Got this from Samudaya website.
Well said..
"
Historic DC Rally of May 15, 2005: some resentment
--Somnath Ghimire

I wanted to let you all know the outcome feelings of the people who attended
the Historic DC Rally.

More than 80 percent of the DC Rally Demonstrators have the following
queries: DC Rally became successful in quantity but not in quality.

1) What was the main agenda of the DC Rally?

2) Was it for the Pro-King, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Political Parties or for
Opportunists?

3) Why Speakers were not sorted out? Why were they not given a certain
boundary/topic to present in their speech?

4) If King Gyanendra suppressed the freedom of Speech in Nepal, why did
not we do that to all Mandaless/King's Supporters in their speech in the
Rally? Why was Prem Raja Mahat given a chance to present his speech instead
of singing a song? Is he a Pro-Democrat or Pro-King?

5) As it says in WWW.DCRALLY.ORG, DC Rally Committee, who are in the
committee? Why the names were/are not disclosed? Or the committee without
any names??..?

6) Was the DC Rally for launching ceremony of the book "Broken Pen"?
This was unknown to all of us. How did Murari Raj Sharma become the Chief
Guest in the middle of the Program?

7) Why & How was Murari Raj Sharma given a title of the Commander of
Democracy?

8) It was announced that, "it's raining now we have sorted our speakers
including Sherpa's": Why we need to say that, demoralizing lower caste
people, and we say that we need to be in diversity. Again, right after the
rain stopped and Sherpa was called back to podium, what is this nonsense? As
pointed out that T.Kumar of AI presented his speech under an umbrella, why
not Sherpa? There were people from Tamang, Rai and Gurung as well. Where is
the trend of respecting the all strata of life irrespective of all caste,
color, creed, gender, origin, religion and nationality?

9) Why Murari Raj Sharma got half an hour time to present his speech
and not others? Why did not we get the idea of "INCLUSIVE" instead of
"EXCLUSIVE"? People were frustrated.

10) Why people from NJ, MA, RI, Maine, Ohio, and South Carolina were not
given a minute to say their words of Democracy? As it was announced that
every representative from each States will be given a chance to speak, and
few got their chances including Girija Gautam, single man representing from
Tennessee. Isn't it a biased?

11) Why Nepalese Democratic Youth Council in USA became the platform for
the Opportunist and the Pro-King People? Why and how the NDYCUSA is
established? What is its aim? Why NDYCUSA is being used by Middle Ground
People? Can't NDYCUSA become in the Top Ground? We don't need the second
best; we need to be in the "First Best".

12) Why our people heard the words "Shree Panch Maharaja Dhiraj" in the
vote of thanks speech. Is this in favor of the King or against? Listen we are in the 21st Century."

Very interesting discussion. Although, the discussion may have deviated a bit from the original post, some really great points have been raised. I am a late comer to this game and this is my first political post in a long time so bear with me as I put forward some of my observations about current affairs in Nepal.

(1)There have been no winners in the triangular conflict between the parties, the King and the Maoists. All three forces have been badly damaged by this conflict. This leads me to believe some sort of compromise is in the offing. The strategists and supporters of all the sides can do as much as much saber-rattling as they want in public but no one is gaining ground in this conflict and perpetual conflict really doesn't benefit anyone. Both the King and the Maoists stand to lose support if the conflict drags on which might give the advantage to the parties but the irony is the parties are so unempowered politically and have a such bad reputation that I am not sure how they can use dissatisfaction against the King and Maoists to bring about change.

(2) The King still has a slight edge over the Maoists and parties currently although I must say that is fast changing. There appears to be quite a bit of support for him in Kathmandu and other urban population centers in Nepal. If he can bring about a sense of peace and security in Kathmandu and slowly extend that to other cities, he may be able to legitimize the February 1 move. However, the protests by the 5 parties, the clampdown on the media and international, especially Indian, reluctance to support him all point to trouble for the King. While he still has the political advantage, it is slipping away fast.

(3) The King has mismanaged his relationship with the media. In the beginning King Gyanendra appeared to be a media savvy politician and many of his opponents were actually scared that he could win over the media and use the power and passion of the converted to justify the February 1 move. In my opinion, the move to censor the media and close media offices has been the most short-sighted political move by King Gyanendra, Dr Giri and all the people advising them. The media was never really pro-party (or anti-King) in my opinion. Look at the way they used to rip Congress and Communists apart. Collectively, the Nepali media spared no one - Congress party, UML, Maoists, Girija Koirala, Madhab Nepal everyone was fair game. The King has lost a big opportunity here.

(4) I know some of my friends will disagree with me on this point, but I think the King acted with good intentions on February 1 but with a total lack of foresight. Gyanendra is an ardent old school Panchayati nationalist - you may disagree with him and hate his guts - but you have to admit that people like him *genuinely* believe that Nepali nationalism, in spite of all it's shortcomings, is worth fighting for and if he says he wanted to save the country on February one, I can respect that. I only wish the alternative he brought about wasn't so pathetic and directionless. He and other nationalists need to understand that in this day and age, in our country (I cringe every time I hear Musharaf mentioned as a
shining example), you cannot suppress political dissent. There is no need to read big books or do in depth historical analysis, it is common sense that in today's world order, if the US, UK and India don't support the political system in Nepal, it wont last. Tough shit. Life is not fair.

(5) Talking about intent, I think the parties have good intentions too. But like the King, they seem to have lost direction. That seems to be changing a bit with recent events and support from India, US and others but unless they are able to shed their corrupt image I am not sure enough people will be willing to follow them. It is not sufficient to say you believe in democracy and will die for it. Most people believe that and don't question the commitment of the parties to democracy. What people are looking for is good governance and the parties haven't convinced a whole lot of people that they are capable of it. As long as the likes of Sujata Koirala, Chiranjibi Wagle, Bijaya Gachedar hang around the parties it is going to be hard to digest their argument that they can provide a better governance.

(6) The solution to our problems may not be to eliminate either the parties, the King or the Maoists. While the elimination of one or the other could produce a more simplified balance of power in the country, it simply doesn't appear probable and practical at this point (or even in the foreseeable future.)

(7) These three forces can only be brought together by an external mediator. India is beginning to play that role. But it needs to be more inclusive of the King. All options need to be on the table. As absurd as the idea may sound to some , the King should be willing to consider reinstating parliament. Elections to a constituent assembly are inevitable in my opinion - whether now or later, whether by force or through consensus.

(8) Absolute panchayat is not practical. Neither is absolute Maoism. Or for that matter absolute democracy (if there is such a thing). Our next political system must be one that can handle the dynamics and diversity of a country like ours. I am not an expert to state everything that needs to be in that constitution but I think our chances of getting a good constitution are better if the people who make the constitution represent the greater interests of the country and a constituent assembly seems to be the best forum to do such a thing.

(9) I do not see India occupying Nepal. It will be a political, diplomatic and logistical nightmare for them. Worst case they may send in some troops if all hell breaks loose and the ISI moves its forward operations base there and creates havoc for them but a sustained occupation of Nepal and integration into the Indian union is nothing more than fanciful thinking on the parts of some people in India and Nepal.

My 2 cents

I liked the way Ram chandra Poudel, N. Acharya are continuing to
stay in Jail. They don't want to go to court for their release, as most
leaders did it. They are challenging the govt. Ram Chandra Poudel
who once told controversial stuff on Nirmal Niwas was center of
Maoist leadership until 2000 as revealed by BRB in 2001 post
massacre article in Kantipur. BRB was telling that time that they
were in contact with Dhirendra Shah.... etc... and BRB was
blasting RAW. Equation in politics has changed, now RAW (India)
is BRB's security provider and facilitator and Nirmal Niwas is
traiter's house and RAW is god for the same BRB. Neither
BRB nor peoples in Nirmal Niwas will disclose their relationship
until 2001.

Possibly Narahari Acharya will be next the frontline leader in NeKa
provided corrupts like Govinda Raj Joshi and Khume are erradicated
from Neka and its not going to happen as long as Girija is alive.
Only thing I did not like with the Nepali Diasporas in USA is that they
always try to approach Nepali political leaders through the channel
created by corrupt leaders and their relatives like Sujata Koirala.
Lets not forget one great example was the petition signed by thousands
of Nepalis last year, under the leadership of Dr. Alok Bohara (he drafted
it) was sent through Sujata Koirala.

There are some corrupts (intellectually and morally corrupt) in Nepali
Diaspora leadership and they are literally dogs of Sujata Koirala. Lets
not forget that Nepali Congress was made more corrupt because of
Sujata Koirala's different scandals, one of them is Lauda Kanda.


GP

Did you guys read an article written by Indian Express columnist and
published in some website in Nepal. (I forgot it). He wrote that
India missed a good chance to convince western world that it can be
a trusted partner to take leadership in South Asia. The
writer tells that secret meeting with the Maoist leader BRB was
sucidal to India.That was a great article an Indian has written
on Nepal. India should not have missed a chance to get trust
from EU or Americans. They did miss it.

GP

It is funny how leaders still expect Nepalese act as their puppets. We Nepalese been betrayed more than once by so called leaders. I do not think anyone wants to be betrayed again. As long as taritors like girija, govinda raj joshi, khume, makune, bam dev and so on are supported by thier parties are not kicked out of the respective parties their call for revolution will not succeed. No body wants to give up thier lives to bring the same old cat and mouse game between parties.

Only new faces with proven committment to Nepal can bring about some change.

Yeaa that is reason why I recommend that these leaders should be exterminated by either Gyanendra or Maoist

Did anyone notice this illegal Nepali holding protest playcard in DC rally.

All right, ISO. As promised, here I am, under my own name, adding opposing views to your beliefs. I hope you won't take this "Inter-continental Ballistic Missile" fired from North America to China personally. ;)

First of all, we've had these kinds of discussions amny times before, so whatever I am going to write may sound repetitive to you. However, since you have brought up same arguments, and for the benefit of the readers who might be new to these discussions, I do not mind repeating myself here again.

Singapore, China, even Pakistan vs. Nepal

In your response to newuser above, you have correctly said you can't compare apples with oranges -- Nepal is not Singapore, and Lee Kwan Yew is not King Gyanendra. Besides some very valid points that newuser has mentioned above regarding other dictatorial leaders vis-a-vis King G, all I have to add to that is that most of the other dictatorial rules that you've tried to justify had commoners at the helm of authority. Chinese leaders, Lee, Musharraf, etc. were all, at one time or another, ordinary citizens of their respective countries, and know exactly what it means to suffer as an ordinary citizen. They knew what is means to be poor, and they knew what it means to have to worry about daily survival. The fact that Nepali royalty lacks such nexus to people's real problems means that no matter how sincere their intentions may be, they will never be able to come to terms with the real problems of the people. If they could, King Mahendra's, whom I too would like to believe had very good intentions, would have succeeded in bringing prosperity to Nepal long ago.

Talking about King Mahendra, yes, you are right he gave birth to new Nepali nationalism. Howver, he did so wrongly. Even Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia rallied the cause of nationalism to promote his personal agenda, and succeeded to some extent in the beginning. I do not have to remind you where that kind of negative sense of nationalism led Serbian people to. King Mahendra's intentions may have been sincere, but his Panchayat's way of promoting nationalism through coerced homogenity, through exclusive, repressive, and forceful policies sowed the seeds of conflict to begin with, of which we are now bearing the fruits (as displayed by Maoist conflict). The fact is, we could have enjoyed even greater sense of national unity through respect and recognition of our diverse ethnicity, rathaer than single language (Nepali), single religion (Hinduism), single bhesh (Daura Suruwal), etc. If India wanted to turn Nepal into another Bhutan or Sikkim, I don't think they would have been detered by Mahendra's policies -- they always could, and they still can, overhwlem Nepal with it's forces ANYTIME. I am sure there are many other factors, not necessarily simple goodwill, that has kept India from creating a protecrate state of Nepal.

Lastly for today (I will be addressing other issues as time permits), you have chosen Jordan's case to juxtapose with that of Nepal to justify authoritarian King. Jordan's progress under dictatorial King can hardly be considered satisfactory. Instead, their recent leap towards progress can only be attributed to fast LIBERALIZATION under tremendous pressure particularly from the US. If we are to take an example of great success story in the Middle East, I'd rather point to Lebanon. Because Lebanon was sensitive to political and religious freedom from the time of it's inception, it achieved much, much more success thant the rest of Middle Eastern countries. Had it not been for the brutal civil war that it had to endure, Beirut was considered the "Paris of the Middle East," not only in terms of its beauty, but for it's economic achievements also. How did that happen? As I said above, Lebanese policies were the most democratic and free. They chose INCLUSIVE policies to accomodate their differences among Sunni Muslims, Christians, Druz, etc. Now that the civil war is over there, Lebanon is again on a fast track towards prosperity, both economic and social -- it has already become a country to envy among the Middle East countries. DEMOCRACY and the FREE WILL of the people worked marvels there, whereas the lack thereof in other Middle East countries continues to hold them back from achieving greater success.

Anil jyu,

Give me one instance when I have taken "valid" opposition personally. Just as you are taking classes on Conflict Resolution, I too, took some classes on negotiations when I was a college student in the US a long time ago.

Alright this is what I call real challenge.

Now to defend my position (and I too hope that you won't take it personally:-)

1. You say, if I did not misunderstand you: Commoner dictator is better than Royal dicatator because the latter is cut off from the reality of the country.

My defense: Not necessarily. Commoner dictators have nothing to loose, because they know they will be replaced, sonner or later by coup de tat or other revolts and they are prepared for it. For the Royals on the other hand, their whole throne is in the line and they cannot risk revolts and popular uprisings against it. So they try to be closer to the people more than the commoner dictators to presever the title (and all the benifits that comes with it). So, I'd argue otherwise: its the royals that are serious regarding their countries because its a zero sum game for them. You win, alright.. you loose, you are gone forever.

2. Panchayat, Nepali Nationalism and Mahendra.

I don't think Mahendra's way of imposing nationalism was wrong and it(Mahendran Nationalism) can be compared to the ethnic nationalism of Serbia. I see him as our own Mustafa Kemal attaturk of Turkey. He had to create the differences between India and Nepal, because only the differences guaranted Nepal's independence. So in the process of creating the differences and creating a distinct Nepali identity, all those things you mentioned had to be imposed on the people, just like in Turkey after the First World War. Through the language (and to certain extent) religion, Mahendra tried to bridge the ethnic and other gaps that existed in the society. Only history can assess whether he succeeded or failed. My own view is: He succeeded.

The problems we are seeing today are not entirely due to Nepal's internal conditions. I have been reading the Upanishads these days and I reccomend it to you too, and what I've come to understand is, you have to see things in totality, focus on the whole, not only on the isolated incidents, if you want to understand the Brahman and the Atman. This ancient knowledge somehow corresponds to what we study in grad schools- you cannot analyze a country by isolating it from the world or the international system. I see the Maoist problem in a broader framework of the international system. Let me explain this (and break it down to my readers, if I have any, who are not political science students):

In my opinion (note MY OPINION, I am not claiming to speak for the masses, I speak for myself and write what my views are, which might be VERY differwent from the mainstream liberal views)

Understanding the Maoist Problem: The problem is due to the failure of global capitalism in Nepal. When we became democracy in the 90s, the western powers that pushed for democracy in Nepal thought that democracy will solve all of Nepal's problems. They did not push the governmnet, the way they has pushed for democracy, for economic reforms and to create the institutions that are necessary to safeguard democracy. So what happened? Nothing changed. The same group plus a 100 or so late comers to politics benifited from the new system, not the masses. You can blame this on the parties, the constitution, the palace or whoever you want to, but at the heart of the problem lies people's shattered hopes of better lives, not political openness or liberalization or other issues. People became angry not because the state did not recognize their religion or the language. They became angry and dis-satified with the system because it (as they percieved it) benifited only the minority of the population in the cities. This feeling of cheated upon led to the developmnet of regionalism, ethnic nationalism, because to understand why they are poor or why they are neglected they needed something to distinguish themselves from the power-holders in kathmnadu. The dissent was brewing within and some external powers took advantage of it, which again linked it to the Westphelian system based on realism, just as the LTTE problem in Sri Lanka or the Palestanian problem in Israel. Suddenly the problem became "international".(Sorry if I sound too repetitive here, but to understand how regional/global hegemons use the internal conflicts or create internal conflicts in there sphere of influence or the places they want to bring under their sphere of influence, please refer to John Herz's excellent essay, Terretorial State Revisited, published in the 60s.)

So based on my analysis (you can dismiss it and say it does not make sense, or just disagree with it or think on it), I say, the Maoist problem has nothing to do with nepali identity, nationalism, language and religion. It also has less to do with political liberalization and openness. It is a movement against the class hierarchy in Nepal, which in turn is the result of the failure of the international community to assist Nepal with economic reforms and it is the problem due to the external interventions in Nepal's internal politics to secure it's (external power's) dominance in Nepal. Look at all the insurgencies in the world: Which one is totally home-grown insurgency? In every insurgency there is a superpower/regional power back up.

On Lebanon and Jordan after a smoke break.

On Jordan and Lebanon now:

What created the civil war in Lebanon? Doesn't the civil war itself prove the failure of democracy in that country? And even today, even after the edning of the civil war, the Syrians control the governmnet, economy and until recently, controlled the security. Jordan, however did not have to go through civil wars. Again Lebabnon's civil war was backed and exploited by Syria.. it was not only its domestic problems blowing out of proportions. Who knows we are seeing the same thing in Nepal.

Jordan's King Hassan was a Machiavellian Prince. He did what it needed to be done to protect his principality from chaos and foreign (external) influence. If he were a weak leader and had not dissolved the parliament in the 50s and "brutally" deported the Palestanians in the 70s (date confusion! I can't remember all the dates, but I am 90% sure, it was in the 70s.. correct me, if I am wrong), today's Jordan would be totally different. At least there is some stability and no overtly operating radical groups there. It is still better than the democratic Ajerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and other places in the Greater Middle East region (greater Middle East region incorporates parts of the Balkans and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics). An interesting book on the region's today's politics is "Eastward to Tartary: Travels in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus" by one of my favorite writers, Robert Kaplan.

We can disucss further... just for the sake of disucssion because no matter how many volumes of texts we write here is not going to change nepal in any way.. so, let's just engage in fav. Nepali passtime and just talk. :-)

DEMOCRACY and the FREE WILL of the people worked marvels there, whereas the lack thereof in other Middle East countries continues to hold them back from achieving greater success.

What did those do in Lebanon? it craeted a disastorous civil war, brought the country under the influence of Syria and Israel and was reduced tothe status of a pawn in the grand chess game between Syria and Israel (for regional hegemony?). Even today the economy is no different than the Russian mafia style economy... people are still angry and are yet to recover fully from the civil war. So what success you see in today's Lebanon? I don't see any.

it craeted a disastorous = it led to a

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)

Anilji, I almost missed this thread, but let me congratulate you and other organizers/participants of the DC rally for standing up against the atrocities committed by both the King and the Maoists. I very much agree with you on the meaning of rally--no matter how small or big a rally might be, what matters the most is the cause one is fighting for.

I don't have much to add here nor do I have any intention to get into a pointless argument with someone who is just so hard-headed; nonetheless, let me just point out what Hari Roka recently wrote in the Nepali Weekly:
"... सन् १९६० को 'कू' पछि कालापानी क्षेत्र भारतलाई सुम्पने र सन् १९६५ मा उसैसँग गोप्य सैनिक सन्धि गर्ने राजा महेन्द्र तिनका आँखामा महान् राष्ट्रवादी देखिन पुग्छन् ।..."

Since there is so much more issues to talk about, ISO, allow me to refrain from rebuttal on most of the above. We both had our respective says, and want to avoid debating in circles. Just a quick note on Lebanon, though -- something that I feel can be a new adition to our debate:

Lebanese civil war was NOT a result of failure of democracy in that country. The democratic system in Lebanon, albeit with some problems, by and large was very INCLUSIVE and BALANCED, and took into account the rights of minorities in it's constitution. It was the external affairs that gave rise to reasons for civil war in Lebanon. To begin with, it got embroiled in the larger conflictual picture of the Middle East, vis-a-vis Israel, and it was exasperated by Syria's involvement. Other than that, prior to the start of the civil war, Lebanon was the most prosperous Arab country with thriving democracy. It sure has tremendous difficulties now -- obviously after over a decade of brutal civil war -- but is quickly regaining grounds on prosperity track.

On Jordan and other dictatorial countries where you claim they have had relative peace: What good is a rich (relatively) man in a facade of peace if he cannot be creative, and think freely and critically? this latter aspect of human condition can ONLY be guaranteed in democracy. I loathe the idea of citizens being treated as docile and peaceful domestic animals, who are supposed to be content with their "master's" allowance of their basic, fundamental rights.

Now, on to other issues in the following post...

Subsistence rights vs. political rights

When we started debating about this long ago, you had brought up Banjul agreement, which i had failed -- due to time constraints -- to address at the time. As per inspiration from you, I had done some research on it, and here's what I have to say about it.

[For readers who are not familiar with BANJUL CHARTER, it was sort of an African constitution that the "united Africa" was supposed to adopt. It's primary focus is on placing subsistence rights -- the rights to food and security -- above the political rights. It was adopted in 1979.]

My very first concern with BANJUL DECLARATION was that it starts of by saying "In accordance to Universal Declaration of Human Rights..." and goes on to discredit the very elements that comprise that document by implying subsistence rights MUST precede political rights. I think this is contradictory, to say the least.

However, my greater issue with that BANJUL is that if it was truly reflective of the truth in African societies -- if actually subsistence rights must have preceded political rights in developing countries -- then why, after decades of adoption of BANJUL, are the African countries still some of the poorest in the world? I say, they gave undue importance to subsistence rights (in order to justify their disrespect for human/political rights), and were headed in the wrong direction, hence they still can't figure out a way out of sheer poverty and destitution. I know many other factors must have affected (colonization being one of them) the underdevelopment of African countries. However, had they had adopted more liberal, inclusive political policies that ensured equality and freedom to ALL, I believe they could have achieved a much greater degree of leverage against poverty by the virtue of free and independent thinking minds that would have found creative ways to tackle social and economic problems, and to be competitive in the global arena.

ISO, I know the discussion on subsistence rights and political rights is like discussinng whether the chicken or the egg cam first. However, here'e my take on why the political rights must come first:

Although fulfilling people's subsistence needs first may seem very tempting, and, of course, it is politically very attractive rhetoric, only FREE, INDEPENDENT and CREATIVE thinkers can find creative ways to fulfill subsistence needs of themselves in the long run. Government "vouchers" may work well in the short run, but they are not sustainable. Thereofre, I believe some turmoil in the beginning, which is very likely in the process of democracy, should not deter us from achieving our long term goals. CREATIVE and CRITICAL thinkers among the citizens can ONLY be possible in a free society. The more one suppresses political rights in the name of safeguarding subsistence rights NOW, the more he imperils the guaratee of the latter in the long run.

***The Banjul Charter was adopted in 1971, NOT 1979.

Anil ji,

This hardheader got your points on banjul, will reply to those tomorrow... aaja alik busy due to my orther social commitments and all that...

your suvachintak,
Ifreak

Anil ji,

OK here I am again:

Lebananese civil war, as I see it, and as Friedman sees it, was due to the failure of democracy in that country. Lebanon was inclusive and democratic from its founding in the 40s to the 70s, but after the 70s, Lebanon became very seclusive. Let me explain:

Lebanon had/has the most liberal constitution but the problem there was: the people thought the constitution was so sacred that it needed no revision. And the provision of Power sharing of the 40s- the national pact- which helped Lebanon become independent of France and which stated that the "President will be divided between the Christians and the Muslims in 6:5 ratio was being opposed by the Shiites". Things were heating up in the 70s. According to Friedman,

" But by the 1970s, rapid democgraphic growth among Lenbanon's Muslims had turned Lebanon upside down. The Christians had shrunk to a little more than one-third of the population and the Muslims and Druse had grown to roughly two-thirds, with the Shiites becoming the largest single community in the country. When the Muslims demanded that political reforms be instituted to give them a greater share in power by strengthening the role of the Muslim Prime Minister, the Maronites resisted."

(Friedman, Thomas: From Beirut to Jerusalem. 1995).

This unwillingness to compromise on the Maronites part and the demand for change on the other groups' part led to the establishmnet of private armies/militias, and that lled to the civil war. If it were democratic, all inclusive democracy, then Lebabon wouldn't have to go through the civil war. This was the internal factor. Unfortunatley, at the same time, the PLO was kicked out of Jordan by Hussein, and was establishing its bases in Lebanon. For the Muslims demanding more power in the parliament, it was a golden oppurtunity for them (the Muslims- Shiites) because they could use the Palestanians against the Christians. The Christians wanted the Palestanians out, the Muslims opposed any crack down on the Palestanians.. the result, civil war.. (call it the external factor).

If Lebanon had a democratic culture, they would have resolved it through negotiations, however, they didn't.. and no matter how good their constitution was/is, they resorted to killing each other. So what good their "borrowed/fake" democracy do to them? This is my question. As far as I see it, the civil war rightly exposed the "health" of Lebananese democracy.

Feel free to disagree.

"I loathe the idea of citizens being treated as docile and peaceful domestic animals, who are supposed to be content with their "master's" allowance of their basic, fundamental rights. "

But you have to udnerstand that the majority in those countries and elsewhere might not be demanding your version of democracy. Maybe the majority is content with the way things work there. When one insists that the world ought to work according to his beliefs and ideals, things start to get complicated, hoina? There is no one size fits all approach with democracy and political systems. Some countries are developing without democracy, some are degenerating with democracy!

Since we are talking baout democracy in Jordan, let me give you an example: In the late 80s, the Jordanian parliament comproising mainly of the radical islamists were trying to pass certain bills that could be considered "illiberal" the King intervened and blocked those bills from passing. So who is liberal- the parties or the King? Elections and freedom of speech, not necessarily produce the same results in many parts of the world as they do in the US and Western Europe.

Now on Banjul:

"ISO, I know the discussion on subsistence rights and political rights is like discussinng whether the chicken or the egg cam first. However, here'e my take on why the political rights must come first"

I disagree. Subsistence rights should come first, then only political rights. Imagine having political rights in countries where there is a widespread poverty and ethnic diversity. You give these people political rights, what do they do? They start spreading propaganda against other groups, misuse/abuse the freedom of speech and start killing each other, just as in Rwanda. Sorry for being repetetive here, but people become politically active (for the most part) when they cannot meet their daily subsistence requirements. Then they come under the sway of radical groups and commit atrocities. Therefore, my view is, subsistence rights are more important than political rights. What good the political rights do when you have nothing to eat? So the subsistence rights firts, then political rights and you have a liberal democratic society/country. Political rights first, subsistence rights later, you will have another Rwanda. So the African countries were right in coming up with their own charter, its another matter that they couldn't implement it. If they had implemented it sincerely and seriously, maybe many of the African disasters could have been averted.

" After all, subsistence and basic needs are often a more immediate and pressing concern than constitutional niceties and protective legal procedures (R.J. Vincent, 1986)"

(as quoted in The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, by Graham Evans and Jefferey Newham. 1988.)