म के कुरामा लगभग विश्वस्त छु भने सर्वेक्षणहरुमा राजतन्त्रको पक्षमा बोलिएको मत (सम्भावित सर्वेक्षण त्रुटी/बेईमानी बाहेक) बाध्यात्मक प्रश्नावलीको कारणले मात्र "सम्वैधानिक राजतन्त्र" को प्रचलितबोली (cliché) मा पर्न पुगेको हो, त्यसको वास्तविक भाव चाही राजालाई मार्ने, झुन्ड्याउने वा देशनिकाला जस्तो काम गरेर सिध्याउन हुँदैन, देशमै बाँच्न, बस्न-खान दिनुपर्छ भन्ने मात्र हो ।
कुनै पनि प्रकारको राजाको तन्त्रमा भन्दा लोक को गणतन्त्रमा भारी मत रहेको कुरा आगामी निर्वाचनमा जनताले राजतन्त्रवादी उम्मेदवारलाई लज्जाजनक हार र गणतन्त्रवादी उम्मेदवारहरुलाई भारी विजय दिलाएर प्रमाणितप्राय: गरिदिनेछन् । "प्राय:" भनेर प्रत्यय जोडेको चाही आगामी चुनावमा राजावादीहरुले निर्धक्क भएर भाग लिन नपाउने अवस्था निश्चितप्राय: भएकोले प्रमाणको बल (strength) लाई अलिक घटाएको हुँ ।
एनीवे, राजतन्त्रको पक्षमा आधा जनमतरुपी कबाव चपाईरहेकाहरुको लागि यहाँ एउटा हड्डी छ । अनि अलि तल यस हड्डीउपर भएको छलफलमा मेरो सानो सहभागिताको अंश पनि छ । त्यसभन्दा पनि तल चाही नेपाली जनमत कसरी राजतन्त्रको पक्षमा छैन/हुन सक्दैन भन्नेबारे मेरो तर्कशास्त्रिय प्रस्तुती, एकजना वरिष्ट पत्रकारसंग भएको मेरो वार्तालापबाट ।
आशा छ यहाँ यी सामाग्रीहरुको सान्दर्भिकता स्वीकार गरिनेछ ।
Nepe
Majority of people are in favour of democratic republican set up: survey -
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2006/dec/dec02/news03.php A recent survey carried out by a non governmental organization has shown that majority of people are in favour of democratic republican set up in the country.
The latest survey conducted by Informal Sector Service Center in 56 districts said only a negligible number of respondents backed ceremonial monarchy and constitutional monarchy.
"About 88 per cent of the people surveyed by the INSEC in fifty-six districts opted for a democratic republican set-up," said chairman of INSEC Subodh Raj Pyakurel.
Only about five per cent are for constitutional monarchy while five per cent of the interviewed people favoured ceremonial monarchy. Pyakurel however said that the people did not have much idea about the concept of ceremonial monarchy.
Similarly, 88 per cent of the interviewees were for inclusive democracy and political representation encompassing people from all walks of life.
About 17,000 people were surveyed by INSEC.
On the human rights front, about 92 per cent were for bringing the human rights violators to book, thereby giving justice to the victims of the decade-long conflict.
Speaking at an interaction organized to discuss about INSEC's findings Nepali Congress leader Arjun Narsingh KC said that INSEC's survey would help the government and political parties in their efforts to draft new constitution and restructuring the state.
Maoist leader Ek Raj Bhandari said the Maoists were committed to upholding and protecting human rights. nepalnews.com pb Dec 02 06
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
And here is my quick input to a discussion on the survey at Nepal Democracy Google Group.
From: Deepak Khadka
To:
nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: [ND] Re: ...
Friends,
I will wait for the full report of INSEC Poll to say anything definitely. It's statistic aspect is probably weak. However, since I have studied four older polls (listed below) and have found serious PRO-MONARCHY BIAS (interestingly, in increasing order to the older polls) in their QUESTIONNAIRES (I had a heated debate on the "leading" questionnaire of one of these polls in this forum last year), I tend to believe that among all these "flawed" polls, the result of the INSEC Poll (if AT LEAST it's questionnaire is reasonably unbiased and scientifically sound) is probably closer to the truth. I have some logical bases for that belief (I had shared one of them with K..-jee in one of my exchanges with him last year in this forum).
Himal Khabarpatrika Poll, August 2003
Asia Foundation AcNielsen Survey 2005
Himal Media Public Opinion Poll, March 2006
NDI AcNielsen Poll, Sept 2006
I was planning to write an article [...] on this very theme (that is, pro-monarchy bias in the polls mentioned above), but did not do it thinking it is not "samayik" enough. Now, with this fresh discussion in this forum, I am motivated. I will see if I find enough energy to express my view on how I think at least the first three polls in the above list have MISLED us (and perhaps the pollsters themselves too !) through biased and flawed questionnaire to believe that despite the 2001 palace massacre, despite the 2002 royal take over and despite the 2005 Coup d'etat, the vast majority of Nepali people (upto 85% as of August [correction: March] 2006 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) favor monarchy.
Some relevant links: My exchange with K..-jee: http://groups.google.com/group/nepaldemocracy/msg/c0fd4959fe9990c2?hl=en
(the link is not accessible for non-members, see below for the excerpts instead)
US government document
(Measuring and Reporting Sources of Error in Surveys): -
http://www.fcsm.gov/01papers/SPWP31_final.pdf Deepak
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
The logical inadequacies for reported popular support to monarchy: (An exchange between me and a senior journalist in Kathmandu)
From: "Deepak Khadka"
To:
nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:42:11 -0700
Subject: Re: to Deepak Khadka
K..-jee,
I still have to thank you for your reply to my queries about popular
perception regarding monarchy. Since I had some additional questions, I
thought I better ask them after NY Rally, in a relaxed time.
[skipped]
Nevertheless, I would like to share my point of view and common sense
regarding shape and evolution of public perception regarding the
palace. [skipped]
I think, after 1990, the extra-constitutional, unspoken or invisible
power still retained by the palace was revealed to or perceived by
people as early as when it became clear that the report of 'Mallik
Commission', to which there was a huge popular enthusiasm, has been
trashed.
Then, by the time it became clear that Panchayati corruption is not
going to be brought to justice and most of old practices and people are
retained, the palace was already perceived as a power to reckon with,
in contrast to a perception of a defeated palace in early days. In
other words, at least to the mass that was 'moved' by the popular
movement of 1990, the incompleteness of the revolution was revealed.
So, a logical fault line or, let's say, a gap between THEORY and
REALITY of Nepali Constitutional Monarchy (CM) did appear very early.
Then the Maoist insurgency was a sort of a fatal blow to sanctimony of
CM. The Maoist insurgency revealed, at best, the reality that monarchy
does not have qualification to be the symbol of national unity as
envisioned, and, at worst, the fact that it can be a source of disunity
among Nepalis.
Yo ta bhayo, logical inadequacy of CM available to a Nepali when he
needed to think against monarchy.
However, we know that societies can live with affordable paradoxes.
So the question is: how has been actual POPULAR perception regarding
monarchy ?
I think it is safe to assume that until the palace massacre happened,
majority of people were not rethinking about monarchy. However, the
palace massacre changed all that.
The massacre changed popular perception about monarchy in two ways.
One, it DEMYSTIFIED the palace for good. Two, more damaging than
previous, Gyanendra and Paras were popular suspects. The percentage of
the population that believed Gyanendra and Paras were clean was very
small. (I have not believed in the conspiracy theory myself yet,
however, I have not been able convince my parents and wife not to
believe in the theory !). And the conspiracy theory seems to be getting
stronger and stronger back up today.
Now here comes the question K..jee and I seem to be at odds with.
>Common sense as well other public opinion polls (including that
>done a year ago by a team led by Krishna Hachhetu) indicate of
>course that the public at large would have stayed with constitutional
>monarchy properly defined (and not as defined by KG).
First the common sense. I believe that K..jee agrees with my
assumption that an overwhelming majority of people suspects Gyandendra
for the massacre and that Paras, the immediate heir to the throne, is
extremely unpopular.
Now, how would they (the public at large) choose Constitutional
monarchy over getting done with monarchy to make Gyanendra and Paras
ordinary citizens of Nepal ?
I mean what reason a typical voter would use to choose to retain
monarchy when they know monarchy means Gyanendra and Paras ?
Monarchy might be more than Gyanendra and Paras to educated few.
However, to the people at large, that's what that is.
Now, the polls. I do not particularly remember if it was Hachhetu's
poll, however the few polls I am aware of taken in 2004 and before did
not have 'republic' as an explicit option. And that clearly explains
the secret of higher preference to the Constitutional monarchy.
There are other limitations about polls taken in Nepali society,
particularly during 'risky' times, which I do not want to talk about
now. K..jee has made note of this kind of limitation himself.
All in all, it looks like the polls that showed huge popularity of
Constitutional monarchy were misleading. Truth got lost in statistics.
That's what it is.
Had there been no cost, it probably would be laughed once and put
behind for good. However, there has been a huge cost of losing the
truth in statistics for last few years. And that begs for reflection
and soul searching from all of us.
Deepak Khadka
K... wrote:
> no, i am not going by the opinion poll you refer to Deepak Ji. Common sense
> as well other public opinion polls (including that done a year ago by a team
> led by Krishna Hachhetu) indicate of course that the public at large would
> have stayed with constitutional monarchy properly defined (and not as
> defined by KG). The 'mock' referendums conducted by students were I presume
> conducted among students themselves, and so a truly unrepresentative sample
> of the larger 'youth group' I should guess. Each of us has our own biases,
> haina ra? Also please keep in mind that in Nepal people who think better
> keep their own counsel till the last minute, so what seems to be the
> prevalent discourse as culled from the national Nepali dailies is probably
> not the 'real thing', and underlying beliefs tend to sneak up on you at the
> last minute and take everyone unawares. As far as popular perceptions of the
> monarchy is concerned, the use of language in the press, the cartooning and
> lampooning of of KG in public, are one indication of what is 'acceptable' to
> the public at large... and clearly the public at large no longer minds such
> departures regarding kingship. (Another departure, started by Narahari
> Acharya, is to start saying 'rajsanstha' rather than 'rajtantra'. Another is
> the ability to show a sinking ship of the royal palace, or a tribhuvan
> figure with a dagger behind his back, or the 'dekhinay suninay' mobile phone
> spoof by cartoonist Rajesh KC and the celebrated one of dead horse of
> constitutional monarchy by Vatsyayan.) Perhaps much more importantly, the
> reference to kingship tends to be lacking among the village folks whereas
> there was a time when at least there would be genuflection towards the
> institution. The fault for all of this lies with KG, because the people at
> large have realised this monarch's denigrating attitude towards the mass
> public's values and expectations. So, if a poll were to be conducted today,
> the stock of even constitutional monarchy would probably register a
> significant drop... though still not as significant as some might wish. How
> much it has fallen, will have to be seen through a professional poll for
> which the country is ready right now, and it will not do to do such a poll
> among 'students' alone of course but the public at large. All in all, even
> today, public opinion is created I believe by what the political parties
> more than anyone else. Which is why the downturn of the perceptions of the
> monarchy really accelerated after Oct 2002 and not earlier. KG has only to
> blame himself.
> sorry for rambling.
> k.
__________________________________
