Hacker News Reader

Comment by KLexpat | Hacker News Reader

Despite what western media outlets say, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Military juntas are often a good/restorative part of government in countries like Thailand and Myanmar, and are well received by the general public.

Doesn't mesh well with washington kissinger pastiche though

View on HN

The public voted overwhelmingly in favor of Aung San Suu Kyi and against the military in the most recent elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Myanmar_general_election

Military rule has been a complete and utter disaster for Myanmar. It's one of the poorest countries in the world, brutal repression, ethnic cleansing, isolation, the list goes on. There is nothing at all to redeem it.

I'm from Nepal. We're next doors to Myanmar. We have democracy, social policies (even universal healthcare, which is comically bad anyway but we do have that), freedom of speech, free press, yadda yadda but Myanmar is still richer than us. The disagreements of democratically elected leaders has been the main cause of political instability for us for more than a decade now.

> We have democracy, social policies (even universal healthcare, which is comically bad anyway but we do have that), freedom of speech, free press, yadda yadda

Most middle-eastern countries do not have this either...

> but Myanmar is still richer than us.

but I am willing to bet they are richer than both Nepal and Myanmar. It seems what Myanmar has over Nepal is natural resources, (just like the middle eastern countries). This is nothing to be proud of.

We are blessed in other ways too. We have a huge hydroelectricity potential that we haven't tapped fully. The problem is that people are insanely xenophobic and foreign investment is derided as "selling out to foreigners" here. Existing rules make it a nightmare for prospective foreign investors. There's not much capital inside to invest on our own natural resources.

Autocracy followed by a Maoist revolution isn't a path to success either.

Don't know what you're getting at. There's no autocracy in Nepal (at least not yet). The Maoists won a free and fair election (Socialism is just that popular here). At most the country is super-duper and insanely socialistic, with government owning multiple large monopolies. Unless you call yourself a "socialist" you won't be winning any elections here. Unfortunately there is no pro-business/capitalistic political party in Nepal and that is what I sincerely believe is lacking here.

The civil war only 15 years ago between the Monarchy and the Socialists.

China has a heavy influence in Nepal, and the tourist trade gives everyone a bad taste for Western anything.

Freedom alone is not democracy; that's just liberalism. Social justice, economic equality and others including political power control from people are important part of democracy.

We'll never achieve democracy if you keep on redefining it now will we?

BTW, turnover for elections in Nepal is really high. Always upwards of 70%. If that isn't democracy, then I don't know what is.

"Social justice" is such an ambiguous term that too often is associated with intolerance and online hate.

I would agree with your statement otherwise.

Nepal's current economic state is a product of the civil war that only ended 15 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War

From their perspective - they have kept the nation united rather than have the North split off.

It's a terrible reason, but that is their justification.

Conflict with the Northern provinces have been a constant for decades.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com