2/1 sucked me in, true. I did not plan to get sucked in. But 2/1 hit me on the head. I had not realized how bad things had gotten in Nepal. 2/1 also helped me discover I cared about Nepal more deeply than I had so far known.
When I moved to New York City last summer, I did so to cultivate some of my business ideas. But instead I have been doing Nepal work full time, more than full time. I don't even take weekends off. I sleep till late though. Mornings are weekends.
My Nepal work tells me I am cut for political work, not business. But then the boundary is not obvious. It is possible to jump around. You can not separate the market from the democratic process. One can not be imagined without the other. The haat bazar in your village is the market in action.
I have been eating into my savings. That is something by definition you can not do forever. So I have been thinking of ways to make money. I don't much enjoy spending money. My needs are few. I have deliberately kept my costs low. And so I crunched a few numbers.
Say if 1,000 people were to visit this blog every week and click on an image ad when they do so, and if each such click were to bring me 20 cents, do the maths. You are looking at 200,00 cents is $200. Four of those a month, and my bills are paid.
I am the only Nepali in the diaspora I know of who has been doing this Nepal work full time. If I were your MP in Nepal, you would be paying my salary. Maybe not out of your pocket or your immediate family budget, but indirectly you would. Think of me as your MP, visit my blog, and click on the ads. That is the least you can do. Don't you think? You can click from anywhere in the world.
Word of mouth is the best advertising. Pass on the blog to people you know who have not yet heard of it.
I have also been building a mailing list. It is 400 strong now. I am hoping it will be 2,000 strong by the end of April, something like that. If you are not signed up yet, go to the bottom of this page and sign up.
Google Video will also make pay per view possible, and then I hope to have my own online talk show. Pay per view. But Google is not there yet.
Say I put out a clip that is 30 minutes long, and I charge 50 cents, and I get 100 views over a week, and I put out two such clips a week. I am looking at 100,00 cents. That is $100. Four times that is $400 a month. 500 views and you are looking at $2,000 a month. That is an up and running talk show.
I am ready, Google is not.
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:43:52 -0800 From: "Google Video Support" video-support@google.com To: paramendra@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [#46813418]
Hi,
Thanks for your interest in selling your videos through Google Video. At this time, we are testing our purchase feature with a select group of Video providers. We are unable to add more sellers at this time.
Please note, you may still set a purchase price for your video; however, your video will only be stored in your account and won't be displayed on Google Video. If you'd like to display your video, you must offer your content for free to all users.
Once this feature is released, you will be notified with further requirements and information on how to accept payments. We are unable to provide a specific date as to when this feature will become available, however, we hope to make this feature available to the public soon. Please check back for more updates.
Sincerely,
The Google Video Team
I also have a PayPal button, and today I added an Amazon button. But so far I have not received any donations. People have been reading my blog entries on the cheap. That adds to my public service credentials, sure, but that does not help in the bills department.
I have yet to prove myself. And I did not exactly plan this. But the numbers look good. I think I have bumped into a sound business model.
I have also been trying to help turn Mero Sansar and Blogger Nepal into full fledged businesses. Don't get me wrong. Those guys were there before I showed up. And they were already doing a few things. I have just tried to help take them to the next level so they are doing their work standing on their own two feet.
Some suggestions I have made. Some have been implemented, some are in the works. And Umesh and I are both desperately waiting for Google Video pay per view to become possible. When that happens, Umesh becomes rich. That is my prediction.
Donate. Do it. Go to their blogs and donate. These two offer audio and video and raw stuff you can not get anywhere else. PayPal and Moneygram come in handy.
Google ads, Bidvertiser and Yahoo are other options. Display ads. Local ads can also be sought like some of the other Nepali sites do.
Google Groups allows you to create a mailing list for your blog. I have recommended it to them.
I have also suggested they reorganize the layout of their blogs.
Seeking sponsors is another idea. For equipment, for broadband. Some of them might like getting displayed at the blog as sponsors.
But for the short term, they rely primarily on donations. So go donate. Help the cause.
There is talk of launching a new organization to provide some major logistical support to the movement in Nepal. I am all for it. But the task of organizing Nepalis in New York City and possibly in other major cities brings forth other immediate questions.
What about the political plight of the Nepalis in America, in New York City? Do Nepalis experience equality in New York City? The US ambassador to Nepal talks of human rights in Nepal, and I am glad for it. Why does not the Nepali ambassador to the US bring up the topic of police brutality in the US, in New York City? Why the double standards?
Why do taxpaying noncitizens not have voting rights? After all America was founded on the slogan no taxation without representation. Fernando Ferrer brought this up when he ran for Mayor of New York City. He is Hispanic.
The democracy theme has many layers to it. The message applies to Nepal as well to America. The message is of peace and equality. The message is of dignity and pride. You organize to achieve them when you don't have them.
This is also about the social dynamics among the Nepalis in the US. What about the tendency towards Madhesi marginalization? What about the distrust towards ethnic solidarity as expressed by the various Janajati groups? What about women's issues? I have heard of at least one South Asian network that reaches out to the battered South Asian wives. By extension that has got to be a problem also among Nepalis? Has that been pushed beneath the carpet so far? These social issues have to be faced by the diaspora because they are going to be some of the most challenging issues in the constituent assembly. There is no escaping the challenge.
Identities are social, cultural, political constructs. So when you talk of the attack on the Madhesi identity, it does not come only from the Pahadis. Madhesis themselves suffer from much self hate. Pahadis on the other hand have not advanced on to claim their larger identities, namely the Desi, Asian and non-White identies, without which genuine empowerment within the American context might not be possible. The anti-Indian sentiment that the Pahadis heap upon the Madhesis in Nepal gets in the way of their claiming the Desi identity in America. The attitude problems that come with growing up high caste Pahadi male in Nepal lead many of them to subscribe to the ugliest anti-black stories and stereotypes when they themselves are squarely non-White.
Self hate is at least half the battle when it comes to prejudice, discrimination and racism. The self hate among the Madhesis in the Nepali context is the same self hate among the Pahadis in the larger American context. There is a refusal to accept the identity that is yours. There is a resistance to claiming and taking pride in the identities. There is a resistance to coalition building.
People with advanced degrees who work below minimum wage jobs, how much better off would they be if they could also vote, if they could access credit and start small businesses of their own?
Identity has to be about positive pride in who you are and what groups you belong to. It does not have to be about exclusion. The rights one can earn is not eating into the political space of other individuals and groups. There is room for everybody. But that space has to be claimed. Rights have to be earned. That is where organizing comes in.
So if Nepalis organize to aid the democracy movement in Nepal more effectively, this is not exactly social service. This is very much self-interest.
The Supreme Court has taken a major decision and stood on the side of democracy and rule of law. It has dismantled the illegitimate RCCC. But this is only the first step. Every other step taken by this regime since 2/1 has to be similary challenged and dismantled. Ultimately 2/1 itself has to be challenged and dismantled.
The Supreme Court has it within its powers to avoid unnecessary turmoil in the country. The people already fought in 1990. They should not have to fight again. And if the 1990 constitution be inadequate, as I strongly believe it is, it is sufficient to move from the 1990 constitution itself to the next constitution.
But 2/1 hijacked that 1990 constitution. There is no provision whatsoever in the 1990 constitution to turn the crown into the king, the president, the prime minister and demigod all in one.
RCCC was unconstitutional, and so was 2/1.
The democratic forces have to be put back into power so they can walk down their succinct roadmap to the constituent assembly.
The Supreme Court has it within its powers to avoid turmoil and possible bloodshed in the country. And it needs to be using those powers. Or the dictum of rule of law will ring hollow. The concept of democracy is being tested. The concept of rule of law is being tested. If there is rule of law in Nepal, as the Supreme Court claims there is, as the 1990 constitution claims there is, then that rule of law should be sufficient to prevent autocracy, that should be enough to push back any attempts at autocracy.
Rule of law and democracy mean people do not have to go out into the streets in large numbers to keep reminding they are the real owners of the country.
The Supreme Court has taken the first step in the right direction. Will it take more steps in the same direction? That is the question. RCCC Out, RPP Split
These are signs the regime's days are numbered. I would not be awfully happy now if I were the king. The king has defended the RCCC nonstop. Now he needs to resign on moral grounds. That is how democracies work. This Supreme Court verdict is proof the king does not have any grasp of the 1990 constitution.
Human Rights And The Supreme Court
The various human rights organizations can at best make some noise on the issue. But it is the Supreme Court's supreme duty to protect human rights, and it has the powers to do so. The Supreme Court has no more important responsibility than to protect human rights in Nepal.
It needs to order all political prisoners released unconditionally and without delay. It needs to warn the government not to curb the people's fundamental right to peaceful assembly.
All political leaders need to be released immediately.
Order The King To Step Down
The Supreme Court needs to order the king to step down. The 1990 constitution at best makes him a constitutional monarch. He has not been that. He has stepped out of his bounds. The Supreme Court needs to order him to step back. The king has the protections and privileges granted by the 1990 constitution only as long as he stays within that constitution. And it is for the Supreme Court to make sure he stays within. If he steps out, he is on his own.
The People Own The Supreme Court
All the Supreme Court justices are on the people'a payroll because the people own the judiciary, just like they own all branches of government. The Supreme Court only answers to the people through the realm of rule of law.
The people have been robbed of their sovereignty by 2/1, something that was guaranteed to them by the 1990 constitution. Such a flagrant violation can not be tolerated.
Article 127 does not allow for 2/1, and if it does, the 1990 constitution is not a democratic constitution. And if the 1990 constitution is not democratic, it is illegitimate, and if it is illegitimate, the Supreme Court is also illegitimate along with the monarchy. So it is either that or the Supreme Court act to restore the sovereignty where it belongs to prove the 1990 constitution is democratic.
Supreme Court orders dissolution of RCCC; Deuba to be released NepalNews A five-member special bench of SC justices Kedar Prasad Giri, Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Ram Nagina Singh, Anup Raj Sharma and Ram Prasad Shrestha decided to dissolve the RCCC formed after last year’s February 1 royal move........ the formation of the anti-graft body was unconstitutional as it contradicted with Articles 83 (3), 84, 85, 88 (3), 89, 105 (7) and 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom (1990)....... also ordered to annul all the actions and decisions taken by the Royal Commission ........ Advocate Santosh Kumar Mahato had on 10th August 2005 filed a writ petition at the SC challenging the constitutionality of the commission. ......... has nixed the constitutionality of the February 1 royal move as such....... “The Supreme Court has given its verdict in favour of the constitution. Now the royal move itself has lost all constitutional excuses” ........ “Today’s verdict has proved that the Supreme Court is a responsible interpreter of the constitution. The verdict is in favour of the constitution and the rule of law.” ....... Election to Constituent Assembly could end conflict: leaders We are ready to accept any result of the constituent assembly: Prachanda 15 student leaders freed NT workers demand pre-paid phone resumption Government release 55 people including 23 professionals IMF asks government to restore peace FNJ calls Maoists to honour press freedom Meeting Prachanda The BBC's Charles Haviland finds Maoist leader more humorous than intimidating. BBC The 52-year-old man I met, with his speckled beard, was mild-mannered, shy, joking, laughing nervously - more humorous than intimidating and without the overt charisma of some revolutionary leaders....... looked more like a popular uncle than a communist who has been underground since 1981 ...... His number two, Baburam Bhattarai, with a cloth cap and eagle eyes, and flanking Prachanda, looked much more revolutionary........ It was as if the words were inside him, waiting to be forcefully expelled...... Much of the Maoists' behaviour nowadays is pragmatic rather than ideological ...... his statements that the Maoists now accept multi-party democracy; that they are unlikely to try to take Kathmandu by force; that a future government involving them could work with America, and that if there can be elections to a constituent assembly, the Maoists are ready to "call off the war"....... Prachanda said the king might face a future of exile or even trial at what he called a People's Court, leading to possible execution...... Nepal has in any case abolished capital punishment. ....... Before the king seized political power a year ago, the Maoists used to say they would only talk to the palace, as the centre of real power....... any permanent unilateral ceasefire, building on their recently expired temporary one, would under present conditions amount to surrender...... his party is a long way from abandoning its violent practices.......the Maoists were "investigating" the shooting of a municipal election candidate and the killing of a taxi driver during a Maoist general shutdown......... Prachanda said that although there were ideological ties, his party did not believe in exporting revolution, despite its affiliation with the Revolutionary International Movement - an umbrella body dedicated to spreading communism......... "Ideologically we want to move the global revolution forward but in practical terms we do not believe one country's army should go to another country and fight for it." ....... Prachanda's vision of a future Nepal is one he says is already being built, eroding class, caste and gender barriers...... Prachanda, like Baburam Bhattarai, is a revolutionary to the core. At one point he said to Dr Bhattarai that he wished we would ask some ideological questions......... his rhetoric is still fiery. Prachanda interview: TranscriptIt is not like the American vision where there would be a river of blood. We want to conquer Kathmandu with the people's rebellion..... we like the political solution better. And we are working towards it....... we are ready to have a political competition with the parties ...... And since we have said that we'd go for a peaceful election of the constituent assembly, we're ready to follow whatever the verdict of the people is........ We have stated this over and over again. We'll accept the people's verdict....... But we believe that the people's version will be for a democratic republic...... And we have committed to accept multi-party competition....... Gyanendra-ism and his feudalistic clique will certainly be destroyed. ....... an army loyal to a medieval royalty ..... the royal army, who have been oppressing Nepali people for 237 years, and are loyal to a small clique, who have no loyalty to respect for democratic ideology - that army has to be dismantled. ...... We are not standing in the way of a peaceful solution. It is the King and his royal army. Even within the royal army, we do not believe that the lower cadres and officials of the army want the war to go on. It is a small clique of generals who belong to the feudalistic privileged class, the Rana and Shah clans of Nepal; they want this war to go on........ But what we feel till now, and what experience has shown us, is that America does not work for the improvement of people anywhere. It works only for itself. It works for the benefit of the ruling class, the capitalists within America....... If the so-called current government sitting in Kathmandu, the clique of feudal, privileged class - as long as they exist, there is no question of us working with America or any other country. After this clique is dismantled, once there is people's government - a democratic and progressive government - that government will be ready to work with any country around the world......... We do not have a working relationship with the Maoists [in India]. ......... Ideologically we do want there to be a revolution in the USA and even in your UK, and that the working classes should rule......... It's been well established that no government anywhere has financially supported our revolution and nor have they supported us in material or military ways....... This revolution has been supported purely by Nepali people......... We certainly have said that dirty and vulgar materials and literature from America or cheap and dirty literature from India should be banned....... You won't find exploitation and injustice in villages, such as discrimination against dalits [the lowest castes]. And the practice of "untouchability" has ended........once the war is over, we believe that we can move forward and develop economically or otherwise at a very fast pace........ the right to rebellion by the oppressed is a human right. There are no greater human rights than the people's right to fight for their rights.......... We do not even train children below 16 years old as militia....... when there is a cessation of war, our People's Liberation Army works in the fields of people, they work as labourers to build roads for people........ I think you probably don't know this, but after that incident at Madi when there was an explosion on the bus, we were shocked beyond words....... Our party workers who were involved in it, they were expelled from the party and the army, and the report on how this expulsion was carried out was given to the UN.......... we did not have a policy of physically harming any candidate.... - in Janakpur - where a local worker of the party took responsibility for the killing. We are investigating this......... We are investigating on the incident of Janakpur and this has been informed to the United Nations Human Rights office. That is why there is no difference between what we say and what we do...... As soon as the people are given the right to decide of their own fate and of their own future, we will be ready to lay down our arms. But if the people are not given their rights, we are committed to and are ready to fight till the end...... as soon as there is a possibility of preparing a new constitution through a constituent assembly, and form a new army, we are ready to call off the war........ Three years ago, at a Central Committee meeting of our party, analyzing the experiences from 20th century communist states, we put forward a proposal for the development of democracy... In the 21st century we cannot have a state like those of the 20th century..... there should be peaceful competition between all political parties against feudalism and foreign imperialist forces...... multi-party competition [should exist] as long as it's against feudalism, against foreign imperialistic interference and all political parties can compete against each other........ Our opponents have understood us in a dogmatic way. We are not dogmatic but our opponents are. They are looking at us with 20th Century glasses. But we are already moving into the 21st Century......... we have taken the experience of an entire century, discussed it, analyzed it in our party, and we've come to a conclusion that the development of democracy is necessary in the 21st Century........ Our movement is not for me to be the head of state....... the development of ideology which would globally uplift and give rights to the working class - our focus is on developing that ideology....... I have not been underground from the people. I am only underground from the feudalistic elements and its royal army. In villages where people are free, I stay freely too. I meet my family, my children and my wife......... I believe that in a short while, Nepal will be a democratic republic....... The king I think will either be executed by the people's court or he might be exiled. ..... The king might be finished or he might flee...... there should be free and fair elections for the new constitution, and the compromise would happen when everyone is ready to follow the verdict of this election...... But time has moved forward... The king doesn't have that space now....... the drama of the so-called municipal elections - the whole world saw it as the eighth wonder of the world.........now the path the king has taken, there is no space for compromise with him........ after the steps he has taken between 1 February and now, we don't see any space for compromise....... the path that he has taken is the road to hell.......the agenda that the king is moving with, he is negating the possibility of compromise.......
The number of Homo Sapiens on the planet, that is a finity. The number of countries on the planet, that is a finity. Among those countries, it is not exactly rocket science to identify countries that are not democracies. In democracies the people are the only source of state power - a truth validated in periodic elections - and human rights are respected and protected.
We start out by compiling a list of the target countries. That list will be sophisticated in that there will be a spectrum. Some autocracies are worse than others. And we identify individuals and groups in and from those countries that are working to establish democracy in their respective countries. I would bet each country has them, some small, some large, some more effective than others, but they are there. And we also need to bring together individuals and groups who are from other countries and would like to help the cause of spreading democracy. We need to bring all of them online and organize them into a blogalaxy.
A blog is one star. A blogalaxy is many stars. A blogalaxy has many individual and group blogs all interlinked to each other. There are three basic components to power for any democracy movement: money, message, organization. Blogs are great ways to marshall all three. Blogs also make possible politics at the speed of thought. You end up with armchair revolutionaries. One country group could learn from another, there would be much cross pollination in terms of learning strategies, techniques, message honing. Each country group will feel this enormous moral support. The blogalaxy would not be a registered organization, just a communication tool that positively impacts all three power tools, although there might be many registered organizations that are part of it.
The transparency of the blogalaxy will also make sure there is accountability on money matters. All book keeping would be online. This is key.
Chances are most people not living in democracies are poor, they do not have internet access, they are possibly illiterate. But internet access is more wide than we might believe. Nepal is one of the poorest countries on the planet, and it has internet access in all the towns, in most middle class homes in the capital city. Getting an email account is not that hard to do. But then not everyone has to come online, not everyone has to blog. There might be language barriers online. This is where Mary Joyce' concept of "bridge activists" comes into play. People and groups who can not, do not come online have access to "bridge activists" who are online and connected, inside and outside the country.
But then we also are trying to create a functional, egalitarian bridge between people and groups in those countries, and their diaspora in countries that are democracies. The diaspora might have the money, the internet access, and they might be so widely dispersed across the globe and in their adopted countries that the internet might be the only way to truly organize masses of them. It is so easy to organize discussions and fundraising online, point and click, point and click. And netizens do not face the traditional political and geographical barriers. Also the artificial barrier between academia and the "real world" goes out the window.
Then you have countries like China that seem to be able to manage even the internet, and they manage to bulley major league companies like Microsoft and Google and Yahoo to their nefarious designs. For them we would have the boundary concept. As in, we apply the open concepts for all organizing outside the boundary. If that organizing is fierce enough, and the temperature is raised, ultimately the boundary will melt. And we go in. In the mean time, we have clandestine concepts for inside the boundary. This might also apply to many other countries.
The appropriate mix of the open and the clandestine will depend on where a particular non-democracy is on our spectrum. Even people from those countries in the diaspora might prefer to work clandestine for fear of reprisals against those working inside the boundary. Individuals make their choice, if to work openly or in clandestine fashions. The online world is designed for clandestine work.
I think we are going to see a lot of tools emerge online for both open and clandestine work, and for all three components of money, message and organization. Cross pollination will speed up the process of tool generation and sharing.
In my model, most of the money is raised and spent by the respective diaspora organizations. For Nepal, for example, you are looking mostly at Nepalis abroad, and to some extent friends of Nepal.
The message. We have to get all the news out. We also have to report of all human rights abuses. People in the network who might get targeted by the state should feel the entire network knows when something happens to them. We have to engage the opponents of democracy in debate. When direct debates might not be possible, we go for indirect debates. We take on their publicly available words. We have to throw sunshine on all their arguments, and we have to counterargue. We have to have rapid response mechanisms.
Organization. We have to build political parties where they do not exist. We have to nurture and protect them where they exist. We have to create organizations and umbrella organizations among the diaspora. Right to peaceful assembly is just like the right to free speech, a fundamental human right. People should organize as they see fit. We should just help in the coordination part.
Once we have this basic infrastructure in place, we could really change gears. We could hope to "invade" countries. The goal would be to wage this one massive, decisive street demonstration like in Ukraine in 2004, which would culminate in either the autocratic regime stepping down, or the democracy movement unilaterally declaring the formation of an interim government to be recognized by the entire family of democracies. (5 Steps To Democracy) The interim government would be charged with organizing elections to a constituent assembly that would give the country a democratic constitution.
Once in power, the democrats should have the option to punish those elements who might have been repressive towards the democracy activists. Only that public knowledge beforehand might embolden the democracy activisits, and scare the autocrats in power to minimize untoward incidents. International laws can come into play, so can country tribunals.
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, United States
12 February
14:42
Internet Qatar, Qatar
12 February
15:19
Canada (mountain-inter.net)
12 February
15:22
Road Runner, New York, United States
12 February
16:19
Verizon Wireless, United States
Draft II, after feeback from Mary Joyce
The number of Homo Sapiens on the planet is finite. The number of countries on the planet is finite. Among those countries it is not exactly rocket science to identify countries that are not democracies. In a democracy citizens have ultimate control over the policies and actions of their government. We look at the list of non-democracies and lay them out along a spctrum: some autocracies are worse than others.
And we work to identify individuals and groups in and from those countries that are working to establish democracy in their respective countries, although the worse the autocracy, the harder the task. Each country has them, some small, some large, some more effective than others, but they are there. And we also need to bring together individuals and groups who are from other countries and would like to help the cause of spreading democracy. We need to help bring together the bridge activists of both the online and offline kinds. And the whole effort should be to enhance the ecosystem rather than to invent something new. Efforts have been made before we came along. We just hope to add to the effectiveness.
The blogalaxy concept can help. A blog is one star. A blogalaxy is many stars. A blogalaxy has many individual and group blogs all interlinked to each other. There are three basic components to power for any democracy movement: money, message, organization. Blogs are great ways to marshall all three. Blogs also make possible politics at the speed of thought. You end up with armchair revolutionaries. One country group could learn from another, there would be much cross pollination in terms of learning strategies, techniques, message honing. Each country group will feel this enormous moral support. The blogalaxy would not be a registered organization, just a communication tool that positively impacts all three power tools, although there might be many registered organizations that are part of it. The blogalaxy will be in the background. Screen time will always be secondary to face time. The most difficult work will be done in the organizing among those that might not even be online. An international digital democracy network will be more like an extensive, sophisticated support system than anything else, something important, but in the background.
The transparency of the blogalaxy will also make sure there is accountability on money matters. All book keeping would be online. This is key.
Chances are most people not living in democracies are poor, they do not have internet access, they are possibly illiterate. But internet access is more wide than we might believe. Nepal is one of the poorest countries on the planet, and it has internet access in all the towns, in most middle class homes in the capital city. Getting an email account is not that hard to do. But then not everyone has to come online, not everyone has to blog. There might be language barriers online. This is where Mary Joyce' concept of "bridge activists" comes into play. People and groups who can not, do not come online have access to "bridge activists" who are online and connected, inside and outside the country. These bridge activists act as a bridge between the international digital democracy network and the local activists.
But then we also are trying to create a functional, egalitarian bridge between people and groups in those countries, and their diaspora in countries that are democracies. The diaspora might have the money and the internet access, and they might be so widely dispersed across the globe and in their adopted countries that the internet might be the only way to truly organize masses of them. It is so easy to organize discussions and fundraising online, point and click, point and click. And netizens do not face the traditional political and geographical barriers. Also the artificial barrier between academia and the "real world" goes out the window. As does the colonial term "brain drain." The two megatrends of globalization and the internet mean expats can digitally play an active role in the political life of their home countries.
Then you have countries like China that seem to be able to manage even the internet, and they manage to bully major league companies like Microsoft and Google and Yahoo to their nefarious designs. For them, we would have the "boundary concept". As in, we apply the open concepts for all organizing outside the boundary. If that organizing is fierce enough, and the temperature is raised, ultimately the boundary will melt. And we go in. In the mean time, we have clandestine concepts for inside the boundary. This might also apply to many other countries.
The appropriate mix of the open and the clandestine will depend on where a particular non-democracy is on our spectrum. Even people from those countries in the diaspora might prefer to work clandestinely for fear of reprisals against their collaborators, who might be working inside the boundary. Individuals make their choice, as to whether to work openly or in a clandestine fashion. The nature of the online world facilitates clandestine work.
I think we are going to see a lot of tools emerge online for both open and clandestine work, and for all three components of money, message and organization. Cross pollination will speed up the process of tool generation and sharing.
In my model, most of the money is raised and spent by the respective diaspora organizations. For Nepal, for example, you are looking mostly at Nepalis abroad, and to some extent friends of Nepal.
The message. We have to get all the news out. We also have to report of all human rights abuses. People in the network who might get targeted by the state should feel the entire network knows when something happens to them. We do not replicate the Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch, and the Committee To Protect Bloggers efforts, but we do act as a magaphone. We make some serious noise. We have to engage the opponents of democracy in debate. When direct debates might not be possible, we go for indirect debates. We challenge whatever public statements might be available. We have to draw attention to their weak or fraudulent arguments, and then we have to counterargue. We have to have rapid response mechanisms. As soon as they say something, we respond immediately. They should feel surrounded.
Organization. We have to help build political parties where they do not exist. It is not possible to imagine democracies without political parties. We have to nurture and protect them where they do exist. We have to create organizations and umbrella organizations among the diaspora. Right to peaceful assembly is just like the right to free speech, a fundamental human right. People should organize as they see fit. We would not direct how people organize, rather facilitate their organizational activities by helping get the word out.
Once we have this basic infrastructure in place, we could really change gears. We could hope to introduce democracy into countries at rather rapid rates. The goal would be to wage this one massive, decisive street demonstration like in Ukraine in 2004, which would culminate in either the autocratic regime stepping down, or the democracy movement unilaterally declaring the formation of an interim government to be recognized by the entire family of democracies. (5 Steps To Democracy) The interim government would be charged with organizing elections to a constituent assembly that would give the country a democratic constitution.
Once in power, the democrats should have the option to bring to justice those elements that might have been repressive towards the democracy activists.Only if that knowledge is public beforehand might democracy activists be emboldened to act, and autocrats in power wary to openly persecute them. International laws can come into play, so can country tribunals.
Freedom is a birthright. It is sad some people don't have it. Those who don't have it deserve it, and those of us who are free are not truly free until all of us are free across the globe. Democracy will be born and will grow in each country in slightly unique ways, but there is no arguing with the fundamentals of democracy. Those are universal.
The number of Homo Sapiens on the planet is finite. The number of countries on the planet is finite. Among those countries it is not exactly rocket science to identify countries that are not democracies. In a democracy citizens have ultimate control over the policies and actions of their government.
We look at the list of non-democracies and lay them out along a spctrum: some autocracies are worse than others. And we work to identify individuals and groups in and from those countries that are working to establish democracy in their respective countries. Each country has them, some small, some large, some more effective than others, but they are there, although the worse the autocracy, the harder the task, less vibrant that activist community might be.
We also need to bring together individuals and groups who are from other countries and would like to help the cause of spreading democracy. We need to help bring together the bridge activists of both the online and offline kinds. And the whole effort should be to enhance the ecosystem rather than to invent something new. Efforts have been made before we came along. We just hope to add to the effectiveness. The blogalaxy concept can help. A blog is one star. A blogalaxy is many stars. A blogalaxy has many individual and group blogs all interlinked to each other. There are three basic components to power for any democracy movement: money, message, organization. Blogs are great ways to marshall all three. Blogs also make possible politics at the speed of thought, blogs empower the individual. You end up with armchair revolutionaries. One country group could learn from another, there would be much cross pollination in terms of learning strategies, techniques, message honing. Each country group will feel this enormous moral support. The blogalaxy would not be a registered organization, just a communication tool that positively impacts all three power tools, although there might be many registered organizations that are part of it.
The blogalaxy will be in the background. Screen time will always be secondary to face time. The most difficult work will be done in the organizing among those that might not even be online. An international digital democracy network will be more like an extensive, sophisticated support system than anything else, something important, but in the background.
Chances are most people not living in democracies are poor, they do not have internet access, they are possibly illiterate. But internet access is more wide than is widely believed. Getting an email account is not that hard to do in most town on the planet. But then not everyone has to come online, not everyone has to blog. There might be language barriers online. This is where bridge activists comes into play. People and groups who can not, do not come online have access to bridge activists who are online and connected, inside and outside the country. These bridge activists act as a bridge between the international digital democracy network and the local activists.
But then we also are trying to create functional, effective, egalitarian bridges between people and groups in the countries without democracy, and their diaspora in countries that are democracies. The diaspora might have the money and the internet access and the intimate knowledge of the local conditions. And they might be so widely dispersed across the globe and in their adopted countries that the internet might be the only way to truly organize masses of them. It is so easy to organize discussions and fundraising online, point and click, point and click. Netizens do not face the traditional political and geographical barriers. Also the artificial barrier between academia and the "real world" goes out the window. As does the colonial term "brain drain." The two megatrends of globalization and the internet mean expats can digitally play an active role in the political life of their home countries, in many cases more actively than if they were in their home countries.
Then you have countries like China that seem to be able to manage even the internet, and they manage to bully major league companies like Microsoft and Google and Yahoo to their nefarious designs. For them, we would have the boundary concept. As in, we apply the open concepts for all organizing outside the boundary. If that organizing is fierce enough, and the temperature is raised, ultimately the boundary will melt. And we go in. In the mean time, we have clandestine concepts for inside the boundary. This might also apply to many other countries.
The appropriate mix of the open and the clandestine will depend on where a particular non-democracy is on our spectrum. Even people from those countries in the diaspora might prefer to work clandestinely for fear of reprisals against their collaborators who might be working inside the boundary. Individuals make their choice as to whether to work openly or in a clandestine fashion. The nature of the online world facilitates clandestine work.
I think we are going to see a lot of tools emerge online for both open and clandestine work, and for all three components of money, message and organization. Cross pollination will speed up the process of tool generation and sharing.
Money. In this model, most of the money is raised and spent by the respective diaspora organizations. To some extent you are also looking at the floating bands of democracy activis who chip in small amounts when they can. The transparency of the blogalaxy will also make sure there is accountability on money matters. All book keeping would be online. This is key.
Message. We have to get all the news out. We also have to report of all human rights abuses. People in the network who might get targeted by the state should feel the entire network knows when something happens to them. We do not replicate the Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch, and the Committee To Protect Bloggers efforts, but we do act as magaphones. We make some serious noise. We have to engage the opponents of democracy in debate. When direct debates might not be possible, we go for indirect debates. We challenge whatever public statements might be available. We have to draw attention to their weak and fraudulent arguments, and then we have to counterargue. We have to have rapid response mechanisms. As soon as they say something, we respond immediately. They should feel surrounded.
Organization. We have to help build political parties where they do not exist. It is not possible to imagine democracies without political parties. We have to nurture and protect them where they do exist. We have to create organizations and umbrella organizations among the diaspora. Right to peaceful assembly is just like the right to free speech, a fundamental human right. People should organize as they see fit. We would not direct how people organize, rather facilitate their organizational activities by helping get the word out.
Once we have this basic infrastructure in place, we could really change gears. We could hope to introduce democracy into countries at rather rapid rates. The goal would be to wage this one massive, decisive street demonstration like in Ukraine in 2004, which would culminate in either the autocratic regime stepping down, or the democracy movement unilaterally declaring the formation of an interim government to be recognized by the entire family of democracies. (5 Steps To Democracy) The interim government would be charged with organizing elections to a constituent assembly that would give the country a democratic constitution.
Once in power, the democrats should have the option to bring to justice those elements that might have been repressive towards the democracy activists.Only if that knowledge is public beforehand might democracy activists be emboldened to act and autocrats in power wary to openly persecute them. International laws can come into play, so can country tribunals.
Democracy is possibly the best gift the dollar a day crowd can get. Freedom is a birthright. It is sad some people don't have it. Those who don't have it deserve it, and those of us who are free are not truly free until all of us are free across the globe. Democracy will be born and will grow in each country in slightly unique ways, but there is no arguing with the fundamentals of democracy. Those are universal.
I have a vague feeling the Nepali Maoists are for a democratic republic and not for a communist republic, and this is not a tactical ploy on their part, but rather an ideological stand they have taken internally. But I might be wrong. And if I am wrong, and if the Maoists keep increasing their reach and influence, and finally they attack Kathmandu and take over, one of the first things they are likely to do is behead the king, if history is any lesson, because that is what Lenin's people did to the Russian Czar.
There is a saying in Hindi, jaan bachee to lakhon paye. If my life be saved, that is worth millions. No money and power in the world will be his if he were to lose his life. And I am really really worried for him. I am a democrat, which means I am against the current autocracy, of course, and I will and am doing all I can to help usher democracy into Nepal, but my ways are non-violent. The king's life is a no zone territory in my way of thinking. But it is not me I am worried about. I am worried about them Maoists. They might behead the king. I am worried.
Russia: From Monarchism to Communism Last Russian Czar Remembered as Family Man"He was weak, not terribly interested in politics," he says. "He basically only liked two things, his family and outdoor activities. But he insisted on maintaining autocratic authority because he felt it was his sacred duty to keep it intact and pass it on to his son." ....... the Alexander Palace, an isolated castle to which they permanently retreated after the first Russian Revolution in 1905...... Yet as devoted as he was to his family, says Harvard's Richard Pipes, Nicholas was equally as inattentive to leading Russia's people and its massive military and bureaucracy. "His problem was that he was not suited to be an autocrat, and yet he insisted on being one. So Russia got the worst of both," he says........ In August 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized Nicholas and Alexandra as royal martyrs. Russian Revolution of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nicholas II of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe provisional Russian government at first kept Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children confined in the Alexander Palace 15 miles from St. Petersburg at Tsarskoe Selo (Tsar's Village). Attempting to remove them from the vicinity of the capital and so from possible harm, the Kerensky government moved them east to Tobolsk, in Siberia in August 1917. They remained there through the Bolshevik October Revolution in November 1917, but were then moved to Red Army and Bolshevik-controlled Yekaterinburg. The Tsar and his family, including several family servants, were executed without trial by firing squad and finished off by bayonets in the basement of the Ipatiev HouseJuly 17, 1918, by a detachment of Bolsheviks led by Yakov Yurovsky, a watchmaker from Perm......... The Soviets always argued that the execution took place as units of the Czech Legion, making their retreat out of Russia, approached Yekaterinburg. Fearing that the Legion would take the town and free him, the Tsar's Bolshevik jailers pursued the immediate liquidation of the Imperial Family. This is, however, disputed by telegraphic evidence and the Sokolov Report, which show mounting pressure to execute the Imperial Family by hard-line Bolsheviks, who argued that there was "no turning back." The telegram giving the order on behalf of the Supreme Soviet in Moscow was signed by Jacob Sverdlov, after whom the town was subsequently renamed........ The bodies of Nicholas and his family were long believed to have been disposed of down a mineshaft at a site called the Four Brothers. Initially, this was true — they had indeed been disposed of there on the night of July 17. The following morning — when rumors spread in Yekaterinburg regarding the disposal site — Yurovsky removed the bodies and concealed them elsewhere. When the vehicle carrying the bodies broke down on the way to the next chosen site, Yurovsky made new arrangements, and buried most of the bodies in a sealed and concealed pit on Koptyaki Road, a cart track (now abandoned) 12 miles north of Yekaterinburg. Their remains were later found in 1991 and reburied by the Russian government. The process to identify the remains was exhaustive. Samples were sent to Britain and the United States for DNA testing. The tests concluded that five of the skeletons were members of one family and four were unrelated. Three of the five were determined to be the children of two parents. The mother was linked to the British royal family, as was Alexandra. The father was determined to be related to several other Romanovs. Scientists said they were more than 99 percent sure that the remains were those of the Czar, his family and their attendants. Two skeletons remain unaccounted for - Alexei, the 13 year old heir to the throne, and one of his sisters, either Maria or Anastasia. The Rise of Russia 862 - 1917 AD The Russian Revolutions of 1917 Nicholas II, czar of Russia: Abdication and Death He was held first in the Czarskoye Selo palace, then near Tobolsk. The advance, in July, 1918, of counterrevolutionary forces caused the soviet of Yekaterinburg to fear that Nicholas might be liberated; after a secret meeting a death sentence was passed on the czar and his family, who were shot along with their remaining servants in a cellar at Yekaterinburg on the night of July 16. Their bodies were buried or burned in a nearby forest....... Discovered in 1979, the remains of the czar and the others who had been buried were unearthed in 1991 and reburied in St. Petersburg in 1998. In 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church canonized the czar and the members of his immediate family. Nicholas's vague mysticism, limited intelligence, and submission to sinister influences made him particularly unfit to cope with the events that led to his tragic end. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia Royalty.nu - Nicholas and Alexandra - The Last Romanovs ...
This is why it is imperative upon the king to handover power to the seven party alliance. Even the UML that is now for a democratic republic has no designs on the king's life. Crown, yes. But not his life, liberty or property. The other six parties are neutral to the crown, but not yet officially for a republic. So those six might let him have not only life, liberty and property, but also crown in some form. But them Maoists? You never know about them.
Handing power over to the democrats is the best way to make sure the Maoists do not take over.
The seven party alliance hopes to seek a political solution to the insurgency. But if that not work, and there emerge a need to seek a military solution, for that possibility, the king should agree to have the state army squarely under the people's representatives. The crown needs to detach itself from the army.
It is because I am worried for the king's life.
And it is not just the Maoists. You also have to worry about the mob like during the French revolution. A mob can take a life of its own. Mobs are also known to execute, like in Romania.
So I hope the king comes to his senses and hands over power to the democrats and soon.
