Mr. Rauinyar Ji, Above answer shows that political system matters but not too much. Most important is the Leader and his capacity. A real capable leader can turn a third world country into a second world and finally to first world in approximately 30-40 yrs. This time can be shortened if the political system is democratic. Now lets see what happened in Nepal. After 2007 BS, B.P. Koirala emerged as a leader, reading his autobiography I came to conclusion that "he tried" but he was not exposed enough to "how to carry out developmental activities" and after some time personality clash was developed between king Mahendra and him. By reading different books by different Nepali politician I also came to conclusion that lots of other political Leaders were fueling personality clash between king and Koirala. May be this was the beginning of unfortunate political history in Nepal. Till date there is always personality clash between leaders and Kings. After the Royal coup of 2017, BP faced a different situation and he was unable to handle that situation (that means he was not a versatile leader) King Mahendra single-handedly tried to make country developed for 15 yrs (2013-2028) but firstly his effort did not match the countryýs requirement (country needed much more) and secondly he failed to understand the importance of system so everything was done on "HUKUM" basis and no workable system was established, because of this beaurocrat did not develop independent thinking habit. They tried to seek guidance from "darbar" on everything. King Birendra , may be because of his educational background came to understand that it is very important "structured development" and he tried his best for 16 yrs (2029-2045) but like king Mahendra he also failed to establish the mechanism for the development and most of the developmental works were done either on "hukumi" basis or as a political show against banned political parties So, some countries developed into second or first world because of one man show that had system working, we failed because we did not had system but "Hukum pramangi" After democracy political parties came into the picture but Leaders were corrupt, irresponsible, and stupid vacuum of not having the system provided them a wonderful opportunity for corruption. Madan Bhandari showed some sign of capable leader. He also proved that he was capable of dealing with challenges but he is history now. After him the leadership of that party is completely lost. Now, allow me to say some about Maobadi, they raised very genuine question, approached to the govt very genuinely, they were very serious about the problem they raised. But then Prime Minister Mr. Deuba and other political parties were having daydream that now ýthey are the bossý and nothing else is important. They failed to realize the warning finally a fourth biggest party became underground. The problem with Maobadi, in practice is, after first few yrs of so called ýkrantiý they shifted their behavior. They have no values for human life (in this regard they are comparable to the ýjamindaarý which also have no values for the life of outcasts and poor). It seems to me that they can not listen to the criticism and, anyone who opposes them should be wiped out. Main ideology of ýmaobadiý is a book written in late 19th century by Marx and its style of implementation by Mao in china. The book was written when idea of political science was not so developed and its implementation in Mao style in China was carried out when the world was in transition after Second World War. Now the situation is different. Human rights have become general knowledge. Everyone (at least educated ones) knows what development is. Ppl understand what governments are for. They also know what type of govt is good and what type of govt is bad. Everything is open. Different means of communication have changed the world dramatically. And, our Maoist friends are looking answer for our needs in a book which was written more than 100 yrs ago, their revolution is based upon a revolution which was carried more than 50 yrs ago. For me, Maoist are like book worms, they love one book and they treat that book like ýdharmashastraý. They lack creativity, for them, every answer of our problem is in that ýdharmasashtraý. If they continue like this after few yrs they will either become tired revolutionary and will register their name as a ýfailed revolutionaryý in history or a anarchist group unless the state does something very stupid. Its again getting longer, allow me to stop here for time being, I hope I can finish this in next session. (Contdýý)