Nepal Elections to End Monarchy

ANCHOR:
Opinions are divided on whether King Gyanendra should go or remain, but the elections on April 10 are set to bring an end to Nepal as the world's only Hindu kingdom.

STORY:
Nepalis from all over the country used to come to the royal palace to receive blessings from the King. But since the country's interim parliament stripped King Gyanendra and his family of most of their royal privileges, things have changed.

King Gyanendra's days are numbered as Nepal prepares for April 10 elections. The results will almost certainly abolish the monarchy, sealing a peace deal that ends a decade-long Maoist insurgency.
Some Nepalis don't trust that the change will be good.

[Vegetable Vendor, Nepal]:
"If there is no king, the public will not be looked after. People talk of a republic, but I still want a king."

According to a national poll half of Nepalis still support the monarchy, but don't support the king.

Support rose five percent in the last year, and about 60 percent wanted Nepal to remain a Hindu state.

[Kunda Dixit, Editor and Publisher, Nepali Times]:
"Lately, in the past five years, he as actually been a symbol if division, so if he's sidelined, you can start constructing a new kind of Nepal with a new political structure. Of course, it will not be easy. The elections don't mean that things will get better overnight. But this is a step towards the better, more inclusive, more just Nepal."

Polls open on April 10. Ballot counting will start immediately, but the official results will not be out for around two weeks.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ntd
• nepal
• election
• King
• Gyanendra
• Hindu
• Kingdom

[GermanConquistador08]

It saddens me how the monarchies of the old ages have been abolished by idoitic people who do not know their place in the empire. The US started this chain, and soon after because of them all the Nepal is the only true monarchy state left in the world. I would give anything to see the monarchs of old Europe and Asia brought back to save the world from the downfall it has started.

[ownlearning]

the british monarchy will remain forever, we are happy and the monarchy is the most effective, most well established, cheapest in many ways form of goverment for us, it benifits not just the uk but canada, australia, newzealand, jamaica ect....

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 "the sheer and painful reality is that a monarch has no longer the appeal, nor the moral value, in the eyes of modern people. Again, deal with it." -And I've told you, for the last time, you are looking at monarchial examples from previous centuries THAT isnt going to be a respectible form of government, I agree. HOWEVER as I've said COUNTLESS times before only through modern reforms to better fit the modern age can monarchy survive in the future.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 So arguebly, Iturbide's rule shows how political mismanangement along with economic and diplomatic pressures can destroy a monarchy HOWEVER, it doesnt prove that monarchy is a bad form of government because ANY government can become unstable via these measures. And yes, Maximillian wasnt even an Emperor of Mexico in my eyes, he was an Austrian put there by the French, and he was hated and rightly so. "designation is not synonym of justice or representation"- I never claimed so.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 Iturbide actually was NOT a bad ruler, but he was a bad administrator. He believed that he could dismiss the congress and avoid scrunity for it. Also, economic struggles because of nations refusal to trade with Mexico due to Spanish influence, as well as some minor influences of resistance against Inturbide coming from the Masonic Lodges who recieved US support for Mexico to become a republic and then the final blow coming from a revolutionary army.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 "And both models belong to the 19th Century, with much different standards from today." - Actually no, both are the only monarchies which have been reforming themselves to deal with the modern age. However, these are mostly figurehead monarchies, there are some ways in which a actual constitutional monarchy can perform in the modern age. "What´s worse, both Mexican rulers, Iturbide and Maximilian were utterly incompetent for the task" - my point exactly, they are were rulers. Why?

[makokun9]

@GermanConquistador08 Then you have been living in a bubble all your life, because you see, designation is not synonym of justice or representation. You are either blind or trying (in vain) to monopolize what "people relate to". You are letting your outdated romaticism guide your judgement, and have thus become out of touch with reality, and for you, the sheer and painful reality is that a monarch has no longer the appeal, nor the moral value, in the eyes of modern people. Again, deal with it.

[makokun9]

@GermanConquistador08 And both models belong to the 19th Century, with much different standards from today. What´s worse, both Mexican rulers, Iturbide and Maximilian were utterly incompetent for the task, and both met their demise soon: the first one as a mere despot, the second as outright invader.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 "Yes, but why should the executive power depend by law ("divine" law XD) on dinastic linegae!?" - Because the governed desire a good leader. Who can be a better leader than someone raised from birth to accomplish that task? The people relate to it because when done correctly and under modern reforms a monarchy can still thrive in the modern world, the problem is almost no modern monarchy with the exception of the UK and Japan has implimented such reforms.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 "Dinastic Wars, Feudalism, Colonialism and other evils pulverized that utopia" - First of all, colonialism is NOT a strictly Monarchial attribute. The Dutch Republic was the principle colonial power in the 17th century. "Can you imagine Latin American countries accepting the idea of being lead by a monarch?" -Considering how two (Brazil and Mexico) WERE under monarchies both representing how a successful and failed latin American monarchy works respectively.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 ...nobility as well as national values play into the development of a monarch in a way that democratically elected officials never can. "either through pacific of violent means, eventually" -Actually, an argument could be made that MORE violence occurs without a monarch. Iraq, Iran, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, multiple African countries, India just to name a few all suffered huge amounts of violence directly due to the end of a monarchy by a minority within, or a foreign force.

[GermanConquistador08]

@makokun9 "Revered... and eventually toppled" -In very few cases have monarchies ever been truely toppled, what I mean to say was that monarchs are often the most popular people in the country. They are revered because they are a reflect of the society. Look at every bad monarch or evil dictator in history, then look at the culture they came from. Its easy to see the similarities. The same goes with every democratically elected politicans. Instead of just society influences, legacy, nobility...