[[ "A study conducted by political scientists Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, looked at every country in the world between the years 1950 and 1990. It calculated that in a democratic country that ahs a per capita income of under $1500 (in today?s dollars), the regime on average had a life expectancy of just eight years. With between $1500 and $3000 it survived on average for about eighteen years. Above $6000 it became highly resilient. The chance that a democratic regime would die in a country with an income above $6000 was 1 in 500. Once rich, democracies became immortal." (Zakaria, Fareed: The Future of Freedom. 2003) So higher income is needed.. ]] You are so wrong, Isolated Freak , in your induction above. The statement above says that richness provides longevity to democracy. That's all it says. In Rich country, democracy lives longer, or may become immortal. But it NEVER says poor countries can't have democracy, OR that higher income is needed to have democracy.Jakaria himself emphatically clarified this thing to this writer and a group of students long ago. And, being so pro-panchayat, will you please illuminate an ignorant poster like me how long the king will take to make PCI about 6K left on his own? If 30-years of Panchayat is an indication, we will never get to that 6K point in this millenium. I don't even need to bother kaplan's optimum path. That kind of writings are strewn in every library, and no one really gives a damn about them.