When victorous Gen. Douglas Macarthur landed in Japan in 1945, he had one thing in mind: He wanted to democratzie Japan with inspirations from George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ. Yet, when the new Japanese constitution was drafted in an ad hoc manner in the GHQ, going against some of the allies (primarily Australians) he decided to retain Hirohito in the throne!! And mind you, Macarthur and the US govt. knew all about Japanese decsion making and hierarchy after the Meiji restoration of 1868 and who was responsible for the Japanese war of aggression in Asia from 1937-1945. Yet, they needed monacrhy to stabilize and liberalize Japan. So sometimes you just have to retain the existing system to stablize the nation than have a new system and create a power vaccum and throw the nation into an abyss of civil wars and political feuds. Another lesson from history, which resembles Nepal is, Russia in the ealry 20th century. There were political parties and there were Bolsheviks, both against the Tsar. But when the Tsar was forced to step down, the liberal parties lost to the Bolsheviks and as a result Russia became a communist empire, and all those liberals who were against the Tsar were either sent to the Gulags or had to flee the country. And the old regime was more tolerant and more liberal than the new totalitarian regime of the Bolsheviks!! Yet another lesson of history is: Sometimes authoritarian leaders are good at democratizing than the liberal political leaders who come through elections. Look at Pakistan. There is hardly any denial that Pakistan is more liberal today in the absence of fanatical and radical islamist groups, than it was under the liberal leaders (Nawaz Sharrif and Bhutto). Sometimes you need a leader to clean up the mess. I believe that's what the King is trying to do in Nepal. I also think (NOTE I SAID I, I am speaking for myself, not for the MASSES as some democrats do), its too early to judge the King. You have to give him some time. At least give him a year. If you all could give all those corrupt rulers 15 eyars (and are willing to give them more time), why not give at least a year to the King? This will sound too harsh and if it hurts you, I am sorry: Its much easier to talk about democracy and freedom when you are abroad. Can you claim to be speaking for the people of Nepal? For the masses? Maybe people in Nepal at this point want to give the King benifit of the doubt, maybe he can deliver what the political leaders failed to deliver for the last 15 years. Berry Wiengast has done a study on this: he looked at many Latin American countries and their dictators opr authritarian regimes and concluded: that people are willing to support extra constitutional or unconstitutional means to resolve crises, if they think that this will lead to better conditions (Weingast, 1997). la mero bhannu yatti ho and I am speaking for myself here, I don't claim to be speaking for the masses! I repeat, these are my views and might not make any sense to you, and in that case, my apologies.. I am not an analyst or a firt rate writer, so correct the grammatical/factual and analytical errors as you read it.