Mandate Treason
"Mere agreements between political parties do not constitute people's mandate. There must be clear people's input. Policies imposed without mandate, especially through violence and foreign dictate, are treason and not acceptable."
A. Mandate: In democracy, sovereign people decide through democratic election \ referendum. Any issue, especially important ones, must be peacefully discussed in public. Politicians must put their views, programs, pros and cons to the people. People must have opportunities to listen to different sides of the issue, evaluate and vote. Only such decisions constitute the 'Mandate.'
Mere agreements between political parties, especially with undemocratic and unelected, do not constitute people's mandate. There must be clear people's input.
Any political decision without mandate is imposed, unconstitutional and treason. There is no mandate for 'Republicanism, Secularism and Federalism.' These issues were neither brought by people, nor politicians discussed in the public. They are foreign imposed agendas using Maoist terror. Unfortunately, NC and UML acquiesced to it due to fear, not as the good for the nation.
1. गणतन्त्र, धर्म निरपेक्षता र संघीयता जनआन्दोलनका एजेन्डाथिएनन्
Annapurna Post, Jan. 7, 2015 www.annapurnapost.com/News.aspx/story/5782
2. Kamal Thapa at Constitution Assembly 2071-10-3 \ Jan. 25, 2015
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIe6Bz-hMfY
3. मर्यादा नाघेर राजदूतको 'प्रेस्क्रिप्सन' - सुरेन्द्र पौडेल
Nagarik, Feb. 9, 2015 www.nagariknews.com/feature-article/story/32812.html
In this critical junction in history, politicians, who swear by democracy but do not honor people's wish, will live in infamy.
4. आत्मनिर्णय कि आत्मविक्रय? शिव प्रकाश
Annapurna Post, Feb. 8, 2015 www.annapurnapost.com/News.aspx/story/7066
B. Referendum: It is democracy. Let people decide. There must be peaceful discussions for public awareness and referendum for mandate on these core national issues. If not, they remain imposed, unconstitutional and unacceptable.
1. Democracy or Communism
2. Hindu rastra or Secular state
3. Parliamentary system or Mixed
4. United Nepal or Federal states
C. Maoists: The reason behind the failure of the 1st CA, possible failure of the 2nd CA, and the current show of strength by Maoists is their wrong interpretation of the '12 points agreement.' Maoists are saying that they are not bound by democratic norms, because their share of power comes from bullets, not from ballots. Maoists interpret the agreement as the compromise 'between' democracy and communism, not 'within' democracy.
Maoists make it clear that their insurgency in 1996 is against democracy to impose communism. Since they could not militarily win out right, they were forced to compromise with democratic forces. The interim parliament had 20% unelected Maoists, along with 80% democratically elected parliamentarians. Thus, they claim the Nepalese political structure should reflect similar proportion between communism and democracy. And they are entitled to '20%' share in the governance and the new constitution beyond democratic norm.
They further maintain that their participation in the 2013 election is only tactical, and would not abide by it if it does not benefit them. They still demand their share (20%) as per the '12 points agreement.'
To impress their extra-democratic demand they are willing to destroy our nation by aligning with divisive forces and malign foreign forces; and use terror, at least its threat.
D. NC, UML and other democratic forces must form a battle line to defend democracy and impress upon Maoists in no uncertain terms:
1. The '12 points agreement' is about giving them safe landing from being a 'terror organization' to a 'peaceful' political party within democracy.
2. Today, only relevant people's mandate comes from the 2013 election.
3. The mandate is for peace, nationalism, prosperity, democracy and pride in our heritage. It also defines the 'Progressive' direction.
4. The mandate is also against 'Regressive' direction, i.e. communism, divisive forces, ethnic frictions, and foreign ideological aggressions.
5. We have in place peaceful and democratic means for any political and social changes.
6. We will not tolerate terror, extortion, chanda atanka, Nepal banda, chakka jam etc.
E. Constitution (1990): It is the democratic constitution written by the democratic parties - NC, UML etc. Honorable Krishna Prashad Bhattarai led its creation and implementation. It is clear that people, not king, is sovereign. There is plenty of provision for amendments, if needed. The constitution also stands heavily against discrimination as per caste, religion, gender, region or any other. It was tagged as the best democratic constitution of its time. No body objected its promulgation. Politicians, including Maoists, participated in the election, got elected and took oath under it.
Yet, in 1996 Maoists began their violent campaign against democratically elected government to impose communism. As soon as a few terrorists showed up, our brave leaders ran away. These corrupt leaders began compromising and selling our Sovereignty, Dharma, Democracy and Unity. This is the crux
Siddhi Ranjitkar <siddhiranjit@gmail.com> wrote:
Referendum and elections are for the majority rule. They were fine for the majority rule but a new constitution is not a majority document, it must be the document of all Nepalese. So, it should be done on a consensus otherwise it won't last long. The country will plunge into a chaos again. Nepalese would need to shed blood. Many children would be orphans. We don't want to repeat such a scenario. So, let us build a consensus among the people. Some leaders think that building a consensus is next to impossible because they are for crafting a new constitution that favors them. All our previous constitutions did not last long because all those previous documents favored only some quarters of our nations. Now, let us craft a new constitution that will be beneficial to all Nepalese. Let us be patience. Let it take more time than the political leaders wanted but let us craft a new constitution that will last long so that Nepalese people would not need to shed blood again and again. They had already shed enough blood.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@gmail.com> wrote:
