Everyone talks about the impasse between the "triangles" of the Maoists, the political parties, and the palace. But Nepal is not a triangle. Who speaks for innocent people? The elected political parties do not, nor do the Maoists. But someone must. Shouldn't the King speak for his people? I wish our elected political leadership had understood the real situation of the country is and suffering and spoke out more often about the people rather than irrelevant issues, which only concern their own betterment. Whether you like it or not, much of the ill we have suffered is a result of corrupt leadership. No serious efforts have been made by any party leaders to stop the real threat posed against democracy by terrorism. If we continue on this vicious path, how long can we last as a country? The issue before the King, as leader of the country, is how best to bring peace, so that Nepal could continue to exist as a country inhabited by our children and grand children. Therefore, it is the duty of any King, "To preserve our nationalism, national unity and sovereignty, as well as to maintain peace and security in the country, and ensure that the state of the nation did not deteriorate further." let's not forget last 15 years we had democracy and king was only a constitutional monarchy??. Even in the first time in Oct 4, 2004 we all know that the king didn't dismiss the government out of his own free will. He was given a written request by the Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was acting on the advice of all the parties to invoke the last clause of the constitution. We can go on debating forever whether it was the king's idea or party's idea, bottom line is was it within the constitutional boundaries? Yes, it was since he is the constitution's custodian it was his constitutional obligation, otherwise the constitution was as good as dead. At this time of crisis, as a true Nepali, well wishers and friends of Nepal, we must give our support, cooperation and help to King, as he endeavors to bring peace to Nepal. LET'S GIVE PEACE A CHANCE. The King has made a thorny choice. He has said, "we have no interest other than the restoration of sustainable peace and exercise in meaningful democracy for the welfare of the Nepal and Nepalese people." The king has expressed his firm commitment to multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy repeatedly--even in the latest proclamation--should put to rest any doubts about his motives. The King has taken a bold step to resolve the crisis. It is natural that cynicism and uncertainty follow a political step of this magnitude, but I caution you to consider this: the King has risked his throne to bring peace, and he has pledged human security and dignity to Nepali people suffering from the on going violence. It's temptingly easy to blame the King. But do you really believe he had other options? My dear friends, it is very easy to be Monday morning quarterback and run politics from abroad. But try to think like an average Nepali. If we were to ask any average Nepali in Nepal today, "Do you want democracy or Peace?" I predict that 99% of the people would ask for peace and food on their plate. (Excluding the less than 1% represented by the so-called party karya karta ( party members & spin doctors) ). Democracy cannot be imposed on. Democracy has to be a demand of the majority. In today's Nepal the priorities are thus: First, give us peace, security and food on our plates, and then give us democracy. My _expression in many ways is the representation of hundreds of thousands of frustrated Nepali and friends of Nepal living in and outside the country. While many say that little has changed since Feb. 1 in the countryside, where fear of the rebels' still rules, the King's move has received wide approval due to the universal unpopularity of corrupt politicians. Here are some of the spectrum views of general publics and professionals. Angur Baba Joshi, 74, a pioneer in child and women's rights said. "The whole of Nepal was burning, as it were. We never had it so bad. Somebody had to do something," The King was compelled to do it. He was obliged to do it." I believe him. I trust him," Yogendra Sakya, one of the Nepal's leading hotel and travel executive said " I am very much a democrat. I love my freedom. But right now, we want security and peace. "The politicians are thieves. The King is like a police Inspector. We need him" said a taxi driver Lakhgan Bahadur Ghale. "I just want to work on the farm and make a living. I just want to do that without being afraid. If the King can help me do it, it's good. If the politician can do it that's good too," said farmar Bir Bahadur Nainabasti from the village of Charaundi. Dr. Upendra Devkota, an internationally renowned neurosurgeon said "We are merely surviving. What we first want is oxygen. When we are well, we will go to the pub and the disco. We will enjoy freedom, democracy, and all the good things of life,". Dilli Bahadur Chaudhari, International Reebok Human Right Award recipient. President of BASE, Leader of Tharu community, an Internationally renowned human Right Activist. said," more than any thing right now we need peace in the country, then democracy". Independent In ternate survey conducted by Sajha.com WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT KING G'S MOVE ON FEB 1, 2005? [Created by admin@sajha.com] Options Percentage No of Votes I support it 63% 168 I oppose it 34% 90 I don't care 4% 10 VOTE | DISCUSS | MORE POLLS Meanwhile in Nepal various intellectuals, political parties, political figures and the private sector's leading organizations including the Nepal Chamber of Commerce have appreciated the king's move as a necessary for the country. In my opinion, we should value more the comments concern of the people who are in Nepal and their associations, rather than outsiders (living abroad) and their associations who are not in touch with the reality of Nepal's everyday life. All the leading bodies of the private sector have expressed their firm beliefs that King's commitment to peace, security and order would create a business and industry-friendly environment attractive to foreign investment in the country.