So let's unpack this. Let me make this clear: Because I have no desire to be a member of the group (simply because, with travel, work, writing, Sajha and all that, hey, where's the time, really?), I do find thr group's existence in the form that Nepe describes PERVERSELY fascinating. Maybe I have been way too influenced by the no-holds-barred give-and-take of the Socratic tradition at the Martin Chautari in Kathmandu, but let me try to put this all in a democratic perspective as I see it. Nepe writes: "1. The group is not an INCLUSIVE organization. Those who do not oppose Feb 1 unambiguously have zero chance to enter into the group." Well, so much for the group's democratic pretensions! As a democrat, one would rather debate endlessly with those who disagree with one's views and try to learn from them or persuade them of one's views than AVOID/DISMISS them altogether. That's because in a functional democracy, NOTHING gets done when opponents are avoided or attacked because it is the opponents who add juice to the whole idea of democratic debates and culture. Anyone who avoids people of different political persusasions is simply deluding himself about his democratic credentials. ***** "All the invited members are presumably pro-democracy activists and sympathizers." No. These days, anyone can stamp "pro-democracy" label on his forehead in and out of Nepal. That is why, the Maoists -- gasp, choke -- are for democracy, or so they say. The King -- gasp, choke -- is also for democracy, or so he says. Of course, the parties have long been for democracy too. With all these democrats around with their own self-serving definition of democracy, no wonder the public in Nepal is quite confused as to just who to believe to get on with the business of living. Democracy has become a much ABUSED word, and it holds ZERO meaning in Nepal. What it requires now is a relentlessly laser-focussed conceptual clarity all the way through even when it upsets some of our cherished beliefs and cult-like comfort. ***** 2. Acceptance of a new member is CONSENSUS based, not MAJORITY based. And democracy is majority-based, with -- as a legal matter -- the protection of minorioty views. The process of consensus, let's be clear, has this in-built incentive to promote those who are like us while pushing out those who may disagree with us or make us uncomfortable with their views. ***** "2. Posting etiquette is strictly observed. One user was recently expelled from the group (actually the user was expelled for the second time. He had been taken back after the earlier expulsion.)" With words like "expulsion" attached to a "pro-democracy" FREE Google group, the group's consensus-based governance sounds like something that the Maoist Politburo would envy!! ******************** "3. Politics and particularly pro-democracy activism is the major topic of discussion. However, occasionally, non-political topics make appearances too." Fine. ******************* "4. Personally, I am for making at least selected discussions publicly available. May be someday that will happen. However, the understanding at the moment is that, materials related to any users can not be made public without his/her consent. What I posted above was on my self-consent :-)" No, make everything PUBLICLY available. Why be scared of public scrutiny? Why avoid public scrutiny? If you make mistakes, it will be corrected openly and quickly. If not, you add something to the debate. I see a win-win proposition here. I fail to see how transparency and openness, with a dose of toilerance for disagreeable views, FAIL the cause of further democracy in and around Nepal. And so, let every Ram, Madan and GhanaShyam take part in discussions, and let them add their thoughts. That's because, look, democracy comes with a lot of risk anywhere anytime. It upsets the notions of secrecy, of exclusivity, of expert opinions . . . notions that are popular with perennially ineffectual and impotent Nepali intellectual elites. Democracy, to parapharse Churchill, is NOT the best system, but it's better than all of its alternatives. Why pretend otherwise? And democracy is best practiced OPENLY and in full PUBLIC views. ****** "There is, however, a sort of understood encouragement for everybody to write op-ed in public media. Op-ed pieces of the members get very enthusiastically discussed and complimented. Prof. Alok Bohora, Murari Raj Sharma, Dr. Shiva Gautam, Angaraj Timilsina, Dr. Ambika Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Aryal, Kanak Dixit, Dr. Madhu Ghimire are some of the members whose op-ed pieces make regular appearances at the discussion." Of course, in a consensus-based cult-like situation like this, op-ed pieces of the members will get "very enthusiastically discussed and complimented." Why not? Because everyone is similar to one another, and everyone thinks alike and because of the nature of the group, there is very little DIBERSITY and RANGE of views, to begin with. What else would anyone expect from such a group? Again, I admit that maybe I have been way too influenced by the no-holds-barred give-and-take of the Socratic tradition at the Martin Chautari in Kathmandu to have little patience for secrecy and exclusitivity when it comes to discussing PUBLIC matters. oohi "not at all afraid of transparency, openness, fully khulla public debates on ALL matters related to Nepali democracy and Nepal's future everywhere" ashu