Nepal

POSTED BY: Zisker
UPDATED: Sunday, April 23, 2006 18:50
VIEWED: 1179
PAGE 1 of 1

ZISKER

Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:06 PM

So, this has been going on for quite some time and I haven't seen anyone mention it. What do we all think about the situation in Nepal? Unchecked monarch? Revolutionary government with a violent past? Which is better?

Will the hard-liners succeed in driving King Gyanendra from Nepal or with the majority rule the day and get their desired ceremonial monarchy? Will the king agree to be just a figure head? Does anyone have a strong preference for one or t'other due to ideological or situational reasons?

Personally, I think that a ceremonial monarchy might be able to work (this is obviously a politically mobilized populace), but how to control the interim government during the transition. I can honestly see the Maoists taking the opportunity to elbow their way into power and just stay there even if they don't win the election. That said - you can't keep a king everyone wants deposed.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.SerenityJune23rd.com
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

SASSALICIOUS

Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:41 PM

I need to do more research before I make a big statement, but I think the ceremonial monarch would be a good option. It's working in Thailand, after all.

Though what would the actual governing body end up being? Democratic or "democratic" with a military rule?

*it's nice to see something on here that isn't America/Iraq/Middle East oriented*

KHYRON

Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
*it's nice to see something on here that isn't America/Iraq/Middle East oriented*

Just wait a day or two. It will be.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.