FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


King thrown away! Newest Republic Country





shkhanal
Nepal a small Himalayan country between India and China has been declared republic by constitution assembly on 28 May 2008. This has brought the royal existence of 240 years into a termination and the country transformed from "Kingdom of Nepal" into "Federal Republic Nepal".

The constitution assembly has given a time of 15 days for the King to leave Royal Palace. King's flag on the Palace has been substituted by National Flag on 29 May and people are asking the King to leave the palace at the earliest. Royal Palace will be made a National Musium.

A decade Maoist insurgency was ended after the alliance with national democratic parties. The joint struggle and peaceful demonstration finally pursuaded the King to restore the parliament and handover the power to political parties. Constitution Assembly Election made the Maoist Party the largest one (it obtained nearly majority). And the major demand of 10 year's armed struggle was to establish republic.

Now, the people of republic Nepal are expecting peace and prosperity.

For recent developments you can visit http://www.nepalnews.com
Cddhesh
Hope in the Nepal there will be peace now and soon a stable government will come.People have to take great care now while electing there government.Congress has already stood up there some new parties are also coming up.Future of Nepal is in peoples hand now.
Chinmoy
Oh, yes, I am from india and there was this big family murder case in which the royal prince murdered the whole family and shot himself-died in coma. Then the king's brother took over and was blamed for this. The people did not like him as well. Good for nepal i think.!
coolclay
Thanks great, I had not heard about that before. Good for Nepal, the more democracies the better! Let the people rule!
ocalhoun
As long as it is a real democracy, and not a faked one that keeps a particular group in charge, all for the better. There are those who like to call themselves democracies, but are worse than some dictatorships. Enough with the pessimism, though. It is likely enough that they are making a fine step forward.
Arseniy
Woohoo, it looks like new country...
But I'm afraid of the fact that this action can provocate another separatist countries to separate from their mother countries. And it is not so good.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
As long as it is a real democracy, and not a faked one that keeps a particular group in charge, all for the better. There are those who like to call themselves democracies, but are worse than some dictatorships. Enough with the pessimism, though. It is likely enough that they are making a fine step forward.

A real democracy, a real democracy, would be much less effective and less popular than the government you're referring to.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
As long as it is a real democracy, and not a faked one that keeps a particular group in charge, all for the better. There are those who like to call themselves democracies, but are worse than some dictatorships. Enough with the pessimism, though. It is likely enough that they are making a fine step forward.

A real democracy, a real democracy, would be much less effective and less popular than the government you're referring to.

True, I do need to get my terms correct and call it a republic.
Though with recent advances in technology, a real democracy could almost be possible.
Suppose each citizen was issued a cell-phone like device with which they could instantly vote on any issue that came up, or any decision that needed to be made. Decisions could be made by every single voter, or a random sampling of them quickly and easily.
The only problems:
Lack of funds to implement system and issue voting devices
Unfair to people with bad cell phone coverage (could be helped somewhat by yet more funds)
Uneducated and ignorant people making vital decisions could give the media and human stupidity more governing influence (A problem with any true democracy)
Someone would still have to come up with what decisions to vote on, and how to word them.
ganesh
I think monarchies of present days exist for namesake only. It is a pity that such a symbol of history is going into oblivion. All those who want the monarchy destroyed, why don't you ask the British to do away with the Queen? Of course they wouldn't because it is a ceremonial post and something worthy of history.

The real power should be with the people, and hopefully the people don't bring in the Maoists permanently and there are free and fair elections periodically (because once they are in, it is difficult to weed them out even when people want to!)
snowynight
ganesh wrote:
I think monarchies of present days exist for namesake only. It is a pity that such a symbol of history is going into oblivion. All those who want the monarchy destroyed, why don't you ask the British to do away with the Queen? Of course they wouldn't because it is a ceremonial post and something worthy of history.

The real power should be with the people, and hopefully the people don't bring in the Maoists permanently and there are free and fair elections periodically (because once they are in, it is difficult to weed them out even when people want to!)


People with prejudice always think in the way others don't like; they forbit others live peacefully without superpowers' supervision. Iraq is an example. Who cared whether iraqi people would suffer? The US just invaded for NO good reason. Do iraqi people have a chance to vote?

Britain? Do you think it is still a superpower? It is just a yesman to a big country. It is a ceremonial post, yes i agree. But it is also a shame to have kings or queens in a morden world. And what's wrong with Maoism? Have you ever studied it? Or just have had a strange idea ivoked by such men as Churchill or others? It's a shame to have prejudice against things you don't understand
ganesh
I am Indian by birth, and I come from the land of Mahatma Gandhi. Though I might not agree with all his principles, the one of non-violence is one which I think is very pertinent in the present day.

In my country, most Maoists are naxalites and cause a lot of suffering by their violent methods. I believe that I read a Reuters news article (linked below), which cites that Maoists still want to be violent:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Nepal-Maoists-not-ready-to-renounce-violence-yet/301166/

Socialism, as it exists in the Indian context, is comparitively less complaint prone than the Communism / Maoism of Chine (where human right violations abound) or the pure capitalism of the US. Every government must adapt the economics suitably and have a proper blend to ensure the welfare of the people.
ganesh
Just look at this news report:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/16naxal.htm

17 policemen have been killed in an explosion by the Maoist naxalites.

More treachery and violence from Maoists. All these will only make all sane and peace loving people of the world develop a bad opinion of all Maoists. We should all strive to make the world a better place to live in.
Related topics
Vegetarianism
Torture and the US
blue screen of death 0x8E
Armies?
Feed the hungry
Sufi Muslims prove Islam is cool.
Have you been hacked or do you like to hack?
Honest, hardworking AZ man asked for his "papers",
This Book is Not Real
They say all the best things in life are free.example?
I have reached a new low.
SOPA spreading like a virus...
Anarchism for me :D
Is Tendulkar the only one to blame for India's recent loss?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.