Comments on: From Monarchy to Chaos to Totalitarianism, Part 2: Coming Anarchy in Nepal

By: Ghatozkat

Ghatozkat — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:06:28 +0000

I agree with the writer. It’s sad that Nepalese chose to surrender to potential totalitarianism of the Maoists.
The decision to dethrone the Monarch is still controversial. The elections though said to conducted in a fair manner, the pre-elections phase was not at all fair. Political parties that had constitutional monarchy in their agendas were only limited to Kathmandu, the capital for if they tried to venture out, their leaders would be brutally assaulted by the maoists and even killed.

Once the political parties talked about referendum, but that was put aside because political parties feared that the King could garner a sizable amount of support from his citizens.

Nepal’s monarchy was no where close to feudal. While all other monarchies that you talked about in the earlier post might have gone down because they were feudal (or not, I don’t know much), Nepal monarchy had to bow down because the political parties feared that they would be eventually wiped out if they let the monarch, who was trying to revive a almost failed state continue.

Nepal has another force which you have not discussed. Other than the King, the political parties and the brutal maoists, we have our Army, now the Nepal Army, then then Royal Nepal Army. We have already seen instances here in Nepal where we have seen that the Army is not going to let go of the nation and watch the nation bear a severe assault by the maoists again. Our Army was never on offensive during the so called People’s war, had it been we would still have a Constitutional Monarch and we would have witnessed a SriLanka like assault by the Army on the rebels.

I still believe that Monarchy will be reinstated in Nepal. And voices like mine have been rising recently after people have finally realized that Maoists only tagged the Monarch as a feudal in a quest to establish totalitarianism. Nothing have changed in Nepal as promised earlier by the Maoists to prove that it was the Monarch because of whom Nepal was suffering.

Let me point out that, the days or Maoists are numbered in Nepal and when it finally happens, maoists are going to be wiped out such that Nepal should never again face war in the name of people planned just to take complete authority. All Nepalis have already seen that it was not due to the Monarch that the state failed, it was due to the short sightedness of the ruling parties that our state failed.

It’s not justice if you punish the Monarch for the crimes committed by the political leaders.

So, I don’t think you would be able to witness the theory you stated above put to test.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:59:36 +0000

JaA and Elambend, if you define empire broadly enough such that it includes even Afghanistan and Ethiopia, then the definition is so broad then what you’re really talking about is as to be synonymous with the state, and thus there is no distinction between the words state and empire, in which case you might as well just go back to the original Hobbes.

But this is also seperate from the topic of the post, which is the role of a monarch, and its importance. A monarchy is just another institution of the state. But it often has a history, traditional and religious, that provides stability and wards off tyrants. I think the history is clear, and I have serious concerns for Nepal.

By: ElamBend

ElamBend — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:06:33 +0000

To Echo JaA, I think Ferguson would quibble about Afghanistan and Ethiopia because both are multi-ethnic mini-empires usually dominated by one particular group.
I echo some of your feeling about Ferguson, Curzon, definitely the particular book I’m reading could be about a third shorter. However, having seen him in person and read a lot of his stuff, I think he is getting better; more succinct and less apt to push a particular hobby horse of his.

By: Just An Australian

Just An Australian — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:52:40 +0000

what’s your definition of an empire?

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:29:58 +0000

I’m read some of Nial’s work, although not that one. Generally, I’m not that impressed with what I’ve read, which is big on flowerly language but short on new substance. He is big on empires, not monarchy, and while there will be similarities, I think my point is different — I mean, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Nepal, and Afghanistan are monarchies that fell which really can’t be called empires.

By: ElamBend

ElamBend — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:01:11 +0000

Curzon,
Have your read Nial Ferguson’s “The War of the World”? Some of it’s themes are similar to yours in this series (let’s say they rhyme). A portion of his thesis is that great violence occurs when empires weaken and begin to break up. Reading your series reminds me of the book (of which I’m only 1/3 through).