Ashu, When the very basic tenets of democracy are either questioned (Nepali pariprekchhya maa maattra bhayeni) by you on this forum, or threatened by KingG's supporters, or traunced by him, I, as someone who steadfastly believes them, would obviously try to counter by repeating the same very basics, regardless of whether they may seem obvious and/or redundant to some. Sometimes perhaps redundancy is the best instrument to make people believe in basic and fundamental rights of the people. Claiming that you believe in the basic democratic principles while questioning them is (NOW) what you referred to as "peeing down both legs". From the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "...the right to personal liberty, justice, freedom from discrimination, freedom of movement, free elections and a free press." [My personal footer: free press implies freedom of expression (also), and free elections can be considered relative to condusive environment.] I am glad that we both agree that the affore-mentioned ideals are what we both believe in and stand by. Yes, disagreements can arise when we begin to discuss HOW we go about achieving those principles. More often than not, the problem is, Ashu, some people tend to question those very principles when discussing ideas on how to achieve them -- they seem utterly unable to realize the irony within the concept of achieving democracy through democracy. In democracy, the means and the ends are, and should be, one and the same. So, when people argue that authoritarian means are justified by the possible democratic ends, I cringe, for I believe in my heart that this is a classic case of if means and the ends are not the same, we shall never enjoy the fruition of our dreams.Therefore, all I want from you and others is to leave those democratic principles in an umimpeachable sacred place while discussing how to achieve them. Really, that's all. As for the notion of "guided democracy," to which I think your arguments on whether Nepal is actually ready for democracy or not are leaning towards, I say, I am fine with it IF, and ONLY IF, PEOPLE are allowed to guide it, not an INDIVIDUAL. Once again, if we supposedly are to let an individual (in the current Nepali context, obviously the King) guide democracy, then we are attacking the sacred ends itself. Nepal ko example ma...the so-called "guided democracy" during 30 years of Panchayat rule failed us miserably. Not only it failed while it lasted, but it had vast and negative implications well into the post-Panchayat years, hence the problems of weak democracy in the past 15 years or so. The "guidance" of an autocratic ruler, ironically, renders people helpless in terms of having self confidence -- they learn nothing but to RELY on someone else to deliver; leaves them bitterly unprepared to handle independence and freedom. The ONLY way, therefore, to prepare people for responsibilities that freedom should entail is to set them free, so that they can learn form their mistakes and, at least, know what it actually means to be free.