Ready for democracy? Maybe after 20 years. 20-30 years if we embark on economic refoms, 50 years from now, if we don't. Also confused bro compared the King's move to Hitler's. Now let me attempt to clear that confusion: 1. The King had no options. IT wasn't your multiple choice questions with A/B/C/D/E/None of the above options. i) Do you agree that Nepal was facing an internal (and to some extent) external security threat? [here's how we define security threat: something that does not allow the state to function properly; it does not let the people to engage in their economic, social and political activities, i.e., it severely affects the economic and political well being of the state; it can affect the terretorial integrity and national unity of the state; it LIMITS THE POLICY OPTIONS OF THE STATE.. these are all I can think of now]. Going by this definition of internal security threat, Nepal was facing an internal security threat and that limited the state's policy options. Every state, every modern state in it's constitution has provisions to deal with this kind of threat. State of Emergency is one of the most commonly/widely practiced measures when dealing with the internal and external security threats. Another extreme measure is imposing martial law. When a state declares the state of emergency, no matter whether in India or America or Nepal, certain rights of the people are automatically curtailed. The state becomes powerful because it has to be powerful to eliminate the threat(s) it is facing. Even in America, in the aftermath of September 11, there was a media-guideline issued. In the land of Press Freedom, if you look at the data, last year a few journalists were arrested for publishing what the state thought was "sensetive" information. If I am not mistaken, 2 NY Times journalists are still in detention for refusing to identify their sources. There goes your FREEDOM. If a minority's freedom is to be restricted/taken away to ensure the majority's freedom, then the state has to do it, and it will do it unless and until it lifts the state of emergency. I hope this makes sense. OK, tell me, if you were teh King what would you have done? Its easier for us to think that he had options and he chose the worst option available. I believe otherwise. He had no other option that declaring teh state of emergency. And as I said above, when the state thinks it is facing security threats, it has to take harsh and extreme measures. Now imagine you are the King of Nepal. 1. The security sitaution is worsening. The rebel focres have controlled a significant portion of the country. 2. The governmnet in place fails to negotiate with the rebel focres. 3. The political parties do not unite for a national cause. They have their own security, foreign policy and this and that agenda, but they don't have a national agenda. 4. In the name of peaceful protests, public properties and infrastructures are destroyed. 5. Students are deprived of their rights to be able to learn in a terror-free environmnet. 6. The press is irresponsible. It just does not differeniate between sensational and sensetive materials. 7. The people are angry. 8. The governmnet is corrupt. 9. There's a leadership vaccum. 10. Foreign powers have starte dto meddle in the internal politics. 11. The economic growth is less than 2% a year. Now, if you were faced with this situation, what would you do? You have two options: either you dow aht the majority of the Nepalis are doing or planning on doing, i.e., just go abraod.. or take the executive control to try your best to clean up the mess. The King chose the option 2.