Cuts by the Trump administration are putting children at risk, according to a new report by ProPublica. The administration has cut funds and manpower for child abuse investigations, enforcement of child support payments, child care and more. On top of that, Head Start preschools, which offer free child care to low-income parents, are being severely gutted. Democracy Now! speaks with ProPublica reporter Eli Hager on his investigation into Trump’s “War on Children.”
“It wasn’t just cuts to these more liberal-coded programs like support for child care and direct assistance to lower-income families with children, but also these programs that have much more support across the political spectrum, like funds and staffing for investigating child abuse and Child Protective Services,” says Hager.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
As the Trump administration goes after universities, law firms and more, some argue that the free press will eventually become a target. Trump’s attacks on the press have already begun, with the president filing a number of baseless lawsuits against organizations like ABC and CBS, including a $20 billion lawsuit against CBS over how the network edited an interview with Kamala Harris last year on 60 Minutes. The White House has also banned the Associated Press from covering some presidential events over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. “I didn’t want to be an activist, but when it’s a battle for facts, journalism is activism,” warns Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa, whose new site Rappler faced attacks from former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. We also speak with The American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner, who has a new piece headlined “Is the Press Next?”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
President Trump is facing increasing criticism from big businesses over his decision to launch a global trade war. On Monday, CEOs of Walmart, Target and Home Depot met with Trump at the White House to warn about Trump’s trade policies. A day later, Trump signaled he is open to substantially lowering tariffs on China. Trump has also toned down his attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he had previously threatened to fire. This all comes as global stock markets remain in turmoil over Trump’s trade policies. The Wall Street Journal reports the Dow Jones Industrial Average is headed for its worst April performance since the Great Depression. “This is classic Trump,” says Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect. “You create a crisis. Then you say, 'Well, actually, I'm going to back off,’ and the crisis is over. And you end up with yourself and the country worse than before you started.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
The Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network today condemned the Fiji government’s failure to stand up for international law and justice over the Israeli war on Gaza in their weekly Black Thursday protest.
“For the past 18 months, we have made repeated requests to our government to do the bare minimum and enforce the basic tenets of international law on Israel,” said the protest group in an open letter.
“We have been calling upon the Fiji government to uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human rights that our nation cherishes.
“We campaigned, we lobbied, we engaged, and we explained.
“We showed the evidence, pointed to the law, and asked our leaders to do the right thing. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. We’ve been met with nothing but indifference.”
The open letter said:
“Dear fellow Fijians,
“As we gathered tonight in Suva at the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre compound, Israel has maintained an eight-week blockade on food, medicine and aid entering Gaza, while continuing to bomb homes and tent shelters.
“At least 52,000 people in Gaza have been killed since October 2023, which includes more than 18,000 children. The death toll means that one out of every 50 people has been killed in Gaza. We all know that the real number of those killed is far higher.
“Today, at least 13 people were killed in Israeli attacks. Among the dead were three children in a tent near Nuseirat in central Gaza, and a woman and four children in a home in Gaza City.
“Also reportedly killed in a recent attack was local journalist Saeed Abu Hassanein, whose death adds to at least 232 reporters killed by Israel in Gaza in this genocide.
“For the past 18 months, we have made repeated requests to our government to do the bare minimum and enforce the basic tenets of international law on Israel. We have been calling upon the Fiji Government to uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human rights that our nation cherishes.
“We campaigned, we lobbied, we engaged, and we explained. We showed the evidence, pointed to the law, and asked our leaders to do the right thing. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. We’ve been met with nothing but indifference.
“Instead our leaders met with Israeli Government representatives and declared support for a country accused of the most heinous crimes recognised in international law.
“Fijian leaders and the Fiji Government must not be supporting Israel or planning to set up an Embassy in Israel while Israel continues to bomb refugee tents, kill journalists and medics, and block the delivery of aid to a population under relentless siege.
“No politician in Fiji can claim ignorance of what is happening.
“Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed.
“Many more have been maimed, traumatised and displaced. Hospitals, clinics, refugee camps, schools, universities, residential neighbourhoods, water and food facilities have been destroyed.
“We must loudly name what’s happening in Gaza – a GENOCIDE.
“We should name the crime, underline our government’s complicity in it, and focus our efforts on elevating the voices of Palestinians.
“We know that our actions cannot magically put an end to the GENOCIDE in occupied Palestine, but they can still make a difference. We can add to the global pressure on those who have the power to stop the genocide, which is so needed.
“The way our government is responding to the genocide in Gaza will set a precedent for how they will deal with crises and emergencies in the future — at home and abroad.
“It will determine whether our country will be a force that works to uphold human rights and international law, or one that tramples on them whenever convenient.
“There are already ongoing restrictions against protests in solidarity with Palestine including arbitrary restrictions on marches and the use of Palestine flags.
“We have had to hold gatherings in the premises of the FWCC office as the police have restricted solidarity marches for Palestine since November 2023, under the Public Order (Amendment) Act 2014.
“Today, we must all fight for what is right, and show our government that indifference is not acceptable in the face of genocide, lest we ourselves become complicit.
“History will judge how we respond as Fijians to this moment.
“Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of always standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.
“We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.”
In Solidarity Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network
Ahead of the local elections on 1 May, new Ipsos research has revealed the low levels of public trust in politicians across the board.
Notably, while local councils engendered substantially more trust than Westminster – it still found over half of respondents don’t trust local authorities to operate in the interests of their residents.
Local elections: polling shows people don’t trust councils to act in their best interests
Commissioned by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU), the new research found that nearly 3 in 5 adults (59%) in England feel local councils have the most impact on the quality of life in their area. This compares to Westminster parliament (12%) and the media (8%).
However, while it is true that people trust councils more than central government, the majority (53%) do not trust councils to act in the best interests of people in their local area. This remains at the same level as last year.
Additionally, 59% of respondents would like either more information on how decisions are made locally or have more of a say in those decisions.
Each year, the LGIU carries out this polling. It explores broad public attitudes to local elections, the work of councillors, and the role of local government in England. This year, Ipsos carried out the polling for it in the context of the major changes to UK governance that have occurred in the past year. Most prominently, there was a change in government in Westminster, and the new Labour Party government has since introduced its Devolution White Paper in December 2024.
The majority of respondents to the Ipsos survey (63%) were not following closely or at all the government’s reorganisation plans. There was also no real consensus that unitary authorities are better than the two-tier model that they are slated to replace.
Directly elected mayors were seen as more of a good thing than a bad thing overall. Notably, more people believed they have a positive impact rather than a negative impact with regards to giving an area a voice in Westminster (43% to 16%).
Councils are ‘not exempt from a widespread collapse in trust’
Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive, LGIU said:
This new polling tells a really nuanced story about public perceptions of local government. It’s clear that the public recognises the significant role that local government plays in everyday life, with the quality of public services directly attributed to the actions of councils and councillors.
But we also see that people are worried about a decline in local services, that they don’t understand how decisions are made, and that they don’t trust the people making them.
It is a complex picture. Councils are not exempt from a widespread collapse in trust in political institutions, but, crucially, they do receive higher trust ratings than central government. People overwhelmingly believe that local residents should be involved in decisions about their areas, and a majority want to understand more about how decisions are made.
This means that if we are to rebuild trust in our politics, then local government offers us the best platform from which to do so. And local government reorganisation offers us the mechanism.
The next two years will be critical. Given the low levels of understanding among residents of both existing governance arrangements and the proposed changes, there’s a real risk that devolution and reorganisation processes carried out at pace and without sufficient public engagement will exacerbate the current crisis in trust.
But there’s also an opportunity here: engaging communities in the creation of new structures and ensuring that those new strategic authorities and unitaries function in ways that effectively include local people could be instrumental in rebuilding the trust in political institutions we are currently lacking.
Perhaps the real insight from this polling is that, as ever, how you manage the process of change is as important as the outcome itself.”
Keiran Pedley, director of politics, Ipsos UK said:
These findings show the public recognise that local government is important but they do not always know much about how it works. In this context, it is perhaps unsurprising that there is no real consensus about how it should be run.
The public want local government to give residents a say and deliver local services well. There are signs in the data that directly-elected Mayors are a net positive in that direction – but again no overwhelming consensus – suggesting that, for local government at least, one size does not always fit all.
Of course, the LGIU’s survey results are hardly surprising. When it comes to local elections, turnout often teeters staggeringly low. It has consistently barely scraped or stayed under a third in recent years. These latest LGIU findings just drive home the fact that for many of the most marginalised communities, politicians – whether at Westminster or the local council – simply don’t represent them.
In other words, these executive orders are the mechanism by which we finally arrive at a full-blown dictatorship.
America’s founders established a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch. To this end, the Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch, which makes the law; the executive branch, which enforces the law; and the judicial branch, which interprets the law.
And yet, despite this carefully balanced structure, we now find ourselves in a place the founders warned against.
Despite Trump’s attempts to rule by fiat, the president has no unilateral authority to operate outside the Constitution’s system of checks and balances—no matter how urgent the crisis or how well-meaning the intentions.
This is what government by fiat looks like.
Where Congress was once the nation’s lawmaking body, its role is now being eclipsed by a deluge of executive directives—each one issued without public debate, legislative compromise, or judicial review.
These executive orders aren’t mere administrative housekeeping. They represent a radical shift in how power is exercised in America, bypassing democratic institutions in favor of unilateral command. From trade and immigration to surveillance, speech regulation, and policing, the president is claiming broad powers that traditionally reside with the legislative and judicial branches.
Yet here’s where these actions run into constitutional peril: they redefine executive authority in ways that bypass the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. They centralize decision-making in the White House, sideline the legislative process, and reduce the judiciary to an afterthought—if not an outright obstacle.
Each of these directives, taken individually, might seem technocratic or temporary. But taken together, they reveal the architecture of a parallel legal order—one in which the president acts as lawmaker, enforcer, and judge. That is not how a constitutional republic operates. That is how a dictatorship begins.
Each of these orders marks another breach in the constitutional levee, eroding the rule of law and centralizing unchecked authority in the executive.
This is not merely policy by another name—it is the construction of a parallel legal order, where the president acts as lawmaker, enforcer, and judge—the very state of tyranny our founders sought to prevent.
This legal theory—the so-called Unitary Executive—is not new. But under this administration, it has metastasized into something far more dangerous: a doctrine of presidential infallibility.
What began as a constitutional interpretation that the president controls the executive branch has morphed into an ideological justification for unchecked power.
Under this theory, all executive agencies, decisions, and even enforcement priorities bend entirely to the will of the president—obliterating the idea of an independent bureaucracy or impartial governance.
The result? An imperial presidency cloaked in legalism.
Historically, every creeping dictatorship has followed this pattern: first, undermine the legislative process; then, centralize enforcement powers; finally, subjugate the judiciary or render it irrelevant. America is following that roadmap, one executive order at a time.
Even Supreme Court justices and legal scholars who once defended broad executive authority are beginning to voice concern.
Yet the real danger of the Unitary Executive Theory is not simply that it concentrates power in the hands of the president—it’s that it does so by ignoring the rest of the Constitution.
Respect for the Constitution means obeying it even when it’s inconvenient to do so.
We’re watching the collapse of constitutional constraints not through tanks in the streets, but through policy memos drafted in the West Wing.
No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. Even the most principled policies can be twisted to serve illegitimate ends once power and profit enter the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.
We are approaching critical mass.
The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it doesn’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen.
What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.
In effect, you will disappear.
Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.
This is how tyranny arrives: not with a constitutional amendment, but with a series of executive orders; not with a military coup, but with a legal memo; not with martial law, but with bureaucratic obedience and public indifference.
A government that rules by fiat, outside of constitutional checks and balances, is not a republic. It is a dictatorship in everything but name.
If freedom is to survive this constitutional crisis, We the People must reclaim our role as the ultimate check on government power.
That means holding every branch of government accountable to the rule of law. It means demanding that Congress do its job—not merely as a rubber stamp or partisan enabler, but as a coequal branch with the courage to rein in executive abuses.
It means insisting that the courts serve justice, not politics.
And it means refusing to normalize rule by decree, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
There is no freedom without limits on power.
There is no Constitution if it can be ignored by those who swear to uphold it.
The presidency was never meant to be a throne. The Constitution was never meant to be optional. And the people were never meant to be silent.
On March 28, 2025, pro-republic and pro-monarchy forces organised rival protests in Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu, to showcase public support for and against the Republic. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, about 4,000 people attended the pro-monarchy rally, while around 35,000 joined the pro-republican protest. This was the second major monarchist demonstration following a bigger rally welcoming the king back from Pokhara on March 9. Pro-monarchy forces have been increasingly active, particularly after the former king Gyanendra Shah’s provocative statement on the eve of Democracy Day (February 19).
Sensing the offense of counterrevolutionary forces, the pro-republican protest, organized under the Socialist Front, an alliance of the four opposition left parties, aimed to counter what they call reactionary and regressive forces. While the republican demonstration remained peaceful, the monarchists turned violent, vandalizing public and private property and attacking security personnel. In the aftermath, two people lost their lives, and several were injured.
The violent pro-monarchy demonstration sparked intense debate. Republicans claim the monarchists attempted to create chaos and exploit the crisis while the government also accused them of inciting violence. The monarchists, however, argue they faced suppression from the police.
Pro-monarchy protestors turn violent in Tinkune and Kathmandu. Source: Online People’s News
Recognising the impact of March 28 protests, inside and outside Nepal, the monarchists are planning nationwide protests and have already formed a joint coordination committee. Meanwhile, after the monarchists vandalised the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) [CPN (US)] headquarters and damaged properties, the Socialist Front has committed to defend the achievements of the peaceful People’s Movement of 2006, which abolished monarchy and paved the way for a socialism-oriented constitution. Uncertainty remains, but two things are evident: Monarchists are uniting and mobilising aggressively, while republican forces remain firm. This could strengthen left unity, though questions persist about division within the largest parties, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) [CPN (UML)]) and Nepali Congress (NC) on republicanism.
NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba may support the Republic, but it is an open secret that many others within his party favour Hindu nationalism and monarchy, and oppose the federal structure of Nepal. There many who question the ruling CPN (UML) asking if its top leadership is pro-monarchy, even while acknowledging that majority oppose the monarchy within the party. The fourth-largest party, the independent Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), and Kathmandu’s mayor, rapper Balen Shah, are exploiting the situation to challenge traditional parties and the current political system. There are reports that the monarchists are backed by Indian forces – the ruling regime, the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) active role in Nepal, and the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath – who are supporting financially, politically, and even militarily. The republicans struggle in Nepal for defending constitutional democracy will not be that easy.
Mekha Limbu(Nepal), We are on the way to death, 2012.
Historical Context and Dialectics
Nepal’s unpredictable politics cannot be understood without historical, dialectical, and global perspectives. Its geopolitical location, India-China rivalry, Hindu fundamentalism, US influence, and EU interests, the recent populist tendencies, etc. have turned Nepal into a battleground for power struggles. When leftist coalitions emerge to govern the country India in alliance with the US and right-wing forces, works to weaken them. Internal party rifts further destabilize the government. Therefore, it may be seen that all the forces within the nation and outside, will unite to weaken Nepali state and create further crisis.
Political instability has been a great challenge of Nepalese democracy. Nepal’s political instability is evident in its frequent government changes – 32 since multiparty democracy was restored in 1990, and 13 since Nepal became a republic in 2008. The current government that ruling Nepal is the 14th.
On top political instability, the republicans in Nepal underestimated the monarchy’s revival. Even leftist forces overlooked the resurgence of counterrevolutionary elements. Some self-proclaimed theoreticians focused solely on comprador bourgeoisie as the enemy of Nepal’s working class while ignoring conservatives, reactionaries, and fundamentalists. As previously noted, after overthrowing the monarchy, there was no significant effort to transform production relations in Nepal and create alternative cultural structures, leaving ample space for people to aspire for the monarchy’s return.
Mass media and social media blame top leaders Deuba, K. P. Sharma Oli, and Prachanda, who have collectively ruled for decades, for the crises. Deuba has been prime minister six times, Oli four, and Prachanda three. Other former PMs still lead parties and remain active. These aging leaders have dominated Nepal’s politics for 30 years. However, deeper systemic issues are more influential than people or parties.
Socialist Front rallies at Bhrikuti Mandap. Source: Online People’s News
Why Is This Happening in Nepal?
A.) Political Instability and Systemic Crisis
Nepal faces severe political instability, deep inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, weak industrialisation, mass migration, poverty, food insecurity, and rising debt. Climate crises and disasters add to these challenges. Various forces exploit these crises for their interests. Government changes bring only new rulers, not solutions. People are increasingly frustrated with political parties and the system itself. The 2015 Constitution of Nepal, which established a federal democratic republic, is under threat. Federalism is criticised, republicanism is questioned, and neo-fascism and populism are on the rise. Pro-monarchist forces are capitalising on this turmoil. While most acknowledge Nepal’s problems, reactionary forces blame political parties and the republican system itself. They falsely claim that restoring monarchy, re-establishing a Hindu state, and ending federalism as the solutions. It is prudent to note that many of these groups receive political and financial support from Hindutva-aligned conservatives.
B.) Failure of the Government to Deliver
The current government holds a two-thirds majority, with two parties who have been historically rivals uniting. Its failure to govern effectively is seen as proof that Nepal’s political system itself is failing. This perception fuels calls for alternative governance models, including a return to monarchy.
C.) Corruption, Bad Governance, and Impunity
Recent scandals—such as the Gold Scam, Bhutanese Refugee Scam, and Giri Bandhu Tea Estate Scam—have exposed massive corruption within the state. People now believe that no political leader is clean, as all have been in power at some point. Lack of rule of law, poor governance, and impunity for corrupt leaders have enraged the public. The perception that all top leaders are involved in scandals has made accountability almost impossible.
D.) Public Frustration and Growing Anti-Establishment Sentiment
Government failure, rising unemployment, and foreign labour migration have fuelled widespread frustration. Reactionary and populist forces frame their movements as a revolt against the political establishment. This anti-establishment sentiment explains the rise of figures like Durga Prasai and Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah. Shah’s election was largely due to public anger toward traditional parties. People are increasingly rejecting established political structures, creating space for monarchists and other challengers.
Shashi Bikram Shah(Nepal), Royal Massacre Series, 2001.
E.) Lack of Development Agendas and Weak Leadership
Nepali leaders lack a vision for national development. They show little concern for public suffering, employment opportunities, or economic growth. Instead, they are focused on power, corruption, and alliances with corporate and comprador elites. Leadership incompetence is another major issue. Most leaders have failed to demonstrate effective governance. Though they may be politically experienced, they lack the ability to transform Nepal’s economy and society.
F.) Weakening of the State and Attacks on the Left
There is lot of ideological degeneration in Nepal’s Left movements as they are heavily infiltrated by conservatives. Also, political revisionism has made the Left on the whole indistinguishable from the bourgeois parties. Many leftists have abandoned class struggle, allowing right-wing forces to gain ground. Anti-communist elements are actively working to defame Nepal’s left, weakening national sovereignty and progress. A corrupt judiciary and penetrated bureaucracy further ensure that genuine reformers are isolated or sidelined. Crime networks and muscle power dominate the political scene, making systemic change difficult.
Amid this crisis, pro-monarchy conservatives and reactionaries are exploiting public frustration. While systemic failures are widely acknowledged, these groups falsely present monarchy, Hindu nationalism, and the abolition of federalism as solutions. Many suspect these efforts are backed by right-wing Hindutva groups.
Major political parties’ failure to offer a development agenda has left a vacuum that reactionary forces are filling. The 2015 Constitution, which established Nepal as a federal democratic republic, now faces threats from both political actors and street movements. Federalism is under scrutiny, republicanism is questioned, and neo-fascist and populist movements are growing.
Urgent responses from the government and political parties are necessary. Nepal’s crisis is deeply systemic, with instability and foreign interference fuelling continued failure. Without addressing corruption, delivering reforms, and safeguarding democratic institutions, Nepal risks further regression. The world watches as one of the youngest republics struggles to navigate this precarious moment.
On March 28, 2025, pro-republic and pro-monarchy forces organised rival protests in Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu, to showcase public support for and against the Republic. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, about 4,000 people attended the pro-monarchy rally, while around 35,000 joined the pro-republican protest. This was the second major monarchist demonstration following a bigger rally welcoming the king back from Pokhara on March 9. Pro-monarchy forces have been increasingly active, particularly after the former king Gyanendra Shah’s provocative statement on the eve of Democracy Day (February 19).
Sensing the offense of counterrevolutionary forces, the pro-republican protest, organized under the Socialist Front, an alliance of the four opposition left parties, aimed to counter what they call reactionary and regressive forces. While the republican demonstration remained peaceful, the monarchists turned violent, vandalizing public and private property and attacking security personnel. In the aftermath, two people lost their lives, and several were injured.
The violent pro-monarchy demonstration sparked intense debate. Republicans claim the monarchists attempted to create chaos and exploit the crisis while the government also accused them of inciting violence. The monarchists, however, argue they faced suppression from the police.
Pro-monarchy protestors turn violent in Tinkune and Kathmandu. Source: Online People’s News
Recognising the impact of March 28 protests, inside and outside Nepal, the monarchists are planning nationwide protests and have already formed a joint coordination committee. Meanwhile, after the monarchists vandalised the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) [CPN (US)] headquarters and damaged properties, the Socialist Front has committed to defend the achievements of the peaceful People’s Movement of 2006, which abolished monarchy and paved the way for a socialism-oriented constitution. Uncertainty remains, but two things are evident: Monarchists are uniting and mobilising aggressively, while republican forces remain firm. This could strengthen left unity, though questions persist about division within the largest parties, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) [CPN (UML)]) and Nepali Congress (NC) on republicanism.
NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba may support the Republic, but it is an open secret that many others within his party favour Hindu nationalism and monarchy, and oppose the federal structure of Nepal. There many who question the ruling CPN (UML) asking if its top leadership is pro-monarchy, even while acknowledging that majority oppose the monarchy within the party. The fourth-largest party, the independent Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), and Kathmandu’s mayor, rapper Balen Shah, are exploiting the situation to challenge traditional parties and the current political system. There are reports that the monarchists are backed by Indian forces – the ruling regime, the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) active role in Nepal, and the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath – who are supporting financially, politically, and even militarily. The republicans struggle in Nepal for defending constitutional democracy will not be that easy.
Mekha Limbu(Nepal), We are on the way to death, 2012.
Historical Context and Dialectics
Nepal’s unpredictable politics cannot be understood without historical, dialectical, and global perspectives. Its geopolitical location, India-China rivalry, Hindu fundamentalism, US influence, and EU interests, the recent populist tendencies, etc. have turned Nepal into a battleground for power struggles. When leftist coalitions emerge to govern the country India in alliance with the US and right-wing forces, works to weaken them. Internal party rifts further destabilize the government. Therefore, it may be seen that all the forces within the nation and outside, will unite to weaken Nepali state and create further crisis.
Political instability has been a great challenge of Nepalese democracy. Nepal’s political instability is evident in its frequent government changes – 32 since multiparty democracy was restored in 1990, and 13 since Nepal became a republic in 2008. The current government that ruling Nepal is the 14th.
On top political instability, the republicans in Nepal underestimated the monarchy’s revival. Even leftist forces overlooked the resurgence of counterrevolutionary elements. Some self-proclaimed theoreticians focused solely on comprador bourgeoisie as the enemy of Nepal’s working class while ignoring conservatives, reactionaries, and fundamentalists. As previously noted, after overthrowing the monarchy, there was no significant effort to transform production relations in Nepal and create alternative cultural structures, leaving ample space for people to aspire for the monarchy’s return.
Mass media and social media blame top leaders Deuba, K. P. Sharma Oli, and Prachanda, who have collectively ruled for decades, for the crises. Deuba has been prime minister six times, Oli four, and Prachanda three. Other former PMs still lead parties and remain active. These aging leaders have dominated Nepal’s politics for 30 years. However, deeper systemic issues are more influential than people or parties.
Socialist Front rallies at Bhrikuti Mandap. Source: Online People’s News
Why Is This Happening in Nepal?
A.) Political Instability and Systemic Crisis
Nepal faces severe political instability, deep inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, weak industrialisation, mass migration, poverty, food insecurity, and rising debt. Climate crises and disasters add to these challenges. Various forces exploit these crises for their interests. Government changes bring only new rulers, not solutions. People are increasingly frustrated with political parties and the system itself. The 2015 Constitution of Nepal, which established a federal democratic republic, is under threat. Federalism is criticised, republicanism is questioned, and neo-fascism and populism are on the rise. Pro-monarchist forces are capitalising on this turmoil. While most acknowledge Nepal’s problems, reactionary forces blame political parties and the republican system itself. They falsely claim that restoring monarchy, re-establishing a Hindu state, and ending federalism as the solutions. It is prudent to note that many of these groups receive political and financial support from Hindutva-aligned conservatives.
B.) Failure of the Government to Deliver
The current government holds a two-thirds majority, with two parties who have been historically rivals uniting. Its failure to govern effectively is seen as proof that Nepal’s political system itself is failing. This perception fuels calls for alternative governance models, including a return to monarchy.
C.) Corruption, Bad Governance, and Impunity
Recent scandals—such as the Gold Scam, Bhutanese Refugee Scam, and Giri Bandhu Tea Estate Scam—have exposed massive corruption within the state. People now believe that no political leader is clean, as all have been in power at some point. Lack of rule of law, poor governance, and impunity for corrupt leaders have enraged the public. The perception that all top leaders are involved in scandals has made accountability almost impossible.
D.) Public Frustration and Growing Anti-Establishment Sentiment
Government failure, rising unemployment, and foreign labour migration have fuelled widespread frustration. Reactionary and populist forces frame their movements as a revolt against the political establishment. This anti-establishment sentiment explains the rise of figures like Durga Prasai and Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah. Shah’s election was largely due to public anger toward traditional parties. People are increasingly rejecting established political structures, creating space for monarchists and other challengers.
Shashi Bikram Shah(Nepal), Royal Massacre Series, 2001.
E.) Lack of Development Agendas and Weak Leadership
Nepali leaders lack a vision for national development. They show little concern for public suffering, employment opportunities, or economic growth. Instead, they are focused on power, corruption, and alliances with corporate and comprador elites. Leadership incompetence is another major issue. Most leaders have failed to demonstrate effective governance. Though they may be politically experienced, they lack the ability to transform Nepal’s economy and society.
F.) Weakening of the State and Attacks on the Left
There is lot of ideological degeneration in Nepal’s Left movements as they are heavily infiltrated by conservatives. Also, political revisionism has made the Left on the whole indistinguishable from the bourgeois parties. Many leftists have abandoned class struggle, allowing right-wing forces to gain ground. Anti-communist elements are actively working to defame Nepal’s left, weakening national sovereignty and progress. A corrupt judiciary and penetrated bureaucracy further ensure that genuine reformers are isolated or sidelined. Crime networks and muscle power dominate the political scene, making systemic change difficult.
Amid this crisis, pro-monarchy conservatives and reactionaries are exploiting public frustration. While systemic failures are widely acknowledged, these groups falsely present monarchy, Hindu nationalism, and the abolition of federalism as solutions. Many suspect these efforts are backed by right-wing Hindutva groups.
Major political parties’ failure to offer a development agenda has left a vacuum that reactionary forces are filling. The 2015 Constitution, which established Nepal as a federal democratic republic, now faces threats from both political actors and street movements. Federalism is under scrutiny, republicanism is questioned, and neo-fascist and populist movements are growing.
Urgent responses from the government and political parties are necessary. Nepal’s crisis is deeply systemic, with instability and foreign interference fuelling continued failure. Without addressing corruption, delivering reforms, and safeguarding democratic institutions, Nepal risks further regression. The world watches as one of the youngest republics struggles to navigate this precarious moment.
Despite calls from women’s groups urging the government to implement policies to address the underrepresentation of women in politics, the introduction of temporary special measures (TSM) to increase women’s political representation in Fiji remains a distant goal.
This week, leader of the Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa), Cabinet Minister Aseri Radrodro, and opposition MP Ketal Lal expressed their objection to reserving 30 percent of parliamentary seats for women.
Radrodro, who is also Education Minister, told The Fiji Times that Fijian women were “capable of holding their ground without needing a crutch like TSM to give them a leg up”.
Lal called the special allocation of seats for women in Parliament “tokenistic” and beneficial to “a few selected individuals”, as part of submissions to the Fiji Law Reform Commission and the Electoral Commission of Fiji, which are undertaking a comprehensive review and reform of the Fiji’s electoral framework.
Rabuka said it devalued “the dignity of women at the highest level of national governance.”
“This specific issue makes me wonder at times. As the percentage of women in population is approximately the same as for men, why are women not securing the votes of women? Or more precisely, why aren’t women voting for women?” he said.
Doubled down
The Prime Minister doubled down on his position on the issue when The Fiji Times asked him if it was the right time for Fiji to legislate mandatory seats for women in Parliament as the issue was gaining traction.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka . . . “Why aren’t women voting for women?” Image: Fiji Parliament
“There is no need to legislate it. We do not have a compulsory voting legislation, nor do we yet need a quota-based system.
However, Rabuka’s Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Speaker Lenora Qereqeretabua holds a different view.
Qereqeretabua, from the National Federation Party, said in January that Parliament needed to look like the people that it represented.
“Women make up half of the world’s population, and yet we are still fighting to ensure that their voices and experiences are not only heard but valued in the spaces where decisions are made,” she told participants at the Exploring Temporary Special Measures for Inclusive Governance in Fiji forum.
She said Fiji needed more women in positions of power.
“Not because women are empirically better leaders, because leadership is not determined by gender, but because it is essential for democracy that our representatives reflect the communities that they serve.”
Lenora Qereqeretabua on the floor of Parliament . . . “It is essential for democracy that our representatives reflect the communities that they serve.” Image: Fiji Parliament
‘Shameless’ lag
Another member of Rabuka’s coalition government, one of the deputy prime ministers in and a former Sodelpa leader, Viliame Gavoka said in March 2022 that Fiji had “continued to shamelessly lag behind in protecting and promoting women’s rights and their peacebuilding expertise”.
He pledged at the time that if Sodelpa was voted into government, it would “ensure to break barriers and accelerate progress, including setting specific targets and timelines to achieve gender balance in all branches of government and at all levels through temporary special measures such as quotas . . . ”
However, since coming into power in December 2022, Gavoka has not made any advance on his promise, and his party leader Radrodro has made his views known on the issue.
Fiji women’s rights groups say temporary special measures may need to be implemented in the short-term to advance women’s equality. Image: RNZ Pacific/Sally Round
Fijian women’s rights and advocacy groups say that introducing special measures for women is neither discriminatory nor a breach of the 2013 Constitution.
In a joint statement in October last year, six non-government organisations called on the government to enforce provisions for temporary special measures for women in political party representation and ensure that reserved seats are secured for women in all town and city councils and its committees.
“Nationally, it is unacceptable that after three national elections under new electoral laws, there has been a drastic decline in women’s representation from contesting national elections to being elected to parliament,” they said.
“It is clear from our history that cultural, social, economic and political factors have often stood in the way of women’s political empowerment.”
Short-term need They said temporary special measures may need to be implemented in the short-term to advance women’s equality.
“The term ‘temporary special measures’ is used to describe affirmative action policies and strategies to promote equality and empower women.
“If we are to move towards a society where half the population is reflected in all leadership spaces and opportunities, we must be gender responsive in the approaches we take to achieve gender equality.”
The Fijian Parliament currently has only five (out of 55) women in the House — four in government and one in opposition. In the previous parliamentary term (2018-2022), there were 10 women directly elected to Parliament.
According to the Fiji Country Gender Assessment report, 81 percent of Fijians believe that women are underrepresented in the government, and 72 percent of Fijians believe greater representation of women would be beneficial for the country.
However, the report found that time and energy burden of familial, volunteer responsibilities, patriarchal norms, and power relations as key barriers to women’s participation in the workplace and public life.
Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) board member Akanisi Nabalarua believes that despite having strong laws and policies on paper, the implementation is lacking.
Lip service
Nabalarua said successive Fijian governments had often paid lip service to gender equality while failing to make intentional and meaningful progress in women’s representation in decision making spaces, reports fijivillage.com.
Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry said Rabuka’s dismissal of the women’s rights groups’ plea was premature.
Chaudhry, a former prime minister who was deposed in a coup in 2000, said Rabuka should have waited for the Law Reform Commission’s report “before deciding so conclusively on the matter”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake.
The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required functions and protects the editorial independence of Voice of America (VOA) journalists and other federal media professionals within the agency and newsrooms that receive grants from the agency, such as Radio Free Asia and others with implications for independent media in the Asia-Pacific region.
Journalists, federal workers, and unions celebrate this important step in defending this critical agency, First Amendment rights, resisting unlawful political interference in public broadcasting, and ensuring USAGM workers can continue to fulfill their congressionally mandated function, reports the News Guild-CWA press union.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law, for press freedom and journalistic integrity, and for democracy worldwide,” said the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) national president Everett Kelley.
“The Trump administration’s illegal attempt to shutter Voice of America and other outlets under the US Agency for Global Media was a transparent effort to silence the voices of patriotic journalists and professionals who have dedicated their careers to spreading the truth and fighting propaganda from lawless authoritarian regimes.
“This preliminary injunction will allow these employees to get back to work as we continue the fight to preserve their jobs and critical mission.”
President Lee Saunders of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees AFSCME), the largest trade union of public employees in the United States, said: “Today’s ruling is a major win for AFSCME members and Voice of America workers who have dedicated their careers to reporting the truth and spreading freedom to millions across the world.
Judge’s message clear
“The judge’s message is clear — this administration has no right to unilaterally dismantle essential agencies simply because they do not agree with their purpose.
“We celebrate this decision and will continue to work with our partners to ensure that the Voice of America is restored.”
“Journalists hold power to account and that includes the Trump administration,” said NewsGuild-CWA president Jon Schleuss. “This injunction orders the administration to reverse course and restore the Congressionally-mandated news broadcasts of Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and other newsrooms broadcasting to people who hope for freedom in countries where that is denied.”
“We are gratified by today’s ruling. This is another step in the process to restore VOA to full operation.” said government accountability project senior counsel David Seide.
“VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.” Image: Getty/The Conversation“Today’s ruling marks a significant victory for press freedom and for the dedicated women and men who bring it to life — our clients, the journalists, executives, and staff of Voice of America,” said Andrew G. Celli, Jr., founding partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP and counsel for the plaintiffs.
“VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.
“We are thrilled that its voice — a voice for the voiceless — will once again be heard loud and clear around the world.
Powerful affirmation of rule of law
“This decision is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and the vital role that independent journalism plays in our democracy. The court’s action protects independent journalism and federal media professionals at Voice of America as we continue this case, and reaffirms that no administration can silence the truth without accountability,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
“We are proud to be with workers, unions and journalists in resisting political interference against independent journalism and will continue to fight for transparency and our democratic values.”
“Today’s decision is another necessary step in restoring the rule of law and correcting the injustices faced by the workers, reporters, and listeners of Voice of America and US Agency for Global Media,” said former Ambassador Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund.
“By granting this preliminary injunction, the court has reaffirmed the legal protections afforded to these civil servants and halted an attempt to undermine a free and independent press. We are proud to represent this resilient coalition and support the cause of a free and fair press.”
“This decision is a powerful affirmation of the role that independent journalism plays in advancing democracy and countering disinformation. From Voice of America to Radio Free Asia and across the US Agency for Global Media, these networks are essential tools of American soft power — trusted sources of truth in places where it is often scarce,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the American Foreign Service Association.
“By upholding editorial independence, the court has protected the credibility of USAGM journalists and the global mission they serve.”
A critical victory
“We’re very pleased that Judge Lamberth has recognised that the Trump administration acted improperly in shuttering Voice of America,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) USA.
“The USAGM must act immediately to implement this ruling and put over 1300 VOA employees back to work to deliver reliable information to their audience of millions around the world.”
While only the beginning of what may be a long, hard-fought battle, the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction marks a critical victory — not just for VOA journalists, but also for federal workers and the unions that represent them.
It affirms that the rule of law still protects those who speak truth to power.
Following the massive “Hands Off” demonstration on April 5, the Green Party asked its leaders to describe what the Green Party had its “Hands On.”
During the 2024 presidential election, I, like thousands of committed voters, decided to take a stand. When I was much younger, I believed that the American government was not for the people. I was confused by politics, but I knew what I saw in my community — poverty, police brutality, public schools with inadequate supplies, and markets offering unhealthy products that contributed to the chronic diseases plaguing neighborhood children and elders. I was convinced that the people in charge did not care about us, so I opted out of participating in the voting process.
Eventually, my associates convinced me that no politician would ever truly put our needs first, but that I was obligated to vote regardless. After all, many people had fought and died for the privilege so that I would have the opportunity to do what our ancestors had been denied. The trick, I was told, was to vote for the lesser evil and to then pray to God that the smaller demon would do something, even if just a little. Where I am from, the more trusted option was always a Democrat, so for twenty-five years I dutifully darkened the bubbles next to every Democrat running, without ever having heard of them or the principles upon which they were running. I wanted to know, but quite frankly, it all seemed too overwhelming to comprehend.
Then, on October 7, 2023, Palestinians decided to fight back. I watched in real time with millions of others worldwide as the impending slaughter fell upon them. Video after video forced us to witness infants with detached limbs, shell-shocked children surviving collapsed buildings, and parents on the brink of insanity carrying salvaged body parts of their children in bags. We also witnessed how our politicians — Democrats included — dug in their heels in support of the perpetrators.
I was appalled and distressed. There was absolutely no way that I was going to vote in an election where there was no “lesser evil.” As the campaigns surged on, I became more and more convinced that I needed to sit this one out. It did not matter whether a Republican or a Democrat won. As far as I could tell, both candidates were boastful, condescending, and committed to their billionaire base above all else.
I told my young daughters, who I noticed were becoming increasingly politically involved, what I was planning. They were supportive yet suggested, “You should check out third party candidates though. There are some who you may like.” It turned out that they both were leaning towards the Green Party.
I had heard of the Green Party in passing and even briefly considered voting Green during the 2016 presidential election, but it was too little, too late. This go-around, I had time and a little more confidence to learn so I could make a much more informed decision. I read the Jill Stein/Butch Ware Campaign platform and was immediately on board.
What hooked me were a few things: their stance on the genocide in Gaza and all proxy wars that America is involved in; cash reparations for descendants of enslaved Africans who were imprisoned here for centuries; and most of all, allyship with Indigenous people who continue to be regarded as subhuman by this government.
My family is Afro-Indigenous. My son, Muriyd “Two Clouds” Williams, was an extremely successful water protector and land defender, instrumental in halting a 150-plus-mile oil pipeline which threatened water sources and the environment, and in winning back dozens of acres of stolen land for his people through litigation. Due to his superb leadership, he was targeted, kidnapped, and murdered, and I immediately started two organizations to continue and expand his work.
The Green Party’s platform on honoring Native American lives, rights, and treaties pulled me in. Frankly, Jill and Butch had me at “sovereignty.” I was fighting tooth and nail to convince as many people as possible that this was the party to roll with, because they were promising to act for all citizens and immigrants, too.
Unfortunately, the 2024 election went to a usual suspect, and as we all know, it has all been downhill from there. One would hope that we would learn from this as a nation and finally try another route which would benefit all the people, not just some. Yet sadly we have not. It is politics as usual, with millionaire Democrats ramping up fear tactics through anti-Trump verbiage and a bogus “hands off” campaign.
In the interim, we all are suffering, and none as much as Indigenous people. Therefore, we proclaim: Hands ON regarding all Indigenous people and Nations as sovereign entities! Hands ON honoring all treaty rights and the return of stolen Indigenous lands! Hands ON establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the United States! Hands ON working toward an absolute end to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons crisis! Hands ON expanding funding for health/mental health clinics and Tribal Compact Schools! Hands ON ensuring assistance, safety, and justice to all Indigenous people regardless of government recognition status!
If the United States has a chance of turning itself on its heels to become the “Great” society most of us claim we want it to be, it must fully honor First Nations people, from the inside out. I believe the Green Party is the only political party ready and willing to do so.
The Green Party of Pennsylvania (GPPA), is an independent political party which stands in opposition to the two corporate parties. GPPA candidates promote public policy based on the Green Party’s Four Pillars: grassroots democracy, nonviolence, ecological wisdom, and social justice/equal opportunity.
To learn more, RNZ Pacific spoke with Australian National University academic Dr Thiago Oppermann, who has spent many years in both Bougainville and PNG.
James Marape (second left) and Ishmael Toroama (right) during joint moderations talks in Port Moresby last month. Image: Autonomous Bougainville Government
Don Wiseman: We’ve had five-and-a-half years since the Bougainville referendum, but very suddenly in the last couple of months, it would seem that Bougainville is picking up pace and trying to really make some progress with this march towards independence, as they see it.
Are they overplaying their hand?
Dr Thiago Oppermann: I do not believe that they are overplaying their hand. I think that the impression that is apparent of a sudden flurry of activity, arises partly because for the first two years after the referendum, there was a very slow pace.
One of the shortcomings of the Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA) was that it did not set out a very clear post-referendum path. That part of the process was not as well designed as the parts leading to the referendum, and that left a great deal of uncertainty as to how to structure negotiations, how things should be conducted, and quite substantial differences in the views of the Papua New Guinean government and the ABG (Autonomous Bougainville Government), as to how the referendum result would be processed further.
For instance, how it would it need to be tabled in Parliament, what kind of vote would be required for it, would a negotiation between the parties lead to an agreement that then is presented to the Parliament, and how would that negotiation work? All these areas, they were not prescriptive in the BPA.
That led to a period of a good two years in which there was very slow process and then attempts to get some some movement. I would say that in that period, the views of the Bougainvilleans and the Papua New Guineans became quite entrenched in quite different camps, and something I think would have to give eventually.
Why the Bougainvilleans have moved towards this point now, I think that it bears pointing out that there has been a long process that has been unfolding, for more than two years now, of beginning the organic process of developing a Bougainvillean constitutional process with this constitutional development committees across the island doing a lot of work, and that has now borne fruit, is how I would describe it.
It happens at a point where the process has been unblocked by the appointment of Sir Jerry Mataparae, which I think sets a new vigour into the process. It looks now like it’s heading towards some form of outcome. And that being the case, the Bougainvilleans have made their position quite clear.
Sir Jerry Mateparae (middle) with representatives of the PNG and Bougainville governments at the second moderation in April 2025. Image: ABG
DW: Well, Bougainville, in fact, is saying it will be independent by 1st September 2027. How likely do you think that is?
TO: I think there’s a question that comes before that. When Bougainville says that they will be independent by such a date, what we need to first consider is that the process of mediation is still unfolding.
I think that the first thing to consider is, what would that independence look like, and what scope is there within the mediation for finding some compromise that still suits Papua New Guinea. I think that there’s a much greater range of outcomes than people realise within this sort of umbrella of independence, the Bougainvilleans themselves, have moved to a position of understanding independence in much more nuanced terms than previously.
You might imagine that in the aftermath of this fairly brutal and bitter civil conflict, the idea of independence at that time was quite a radical cut towards “full bruk loose” as they say.
But the reality is that for many post colonial and new states since World War Two, there are many different kinds of independence and the degree to which there remains a kind of attachment with or relationship with the so called parent colonial country is variable, I should add.
I do not want to digress too much, but this concept of the parent colonial country is something that I heard quite a lot of when I was studying the referendum itself. Many people would say that the relationship that they had to Papua New Guinea was not one of enmity or of like running away, it was more a question of there being a parent and Bougainville having now grown up to the point where the child, Bougainville, is ready to go off and set up its own house.
Many people thought of it in those terms. Now I think that in concrete terms that can be articulated in many different ways when we think about international law and the status of different sovereign nations around the world.
DW: If we can just look at some of the possibilities in terms of the way in which this independence might be interpreted. My understanding is, for Bougainville it’s vital that they have a degree of sovereignty that will allow them to join organisations like the United Nations, but they’re not necessarily looking to be fully independent of PNG.
TO: Yes, I think that there would be like a process underway in Bougainville for understanding what that would look like.
There are certainly people who would have a view that is still more firmly towards full independence. And there will be others who understand some type of free association arrangements or something that still retains a closer relationship with Papua New Guinea.
I do not think many people have illusions that Bougainville could, for instance, suddenly break loose of the very deep economic connections it has with Papua New Guinea, not only those of government funding, but the commercial connections which are very, very deep. So suddenly making that disappear is not something people believe it’s possible.
But there are many other options that are on the table. I think what Bougainville is doing by having the announcement of the Independence Day is setting for Papua New Guinea saying, like, “here is the terms of the debate that we are prepared to consider”. But within that there is still a great deal of giving and taking.
DW: Now within the parliament in PNG, I think Bougainville has felt for some time that there hasn’t been a great deal of understanding of what Bougainville has been through, or what it is Bougainville is trying to achieve. There’s a very different lineup of MPs to what they were at the turn of the century when the Bougainville Peace Agreement was finalised. So what are they thinking, the MPs from other parts of the country? Are they going to be supportive, or are they just thinking about the impact on their own patch?
TO: I am not entirely sure what the MPs think, and they are a very diverse bunch of people. The sort of concern I think that many have, certainly more senior ones, is that they do not want to be the people in charge when this large chunk of the country secedes.
I think that is something that is important, and we do not want to be patronising the Papua New Guineans, who have a great deal of national pride, and it is not an event of celebration to see what is going on.
For many, it is quite a tragic chain of events. I am not entirely sure what the bulk of MPs believes about this. We have conducted some research, which is non randomised, but it is quite large scale, probing attitudes towards Bougainvillean independence in 2022, around the time of the election.
What we found, which is quite surprising, is that while, of course, Bougainville has the highest support for independence of any place in Papua New Guinea, there are substantial numbers of people outside Bougainville that are sympathetic to Bougainvillean independence or sympathetic towards implementing the referendum.
I think that would be the wording, I would choose, quite large numbers of people. So, as well as, many people who are very much undecided on the issues. From a Papua New Guinean perspective, the views are much more subtle than you might think are the case. By comparison, if you did a survey in Madrid of how many people support Catalan independence, you would not see figures similar to the ones that we find for Papua New Guinea.
DW: Bougainville is due to go to elections later this year. The ABG has stated that it wants this matter sorted, I think, at the time that the election writs are issued sometime in June. Will it be able to do this do you think?
TO: It’s always difficult to predict anything, especially the future. That goes double in Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. I think the reality is that the nature of negotiations here and in Bougainville, there’s a great deal of personal connections and toing and froing that will be taking place.
It is very hard to fit that onto a clear timeline. I would describe that as perhaps aspirational, but it would be, it would be good. Whether this is, you know, a question of electoral politics within Bougainville, I think there would be, like, a more or less unanimous view in Bougainville that this needs to move forward as soon as possible. But I don’t know that a timeline is realistic.
The concerns that I would have about this, Don, would be not just about sort of questions of capacity and what happens in the negotiations in Bougainville, but we also need to think about what is happening in Papua New Guinea, and this goes for the entire process.
But here, in this case, PNG has its hands full with many other issues as well. There is a set of like LLG [Local Level Government] elections about to happen, so there are a great deal of things for the government to attend to. I wonder how viable it is to come up with a solution in a short time, but they are certainly capable of surprising everybody.
DW: The Prime Minister, James Marape, has said on a number of occasions that Bougainville is not economically ready or it hasn’t got the security situation under control. And my understanding is that when this was raised at the last meeting, there was quite a lot of giggling going on, because people were comparing what’s happened in Bougainville with what’s happening around the rest of the country, including in Southern Highlands, the province of Mr Marape.
TO: I think you know for me when I think about this, because I have worked with Bougainvilleans for a long time, and have worked with Papua New Guineans for a long time as well. The sense that I have is really one of quite sadness and a great missed opportunity.
Because if we wind the clock back to 1975, Bougainville declared independence, trying to pre-empt [the establishment of] Papua New Guinea. And that set in train a set of events that drastically reformed the Papua New Guinean political Constitution. Many of the sort of characteristic institutions we see now in Papua New Guinea, such as provinces, came about partly because of that.
That crisis, that first independence crisis, the first secession crisis, was resolved through deep changes to Papua New Guinea and to Bougainville, in which the country was able to grow and move forward.
What we see now, though, is this sort of view that Bougainville problems must all be solved in Bougainville, but in fact, many of the problems that are said to be Bougainville problems are Papua New Guinea problems, and that would include issues such as the economic difficulties that Bougainville finds itself in.
I mean, there are many ironies with this kind of criticism that Bougainville is not economically viable. One of them being that when Papua New Guinea became independent, it was largely dependent on Bougainville at that time. So Bougainvilleans are aware of this, and don’t really welcome that kind of idea.
But I think that more deeply there were some really important lessons I believe that could have been learned from the peace process that might have been very useful in other areas of Papua New Guinea, and because Bougainville has been kind of seen as this place apart, virtually as a foreign nation, those lessons have not, unfortunately, filtered back to Papua New Guinea in a way that might have been very helpful for everybody.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Part one of a two-part series: On the courage to remember
COMMENTARY:By Eugene Doyle
The first demonstration I ever went on was at the age of 12, against the Vietnam War.
The first formal history lesson I received was a few months later when I commenced high school. That day the old history master, Mr Griffiths, chalked what I later learnt was a quote from Hegel:
“The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn the lessons of history.” It’s about time we changed that.
Painful though it is, let’s have the courage to remember what they desperately try to make us forget.
Cultural amnesia and learning the lessons of history Memorialising events is a popular pastime with politicians, journalists and old soldiers.
Nothing wrong with that. Honouring sacrifice, preserving collective memory and encouraging reconciliation are all valid. Recalling the liberation of Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) on 30 April 1975 is important.
What is criminal, however, is that we failed to learn the vital lessons that the US defeat in Vietnam should have taught us all. Sadly much was forgotten and the succeeding half century has witnessed a carnival of slaughter perpetrated by the Western world on hapless South Americans, Africans, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, and many more.
Honouring sacrifice, preserving collective memory and encouraging reconciliation are all valid. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
It’s time to remember.
Memory shapes national identity As scholars say: Memory shapes national identity. If your cultural products — books, movies, songs, curricula and the like — fail to embed an appreciation of the war crimes, racism, and imperial culpability for events like the Vietnam War, then, as we have proven, it can all be done again. How many recognise today that Vietnam was an American imperial war in Asia, that “fighting communism” was a pretext that lost all credibility, partly thanks to television and especially thanks to heroic journalists like John Pilger and Seymour Hersh?
Just as in Gaza today, the truth and the crimes could not be hidden anymore.
How many recognise today that Vietnam was an American imperial war in Asia? Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
If a culture doesn’t face up to its past crimes — say the treatment of the Aborigines by settler Australia, of Māori by settler New Zealand, of Palestinians by the Zionist state since 1948, or the various genocides perpetrated by the US government on the indigenous peoples of what became the 50 states, then it leads ultimately to moral decay and repetition.
Lest we forget. Forget what? Is there a collective memory in the West that the Americans and their allies raped thousands of Vietnamese women, killed hundreds of thousands of children, were involved in countless large scale war crimes, summary executions and other depravities in order to impose their will on a people in their own country?
Why has there been no collective responsibility for the death of over two million Vietnamese? Why no reparations for America’s vast use of chemical weapons on Vietnam, some provided by New Zealand?
Vietnam Veterans Against War released a report “50 years of struggle” in 2017 which included this commendable statement: “To VVAW and its supporters, the veterans had a continuing duty to report what they had witnessed”. This included the frequency of “beatings, rapes, cutting body parts, violent torture during interrogations and cutting off heads”.
The US spends billions projecting itself as morally superior but people who followed events at the time, including brilliant journalists like Pilger, knew something beyond sordid was happening within the US military.
The importance of remembering the My Lai Massacre While cultural memes like “Me Love You Long Time” played to an exoticised and sexualised image of Vietnamese women — popular in American-centric movies like Full Metal Jacket,Green Beret, Rambo, Apocalypse Now, as was the image of the Vietnamese as sadistic torturers, there has been a long-term attempt to expunge from memory the true story of American depravity.
The most infamous such incident of the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre of 16 March 1968. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
All, or virtually all, armies rape their victims. The US Army is no exception — despite rhetorically jockeying with the Israelis for the title of “the world’s most moral army”. The most famous such incident of the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre of 16 March 1968 in which about 500 civilians were subjected to hours of rapes, mutilation and eventual murder by soldiers of the US 20th Infantry Regiment.
Rape victims ranged from girls of 10 years through to old women. The US soldiers even took a lunch break before recommencing their crimes.
The official commission of inquiry, culminating in the Peers Report found that an extensive network of officers had taken part in a cover-up of what were large-scale war crimes. Only one soldier, Lieutenant Calley, was ever sentenced to jail but within days he was, on the orders of the US President, transferred to a casually-enforced three and half years of house arrest. By this act, the United States of America continued a pattern of providing impunity for grave war crimes. That pattern continues to this day.
The failure of the US Army to fully pursue the criminals will be an eternal stain on the US Army whose soldiers went on to commit countless rapes, hundreds of thousands of murders and other crimes across the globe in the succeeding five decades. If you resile from these facts, you simply haven’t read enough official information.
Thank goodness for journalists, particularly Seymour Hersh, who broke rank and exposed the truth of what happened at My Lai.
Senator John McCain’s “sacrifice” and the crimes that went unpunished Thousands of Viet Cong died in US custody, many from torture, many by summary execution but the Western cultural image of Vietnam focuses on the cruelty of the North Vietnamese toward “victims” like terror-bomber John McCain.
The future US presidential candidate was on his 23rd bombing mission, part of a campaign of “War by Tantrum” in the words of a New York Times writer, when he was shot down over Hanoi.
The CIA’s Phoenix Programme was eventually shut down after public outrage and hearings by the US Congress into its misdeeds. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
Also emblematic of this state-inflicted terrorism was the CIA’s Phoenix Programme, eventually shut down after public outrage and hearings by the US Congress into its misdeeds. According to US journalist Douglas Valentine, author of several books on the CIA, including The Phoenix Program:
“Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers”.
Common practices, Valentine says, quoting US witnesses and official papers, included:
“Rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electrical shock (“the Bell Telephone Hour”) rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; “the water treatment”; “the airplane,” in which a prisoner’s arms were tied behind the back and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair.”
No US serviceman, CIA agent or other official was held to account for these crimes.
Tiger Force — part of the US 327th Infantry — gained a grisly reputation for indiscriminately mowing down civilians, mutilations (cutting off of ears which were retained as souvenirs was common practice, according to sworn statements by participants). All this was supposed to be kept secret but was leaked in 2003.
“Their crimes were uncountable, their madness beyond imagination — so much so that for almost four decades, the story of Tiger Force was covered up under orders that stretched all the way to the White House,” journalists Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss reported.
Their crimes, secretly documented by the US military, included beheading a baby to intimidate villagers into providing information — interesting given how much mileage the US and Israel made of fake stories about beheaded babies on 7 October 2023. The US went to great lengths to hide these ugly truths — and no one ever faced real consequences.
The US went to great lengths to hide these ugly truths. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz
Helicopter gunships and soldiers at checkpoints gunned down thousands of Vietnamese civilians, including women and children, much as US forces did at checkpoints in Iraq, according to leaked US documents following the illegal invasion of that country.
The worst cowards and criminals were not the rapists and murderers themselves but the high-ranking politicians and military leaders who tried desperately to cover up these and hundreds of other incidents. As Lieutenant Calley himself said of My Lai: “It’s not an isolated incident.”
Here we are 50 years later in the midst of the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza, with the US fuelling war and bombing people across the globe. Isn’t it time we stopped supporting this madness?
Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.
Next article: The fall of Saigon 1975: Part two: Quiet mutiny: the US army falls apart.
Hundreds of workers are crowded into a high-school gymnasium. Their union leaders carefully go through each article of their employer’s last, best and final offer. Hands are raised, questions are asked and answered, and members share their thoughts with their officers and with each other.
In the previous two months of negotiations, the union negotiating committee has been seeking language to help curb the company abuses that have become rampant in the plant. The company has not agreed. Each union member weighs whether they will take the company’s offer, and accept ongoing problems in the workplace in exchange for modest economic improvements, or reject the offer and strike for a better deal.
Some orders invoke national security to disrupt global markets. Others attempt to override congressional control over tariffs, fast-track weapons exports, or alter long-standing public protections through regulatory rollbacks. A few go even further—flirting with ideological loyalty tests for citizenship, chilling dissent through financial coercion, and expanding surveillance in ways that undermine due process and privacy.
![To President Trump, the USAGM [Voice of America] has become a promoter of "anti-American ideas" and agendas](https://asiapacificreport.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/VOA-TConv-680wide-300x215.png)
