Talk:Politics of Nepal

message: :Taken from the old Cleanup entry…Archived by HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Cleanup Archive 

message: That was Mongolia in 1921.
I guess one could say Norway was before too. DNA 1928 govt
still hadd proletarian dicatourship and revolution on the
partu programme, even if the party had left the Komintern. 
guess there mightavebeen SEVERAL others.
Togrim 2006-01-06
And Bulgaria and Rumenia in 1945 too. Yopie 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nepal not the worlds first communist led monarchy

message: With the agreement on Sunday that the monarchy would be abolished, I've put a  tag on the article. Reading over it, that "Political conditions" section was a confusing timeline, so I've put subheadings on it.
I must note here that I hardly know anything about the politics of Nepal in detail, so would like someone who does to have a good look at what I've done here and edit accordingly! - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup, sectioning, current events 

message: There seems to be a break in or loss of information, nothing explains "King Gyanendra took control once again on February 1, 2005." When/how did he lose control? Chris (クリス) (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: gap

message: So, as of today there's no monarchy of Nepal, and Girija Prasad Koirala has become "head of state." However, most articles here still call him Prime Minister. There's a disconnect in that: a prime minister has to minister, or advise, someone, but Koirala has nobody to do that for anymore; he can't be prime minister to himself. So, is he president? Is he titled as Head of State? Is he the head of state but still, bizzarrely, titled as Prime Minister? Some clarification is needed. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's Prime Minister & Interim Head of State (until Nepal chooses a Head of State). Koirala's current status is similiar to what Vladimir Putin's was from December 1999 to May 2000. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, then, he is prime minister to himself? --G2bambino (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, he's his own PM. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? That's what I said: he is prime minister to himself. What a stupid arrangement that is. --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think s/he means something like caretaker/regent/acting prime minister. Putin was acting for Yeltsin during that period mentioned above. As far as I know, he is not the president, but he is interim head of state. w_tanoto (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's Prime Minister & interim Head of State. My guess is there'll be a Presidency created (though not certain). GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's been given the position of head of state (whatever title that accords him) while never giving up his post as prime minister, then, technically, he is his own main advisor. Essentially, the situation becomes similar to that of the UK prior to the Glorious Revolution, when the King remained the head of the Cabinet. Seems a step backwards, to me. Anyway, I think we should avoid making statements like "the Prime Minister is head of state"; it appears the two positions are separate, though both occupied by the same person. --G2bambino (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some countries, including Indonesia, have president that is both head of state and head of government, but in nepal, it will only be temporary as the presidency will certainly be created (as far as I know fro reading articles on the internet) w_tanoto (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they are presidential republics. If Nepal still has a PM, then it's not a presidential republic. Perhaps someone else will be put in as President of Nepal soon enough, but... who knows? --G2bambino (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right. As I said, in Nepal, the arrangement of Head of state being the same as head of government is only temporary. w_tanoto (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In agreement, the interim HoS position & Prime Minister are seperate positions (until further notice). We should treate them as such. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: PS- The Nepal article uses the title Acting President (its external link points out, a Presidency is to be created). GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of state/PM 

message: Under the Constitution which came into force in May 2008, Nepal is proclaimed a federal, democratic republic. The word 'federal' implies that there are sub-national autonomous or semi-autonomous sub-divisions of the state territory, but the article does not make clear what these are, even on an interim basis. The reader might presume that the five development regions exist as the provisional first-tier sub-divisions within this federal structure, but there is nothing to confirm or to refute this assumption. There is a need for someone to address this matter and to state which are the first-tier autonomous communities within Nepal; the articles on Zones of Nepal, Regions of Nepal and Districts of Nepal need to be brought into line with current information - I understand that the situation is that the former Zones no longer have any administrative or political function.  Rif Winfield (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, the federal structure is still in the works. Kushal (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Structure 

message: I quote: "Executive power is exercised by the President, Prime Minister, and his cabinet" is ambiguous at various levels. Firstly, there not being an article before Prime Minister makes it look like the President and Prime Minister are the same person. While I understand that it is not out of the question, the ground reality is that the posts are (and therefore can be, until they change the statute) held by two different people. Therefore, I think there should be a "the" before the Prime Minister. 
However, it seems there is a factual error here. I understand the long term solution is still in the works and will not be clear until at least the constitution assembly decides on the issue once and for all, but does the President have any executive powers today? If not, would it not be appropriate to remove "the President" for now? Thanks. 
As always, please feel to change and correct as you see fit. Kushal (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could be misinterpreted 

message: I appreciate the great work this article does going back to 1996, but it leaves a huge swath of time, dating back to the Ranas in the 19th century, which warrants at least an overview.  This history is especially relevant, because it explains many of the roots of the more recent conflicts.  I don't have the background knowledge to write it yet, but I'm hoping someone can add it to the article, or I'll do some research...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.124.133 (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a brief history of Nepali politics 

message: Substituted at 03:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: English 2400:F0C0:2:44:4CE6:159F:E4F7:64E8 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political change in Nepal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Currently politics in Nepal features 2404:7C00:47:344B:90E5:1CF4:E441:8FF2 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently politics in Nepal features