The debate that is currently going on in Nepal about the Hindu state and constitutional monarchy, let us not take it lightly as the demand of only Durga Prasai, Kamal Thapa, Rajendra Lingdel, Lokesh Dhakal, Laxman Ghimire, Shankar Bhandari, Manisha Koirala, Shashank Koirala.
Many countries in the world have a republic but there is no prosperity, development, freedom of the people and democracy. Republic and democracy are different issues. Being a republic does not bring prosperity and development. When democracy is implemented in a republic, the country achieves prosperity, development and people's freedom. In America, there is a republic, there is democracy, but although it is said to be many parties, in practice there are only two parties. But still, there is development, freedom and freedom. How will Trump take it forward now? Let's see.
If the Panchayat had given some freedom to the people, if it had done well for the country and the people, the people would not have come to the streets saying, "Panchayat is a thief, leave the country, and the Panchayat system is a dead system." We want democracy with a multi-party system / Democracy and a multi-party system are different issues.
Some countries have developed even without democracy and a multi-party system. An example is China. China does not have a multi-party system. There is no democracy, but development has progressed. Economic progress, production has progressed at a rapid pace.
With democracy, development, growth, and economic growth, the freedom of the people is always guaranteed. America has democracy, but even though it is called a multi-party system, in reality only two parties are in the elections. There is no multi-party system.
Britain has a constitutional monarchy but also democracy. Along with development, growth, and economic growth, people's freedom is always guaranteed.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have an active monarchy, development, but no democracy.
In the past, many communist countries had development, growth, but no freedom or democracy.
In a democracy, there is administrative change or reform? Administrative change or reform? And you can talk, speak, and hold road protests about executive change or reform. In a republic, what the majority of the people say may not be heard.
In China, there is a republic, but the majority of the people want to live freely and make decisions, but Xi Jinping does not give them complete freedom.
Russia has a republic, but the majority of the people want to live freely and make decisions, but Putin does not give them complete freedom.
Therefore, a republic and a democracy are different issues. In a democracy, the people are the executive. The people can demand a change in the regime, a change in the constitution. This is possible either through voting or through a street movement. If it is not possible to change the constitutional system of the country through voting, there are many examples of people's street movements changing the constitutional system of the country.
The Panchayat was not thrown out by voting, it was thrown out by the street movement. In 2046, the people came to the street. They threw out the panchayat. They made a sense in the constitutional monarchy. Democracy with a constitutional monarchy came.
A new voice of rebellion came. The movement of 2062 2063 came. The people came to the street. Republic and democracy came
New voices of the people have now come out in favor of constitutional monarchy. Let's see how the people's participation and support in this demand and the road movement will progress? Time will tell.
The history of democratic movements has also strengthened the democratic government and parliament, which brought popular votes through periodic elections. In a democracy, the demands and voices of the people are addressed. This is not often done in a republic. But in a country where the republic and democracy are fully effective, the voices of the people are addressed in a timely manner and rebellion is not allowed to turn into slaughter.
Britain has a complete democracy and federalism with a constitutional monarchy. Britain is made up of 4 countries. Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. A few years ago, the Scottish people in Scotland talked about taking Scotland out of Britain and making their own country Scotland in a tea shop. This demand was being discussed everywhere. The Scottish people did not even protest, protest or riot to separate Scotland from Britain. But there was a lot of discussion in newspapers and tea shops.
Britain has a fully democratic constitutional monarchy. The democratic government listened to the voice of the people. The British government accepted what the Scottish people said, and held a referendum in Scotland on whether Scotland should secede from the UK or not. Many Scottish people voted in favor of Scotland remaining in the UK. The democratic government listened to the voice of the people on time. It gave the people the right to decide. The movement to separate Scotland from the UK did not turn into a massacre. The democratic government did well on time. The government still gained trust.
Another surprising thing is that even the then Queen of Britain said that the decision to leave or not to leave Scotland is the Scottish people's/I have no objection. My government is a democratic government. The people are strong, she said. She said that a referendum should be held and the people should be allowed to decide/ The Queen and the government became popular/
A few years ago in Britain, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson started a debate about whether Britain should leave the European Union. The debate started in every home. In the Brexit movement in Britain, there was no major violence, death, mob rule, sabotage, UK shutdown, strikes, or killings.
The democratic government was watching. Brexit was discussed in every home of the British people. The government was democratic. The UK government decided to hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU or not, saying that the people should be listened to. The British people decided to leave the EU. Britain is now outside the EU.
There are many examples of democratic governments in the world holding referendums to address the demands of the people on issues that were not demanded by mobs, sabotage, or killings, but were discussed every day in people's homes.
Is there only a republic in Nepal or is there both a republic and a democracy? I don't know. For the past 10 years, the discussion that has been going on in every household is the debate between a constitutional monarchy and a Hindu state.
I am a republican and a democrat. I reject this government if it is only a republican. It is fine if this government is a republican and a democrat. But if it is a democratic government, like the democratic government of Britain, the debate between constitutional monarchy and Hindu state in every home for the past 10 years should not be further mob rule, killing, vandalism, zindabad, and mordabad. The democratic government should now hold a public meeting like the democratic government of Britain to take a decision on this issue. We should not be afraid of this.
The people said they did not want the Rana monarchy. The Rana monarchy went away. They said they did not want the Panchayat. The Panchayat went away. The people said they did not want the constitutional monarchy. The constitutional monarchy went away.
Republic cannot be the only option for development, prosperity and freedom/Republic is just a form of government. There are many models of republic. But there is no alternative to democracy for development, prosperity and freedom. What does that mean? That is, to accept the decision of the majority of the people/
There are many examples of the government holding referendums to decide on important issues in a country with full democracy. If the referendum gives the form of a republic again, then Gagan Thapa, Krishna Sitaula and other communists will lose their pride that the republic came because of me. But that is just an illusion. The republic came not only because of you, but because of the strength of millions of Nepalis. It was not just some leaders who brought about the republic. Hundreds of martyrs and thousands of limbs were amputated to bring it about.
The movement of 2062-2063 brought not only the republic, but also democracy. Democracy means the right of the people to decide for the people's government. The democratic people decided in favor of a republic. Now, will those same democratic people keep this republic? Will they keep a constitutional monarchy? Will they give them other options? That right always remains with the people. It is an undemocratic idea to say that once a republic comes, that system of government is the final one.
When Krishna Sitaula and Gagan Thapa hold a referendum, fearing that their past thinking will fail and their popularity will decline, they will continue to speak with frustration and shrink from the people's right to decide through a referendum within a democracy.
Are the people in favor of a republic? Or are they in favor of a constitutional monarchy? The question cannot be decided only by the past crowd of people who gathered on the road in 2062-2063, 18 years ago. A lot of water has flowed in the river in these 18 years. What is a republic? We have also tasted it. A lot has changed in the minds and thinking of the people in these 18 years. What decisions will the people make now? What do they want? That is what is important.
I think, are there more people in favor of republicans? Or are there more people in favor of constitutional monarchy? Or are there more people in favor of secularism? Or are there more people in favor of Hindu state? The basis for measuring that is the referendum itself.
Therefore, in this latest situation, it would be appropriate to hold a public meeting to take a decision rather than further damaging the debate going on in the house-to-house by pushing it towards mobs, vandalism, killing, violence, terror, zindabad, and murdabad. I am a democrat / I am in favor of accepting whatever decision the people make through a referendum. If a referendum is held, I will vote in favor of full democracy including a republic. But whatever decision the majority of Nepali people make in the referendum, I will accept it.
Comments
Post a Comment