project of Nepal struggle and Bolivia
Answers
Answered by
1
The failure of authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes spurred a global surge of democratization in 1980s. However, as the
studies of democratization experiences in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere have shown, there are
lingering institutional and political issues that inhibit the new democracies from achieving a level of pluralistic development that is
comparable to those commonly found in many Western countries. From this perspective, Nepal is no exception. The awkward truth
for Nepal is that the despotic monarchy came to an end when a new atmosphere of glasnost arrived along with the interim
government after the successful people-powered prodemocracy movement in 1990 which, in turn, produced a new constitution with
no overtly undemocratic rules that created a majoritarian electoral law, a parliament system, and the subsequent transfer of power
to a democratically elected prime minister but it is now a pendulum democracy because of the emergence of left and right
extremisms in the national politics. In fact, the transition to democracy in Nepal after the breakdown of despotic monarchy was too
swift and fairly uncomplicated, but it has now been threatened by a wave of political violence and disorder with concomitant social
and economic dislocations. In large part, the two royal coup d'etat, for instance, October 2002 and February 2005, and the eleven-
year old Maoist insurgency are being worked out, and their ultimate outcome still remains unclear. Although democratic institutions
were created, other necessary preconditions like effervescent middle class, competitive party system, and resilient economy could
not develop. The political parties of Nepal have limited mass appeal as characterized by their shallow social roots, authoritarian
leadership and inarticulate programs and policies. Yet, the core of the political crisis lies in the distribution of social benefits and
income. More wealth is distributed upward than downward. Battered by economic decline and weakened by political decay the
creative people are increasingly moving toward cities that are more open and inclusive. The period of democratization since 1990
has fostered both optimism and pessimism—optimism because there was smooth transfer of power from authoritarianism to an
elected executive, pessimism because the rules of democratic game were increasingly thwarted due to the lack of democratic
mindset, unambitious monarchy, and enduring political party system.
studies of democratization experiences in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere have shown, there are
lingering institutional and political issues that inhibit the new democracies from achieving a level of pluralistic development that is
comparable to those commonly found in many Western countries. From this perspective, Nepal is no exception. The awkward truth
for Nepal is that the despotic monarchy came to an end when a new atmosphere of glasnost arrived along with the interim
government after the successful people-powered prodemocracy movement in 1990 which, in turn, produced a new constitution with
no overtly undemocratic rules that created a majoritarian electoral law, a parliament system, and the subsequent transfer of power
to a democratically elected prime minister but it is now a pendulum democracy because of the emergence of left and right
extremisms in the national politics. In fact, the transition to democracy in Nepal after the breakdown of despotic monarchy was too
swift and fairly uncomplicated, but it has now been threatened by a wave of political violence and disorder with concomitant social
and economic dislocations. In large part, the two royal coup d'etat, for instance, October 2002 and February 2005, and the eleven-
year old Maoist insurgency are being worked out, and their ultimate outcome still remains unclear. Although democratic institutions
were created, other necessary preconditions like effervescent middle class, competitive party system, and resilient economy could
not develop. The political parties of Nepal have limited mass appeal as characterized by their shallow social roots, authoritarian
leadership and inarticulate programs and policies. Yet, the core of the political crisis lies in the distribution of social benefits and
income. More wealth is distributed upward than downward. Battered by economic decline and weakened by political decay the
creative people are increasingly moving toward cities that are more open and inclusive. The period of democratization since 1990
has fostered both optimism and pessimism—optimism because there was smooth transfer of power from authoritarianism to an
elected executive, pessimism because the rules of democratic game were increasingly thwarted due to the lack of democratic
mindset, unambitious monarchy, and enduring political party system.
Similar questions