutely everything he could, no matter how ruthless to stop the peasentry ruling the country. His dictatorship was untasteful, but it was nessacary to stop the Russian equivalent of the Khymer Rouge.

 

[repiV]

*bashes head on wall repeatedly*

There is nothing good about communism. I thought this old chestnut had died quietly by now...

The world does not run on good intentions. Poverty, suffering, oppression and complete economic ruin - the results of communism - are not acceptable just because "it's for the people!!!!111". And if we could stop this crap about "the working class", that would be nice too. We do not live in a Dickens novel, there is no such thing as "the aristocracy" and noone is being repressed by the landed gentry.

Furthermore, if you can't understand the concept that communism and freedom can never co-exist because communism takes away all self-determination and makes all citizens utterly dependent clients of the state, then you shouldn't be discussing economics in the first place.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I meant to type glasses, sorry. The Kyhmer Rouge were so extreme in their hatred of intellectuals they killed everybody who wore glasses. Also, I assert that any country which 'wipes out'n people for being intellectual is not communist. Lenin once said "Socialism needs democracy like the blood needs oxygen" and I believe this. The only problem was, to acheive socialism, Lenin needed to remove democratic apperatus such was the severity of the situation he was in.

Many communist regimes have labeled intellectuals as bourgeoisie and eliminated them. Cambodia wasn't really that much worse then the USSR or China. Seems to me that wiping out classes of people, is an inherent flaw of a political ideology based on 'class struggle'.

Free enterprise should be unnessacary under a socialist regime. But no Marxist would kill people for just growing food to kill themselves that's a sick parody of Marxist ideas.

Lenin did it, removing capitalists doesn't seem at all at odds with marxist ideology. Free enterprise is both necessary for a good economy, and you can't have a free society that prohibits trade which has existed as long as civilization. Full blown economic socialism is logically impossible anyway.

They were not prolertarians, they were the peasentry, with all the backward, ignorant and often racist viewpoint that the peasent class in all countries have held.

I thought the proletariat meant the labouring classes, Why the hammer and sickle, if the rural working class aren't proletariat. Also your stereotype of peasants is rather bigoted.

This is why Lenin shut down the constituent assembly. The peasentry was 90+% of the country and they had elected the Socialist Revolutionaries as the largest party in the Assembly. Lenin knew how bigoted and utterly backward these people were, he did absolutely everything he could, no matter how ruthless to stop the peasentry ruling the country. His dictatorship was untasteful, but it was nessacary to stop the Russian equivalent of the Khymer Rouge.

Peasants bore the brunt of the misery inflicted by the Soviet Union, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have been better off with the Socialist revolutionaries in power, or preferably moderate liberal land reformers. Supposedly Lenin supported democracy yet here is an example of his outright contempt for it. The Khmer rouge had a lot more in common with the Bolsheviks, than with the Russian land reformers .