Another one bites the dust

[Edric O]

I've been anticipating posting this topic for quite some time. Nepal, formerly the world's last Hindu kingdom, officially became a secular democratic republic today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7424302.stm

+1 for the values of the Enlightenment. May all monarchs fall by the end of this century.

In particular, to quote Ken Livingstone, "I just long for the day I wake up and find that the Saudi Royal Family are swinging from lamp-posts and they've got a proper government that represents the people of Arabia."

[Hypatia]

Hm. I don't have anything against the British Monarchy, but the Saudi royals do need to go. However, that's a lot of people to hang. Wouldn't it be better to put them to work doing something useful, like cleaning bathrooms or sweeping the streets?

[Sneakgab]

On the other hand, the thousands who have suffered from their reign would derive great pleasure from knowing that the Suadi's have been executed or are being tortured. Might be good for entertainment, like the public executions of the medieval ages. Then again, the effect this might have on moral fiber could be questionable... just a suggestion.

Additionally, the punishment of these Suadi royals might serve as a deterent to other tyrants. It would be similar to punishing criminals to discourage crime, except in this case it would be a question of decency and good rule (morals maybe) as opposed to sometimes arbitrary and unjust law.

(edit): What was the Nepalese monarchy like anyway (not really in the mood for wiki RIGHT now).

Where they heinous to the effect that they would not serve as lucrative a tourist attraction as the British royal family? (well, if the income from that is greater than the cost of their wasteful extravagance anyway).

[Hypatia]

I don't think the deterrence angle really works too well. Did the world's despots learn anything from Saddam Hussein's execution? I've seen no evidence of that.

[Sneakgab]

I also doubt it would have much of a deterrence effect. It was just a suggestion thrown out there. Most despots die at ripe old ages as their dictatorship is often not overthrown during their lifetime or until they are already nearing death from natural causes

However, Saddam was executed only recently. Also, what lead to his removal and execution was more American (and probably corporate) interests. From this despots might be more likely to learn to bend to the will of power holders or make themselves (or their holdings) less attractive targets rather than learning to fear righteous wrath.

[Hypatia]

I'm not saying Hussein shouldn't have been removed from power. He committed unspeakably horrible atrocities, as did his sons and subordinates. But the public execution -- no matter how cathartic it may have been for the Iraquis -- hasn't done anything to give other despots (ie. Kim Jong Il or Robert Mugabe) the idea that maybe they ought to abdicate or mend their ways. And these despots do live with the material trappings of monarchy, if not the "divine right" usually attributed to legitimate monarchical governments.

[Purge]

Why would they?  They saw the reaction America received for getting involved in Iraq, and they realize the international community ultimately doesn't care one way or another if people are being persecuted.  Sure, they will pay lip service, but they aren't going to do anything about it, and you damned well better not either in their view.

The word deterrent itself is ridiculous in instances like this.  Nothing is a deterrent.  People do whatever they want because they don't think they will ever have to face the conquences.  It doesn't matter to them that others have.  There is always a way to justify why someone else got caught and punished but you won't.

[Khan]

Well people would be afraid f they have somethng America wants because they know the international community doesn't care. Some people kicked up a fuss when america invaded but they dd t anyway and noone really did anything about it.

[gunner154]

I don't think it's about Saddam being executed, it's more so about these countries knowing that America has gotten its hands tied down enough by Iraq, and even when free, it would be too weary to go on to deal with other countries.

[Khan]

I wouldn't be too surprised if America found an invasion which could benefit it more and decided to leave Iraq in the lurch. Countries have to stay off the radar by making it look like the benefits couldn't outweigh the costs.

[gunner154]

It's funny to think of countries as food or something that requires a price to be paid in order to be consumed.

But it's hard. This generation is already facing a major issue with an invasion. Unless you're talking about America bulldozing itself into action and completely disregarding backlash, if any.

[Khan]

America didn't have much regard for backlash with these past two invasions, there's nothing to say that they are going to start noticing. They don't seem to care about they're own citizens' beliefs, why would they start to take notice of other countries' citizens.

[Caid Ivik]

In particular, to quote Ken Livingstone, "I just long for the day I wake up and find that the Saudi Royal Family are swinging from lamp-posts and they've got a proper government that represents the people of Arabia."

bloody orientalism...

[Sneakgab]

Don't you think that he more likely simply dislikes monarchies and/or tyrannical rulers in general as opposed to his comment/feelings being orientalism? (in the sense that is implicative of prejudice)

I assume your implying prejudice on his part (from the tone), as opposed to merely stating that he merely has negatives views of the east?

[Caid Ivik]

Of course, why doesn't he address the dynasty ruling in his own country? As also Nepal's monarchy was with its parliamentary power more similar to the British than to that of Saudi Arabia? Also why does he think the Saudi dynasty isn't a "proper government that represents the people of Arabia"? It is a common prejudice, that monarchy in an (especially middle-) eastern context is very repressive and that "the people" don't like it, wait for nothing else than (western) intervention, which would help them to build up democracy. The problem of Nepal seems to me to not be in the structure, but rather in performance of the king's rule.

[Sneakgab]

So Ken Livingstone is/was British (thought your post might make some unnatentive individuals assume that your implying that he is/was Nepalese).

Maybe he isn't addressing the royal family of his own country as many would consider them to be little more than a tourist attraction; not exactly a REAL monarchy.

Also, as far as I know, Saudi Arabia is quite infamous for the abuse/non-existence of human rights that go on there, so it does seem like there is reason to think (or at least assume) that the  government does not represent the people... not like the so-called ''democracies'' of the west do that to much effect (or maybe it would be truer to say that they are not so bad at representing the will of the people but they don't much in actually CARRYING OUT/following/abiding by the will of the people...).

Of course, you could ask why he points out Saudi Arabia in particular. Co-incidence maybe? I'm not sure of the likelihood of that.

I kind of get the feeling that their is a good chance that you are right to assume his statement and attitude as orientalism in spite of the above section of my post which lays out things to consider rather than a defense/ argument against thinking his attitude as orientalism (though it may seem that way).

Either way, I do try not to make unnecessary assumptions. It doesn't seem like we can say beyond reasonable doubt that his attitude is or isn't affected by orientalism.

''t is a common prejudice, that monarchy in an (especially middle-) eastern context is very repressive and that "the people" don't like it, wait for nothing else than (western) intervention, which would help them to build up democracy. The problem of Nepal seems to me to not be in the structure, but rather in performance of the king's rule.''

I definitely agree that you can certainly have ''good'' monarchies. Better to have a benign and wise king than a villainous or foolish (villainous AND foolish might be better than only 1 of the two, at least compared to the former). Of course many think that absolute power corrupts absolutely, making a benign king/dictator/whatever that stays way for long impossible.

I can also see the whole idea of middle eastern countries being tumultous and in ruin without help from the west as being a legitimate source of irritation, especially for somebody from the east. I wonder how many invasions have used this excuse to serve for the annexation or ''liberation'' of often otherwise fortuitous monarchies that could have borne prosperity?

Doesn't seem like there are two many examples existing currently at least though.

[Caid Ivik]

Ken Livingstone doesn't sound very nepalese so I wouldn't expect some assumptions; he lives. But to the problem. In Nepal, the king tried to seize the power, but it was prevented by means of legislative. Was it then a 'real' monarchy? Vatican is a 'real' monarchy, but even here the title had to be delegated by conclave.

About the human rights thing, let's assume I don't think an ethical category is dependant on the will of the government. America is infamous for treating prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, so the same implication can be used even here. Actually the problem of human rights was one of those (orientalist) excuses for their capture.

[nemafakei]

"Of course, why doesn't he address the dynasty ruling in his own country?"

Check http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone - there're a couple on the subject of the British monarchy and empire. He's also a permanent fixture of antiwar demos in London, so I doubt his solution is to "wait for nothing else than (western) intervention".

[Sneakgab]

''Ken Livingstone doesn't sound very nepalese so I wouldn't expect some assumptions; he lives''

Yeah, I know. That's why I said only the inattentive could make such a miss assumption

I couldn't find any of the quotes regarding the British monarchy in a quick browse so I'll just take your word for it.

I guess then that it no longer seems reasonable to deem his attitude as orientalism then.

That's not say though, that Caid was completely unreasonable in thinking that as this info was unavailable at that time.

On the issue of a monarchy being ''real''. Basically, if they are the seat of power then that is essentially what makes the government a true monarchy. Maybe that is not the actual definition of monarchy... but of course you know what I mean.

Regardless, a monarchy with no power to rule is definitely generally less of a threat and large issue.

[Caid Ivik]

Orientalism isn't a political ideology; a dualism of western democracy and eastern tyranny is a cultural legacy, of which one can imply, that western politicians know better what kind of government easterners need than easterners (of any class) themselves. In so far seems Livingstone's remark to be affected by orientalism, altough he may disagree with the means employed by Bush and Blair. The question could be in how far the religious (hanbalite) law, on which Saudi dynasty bases its legitimacy, is accepted by the population. If majority prefers a coherent and full-scale application of this law, despite being incompatible with certain points of the declaration of human rights, then why not? Why should a postmodern and postwar mix of anti-nazi ideas be imposed on a structure of religious law, claiming a divine origin?

To lose such a legitimacy, there would have to be some person-specific, terribly "sinful" event, like Nepal's case of massacre of the royal family by its own member.