Two Himalayan monarchies, Nepal and Bhutan, struggle to pave their ways to social modernity without falling into the trap of left political radicalism. With traditional forms of government eroding fast as the only legitimate, and with quickly changing international power relations, the rise of China being among the main signs of this change, both Nepal and Bhutan face significant problems, and at least two alternative roads as solutions. One of them calls for moderate change, based on the monarchy, on religious groups and orders (Hinduist for Nepal and Buddhist for Bhutan), on traditional land aristocracy, and on small but growing urban middle class. The other option calls for radical change, based on abolition of monarchy, on radical redistribution of property, and on class struggle aiming social equality. In fact, these two roads represent the two historical forms of political democracy, one based on universal political rights, another based on universal social rights. The evolution in these countries shows that Bhutan is more inclined to follow the 'constitutional' path of change; Nepal, on the other side, has some chances to develop the radical model.

The political history so far of both Nepal and Bhutan is an interesting one, combining both domestic and international factors. Both kingdoms after some centuries of internal feuds and attempts for centralization have fallen into the orbit of the British Empire within the last two centuries. In a sense, the current political centralization is a legacy of this period; Britain not only exercised political and economic influence over its colonies, semi-colonies, dominions, and other allied territories, it also exported a certain vision of how a political order should be conceived, based on traditional but constitutionally restricted elites, supported by urban classes. So it isn't surprising to see even today countries that practice certain political arrangements for no other reasons other than their former and formal connections to the British Empire, an empire that officially doesn't exist for about a half a century.

British way of exporting 'legitimate' forms of government worked very well up to the first half of the twentieth century. This model is fundamentally oriented toward the past, toward the tradition. Up to a certain time the peasant revolts were the most acute form of social protest, so in a society where the majority of poor people were peasants that remained peasants, adopting the British model was good for stability with certain elements that allowed for some limited urban economic development. Within this model, the peasant masses were completely excluded from any political decision-making, but feeling represented 'symbolically' within the traditional order they were less inclined to protest.

With the large process of decolonization, the rise of radical left ideologies, and the erosion of traditional political legitimacy going hand-in-hand with fast urbanization and increased literacy, the British model of keeping the social order became increasingly irrelevant. At certain point the traditional-looking governments must make a tough decision between keeping the power for the sake of the power and going ahead with some political and social reforms. Different countries make different decisions; both Nepal and Bhutan until recently have decided to keep the traditional political structure thus isolating their countries as much as possible from the rest of the world (much more in Bhutan than in Nepal).

With no option for keeping with the traditional form of government any longer, these two countries face two radically different options for political modernization. One is based on some traditional institutions with gradually changing goals; the other is based on radical left movements. Ironically they both call themselves 'democratic', and as conflicting practices they both have long pedigrees going back at least to the origins of the Cold war. The recent political evolution in these countries shows that Bhutan is more inclined to follow the constitutional democratic path of change; the traditional government there is still in charge and the chances of radical left takeover are very slim. Nepal, on the other side, has more chances than Bhutan to develop the radical model, although the chances there so far look as split in half.

Bhutan and Nepal, profiles:

• Area: 47,000 sq km; 140,800 sq km.
• Land use (arable land): 3.09%; 21.68%.
• Population: 2.3 million; 28.9 million.
• Population growth rate: 2.1%; 2.1% (2007 est.).
• Life expectancy at birth: 55.17 years; 60.5 years.
• Total fertility rate: 44.67; 4.01 children born/woman (2007 est.).
• Literacy: 47%; 48.6%.
• GDP per capita: purchasing power parity $1,400; $1,100 (2007 est.).
• Internet users: 30,000; 250,000 (2007);

(Source: CIA World Factbook 2008, Reuters)

--------------------

See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Bhutan and Nepal.