Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Afghanistan/South Asia

Nepal's king calls world's bluff, emulates Perv

2005-02-09

Two months ago, India, the United States and Britain warned Nepal's king against a unilateral grab for power. On Tuesday, he called their bluff. King Gyanendra sacked the government, arrested politicians and assumed absolute power for three years. The press was muzzled, phone lines snapped and the internet closed down as Nepal seemed to retreat back into its shell. His action is being described as a "royal coup d'etat."

Condemnation came swiftly. India and the United States said the king's move played into the hands of Maoist rebels fighting a bitter nine-year-old insurgency to topple the monarchy. Britain said it was reviewing military and development aid, and the United Nations insisted democracy should be restored. It is reminiscent of the condemnation that followed General Pervez Musharraf's 1999 coup in nearby Pakistan. Musharraf, of course, eventually won the world around, insisting that he was a better choice than Islamic extremists.

Nepal's monarch could be playing a similar game. "Clearly, King Gyanendra has calculated that when it comes to a choice between the monarchy and Maoists, India and the international community would have no option but to side with him," wrote Indian foreign policy expert C. Raja Mohan. Newspapers called the king's move a "high-risk gamble". If he can do what he has promised -- bring peace with the Maoists and ultimately restore democracy, the gamble could pay off.

Posted by:Dan Darling

#7 I believe that it was the Kerensky government that Lenin overthrew, not the Czars.

Posted by: Dan Darling 2005-02-09 9:30:03 PM

#6 IIRC Nicaragua wasn't a democracy.

IMO Cuba, and Russia were democratic although not up to modern standards.

Hmmph. Cuba had Batista, unless I'm thoroughly mistaken. And Russia was under the rule of the Czars. Modern standard? I'm talking about then-day standards. Weren't Russia and Cuba of the times in question significantly less democratic than e.g. USA, UK or France of the same times?

That's the method that Allende was starting, and what Chavez is doing right now.

Regardless of whether Allende was starting it or not, he didn't succeed. And Chavez is heading towards that course of action, and certainly desires it, but he's not yet managed to overthrow either multiparty democracy or capitalism. Not yet.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-09 6:01:06 PM

#5 Aris:

With a more-or-less pluralistic society, the Communists generally try to destroy it from within, hijacking the police and security forces, then using salami techniques. That's how it worked in Czechoslavkia (granted, the Russian army made it easier) and Nicaragua. That's the method that Allende was starting, and what Chavez is doing right now. You see "emergency powers," "temporary measures for the duration of the crisis," denounciation of popular opponents as "in the pay of our enemies" or "fascists" or "would-be dictators." They also use murder and terror to silence opponents. These techniques are usually easier than fighting the Army directly.

Posted by: jackal 2005-02-09 9:04:41 AM

#4 Not exactly an otherthrow, since he duped the poor, but a democracy has been suborned in Venezuela, with Chavez a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Posted by: .com 2005-02-09 5:47:54 AM

#3 Aris, the only way communists have ever come to power is by violent overthrow of an existing government or invasion. The only exception I can think of is Chile and Allende's brief tenure. IMO Cuba, and Russia were democratic although not up to modern standards. They were certainly pluralistic societies with elections.

Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-09 4:47:02 AM

#2 Just a question: have Communists ever managed to overthrow a democratic government?

Am not speaking about invasions from outside (like Soviet Union installing communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe), but rather about cases of internal revolt, regardless of whether they've been backed from outside forces. Most of the examples I have in mind (Cuba, Russia, China, etc) seem to be cases of authoritarian regimes being overthrown.

Same question about Islamofascists.

If the answer is "no", then I think that shows something.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-09 2:03:15 AM

#1 If I have a choice between this guy and the Maoists. He wins hands down. Things could be better but commies suck.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-09 1:05:29 AM

00:00