The New York Times Online has a long front page article about the political situation in Nepal at this URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/w...lections-provide-a-series-of-subplots.html?hp
I don't know if the article is accurate or if it was written by someone knowledgeable about the country, but it's the only substantial article about Nepal's politics that I've ever seen in the U.S. mainstream press, so I suppose it's at least worth a look.
Here is a small excerpt from the article:
"There is a growing consensus here that the only way to arrest the country’s disastrous economic spiral is through elections. More than 120 political parties have registered to compete, and hope — long in as short supply as oxygen on nearby Mount Everest — is flourishing....
"Nepal, ruled for centuries by monarchs, has 125 ethnic groups, 127 spoken languages, scores of castes and three distinct ecosystems that have long divided its 27 million people into a blinding array of feuding communities, making political consensus difficult."
The idea that elections in and of themselves can cure any country's economic woes seems to me simplistic at best. It would certainly depend on whether any of the parties have real solutions, and whether the parties with solutions are the ones that win the election. Probably one would have to read Nepalese newspapers to find out what the many parties stand for, what they are proposing, and for that matter, what is the exact nature of the "disastrous economic spiral" mentioned in the Times article.
The Times says this:
"The principal disagreements among the parties are whether to adopt the American, French or British governance models and how to split the country into states."
And this:
"A struggle for influence between India and China is another of the election’s subtexts. The Maoists, who had the most seats in the previous assembly, favor China. The Nepali Congress party favors India."
If those are the main divisions among the political parties, it seems doubtful that the election result will have much effect on the economy of the country or the economic condition of its people. However, New York Times writers rarely have much insight into the politics of countries that are so different from the U.S. [It could be said that they don't have much insight into U.S. politics either, but that's a different question.]
I don't know if the article is accurate or if it was written by someone knowledgeable about the country, but it's the only substantial article about Nepal's politics that I've ever seen in the U.S. mainstream press, so I suppose it's at least worth a look.
Here is a small excerpt from the article:
"There is a growing consensus here that the only way to arrest the country’s disastrous economic spiral is through elections. More than 120 political parties have registered to compete, and hope — long in as short supply as oxygen on nearby Mount Everest — is flourishing....
"Nepal, ruled for centuries by monarchs, has 125 ethnic groups, 127 spoken languages, scores of castes and three distinct ecosystems that have long divided its 27 million people into a blinding array of feuding communities, making political consensus difficult."
The idea that elections in and of themselves can cure any country's economic woes seems to me simplistic at best. It would certainly depend on whether any of the parties have real solutions, and whether the parties with solutions are the ones that win the election. Probably one would have to read Nepalese newspapers to find out what the many parties stand for, what they are proposing, and for that matter, what is the exact nature of the "disastrous economic spiral" mentioned in the Times article.
The Times says this:
"The principal disagreements among the parties are whether to adopt the American, French or British governance models and how to split the country into states."
And this:
"A struggle for influence between India and China is another of the election’s subtexts. The Maoists, who had the most seats in the previous assembly, favor China. The Nepali Congress party favors India."
If those are the main divisions among the political parties, it seems doubtful that the election result will have much effect on the economy of the country or the economic condition of its people. However, New York Times writers rarely have much insight into the politics of countries that are so different from the U.S. [It could be said that they don't have much insight into U.S. politics either, but that's a different question.]
