part 2.. Also when you talk about the "successful" neo-democraices after the 90s, such as those in some- not all- Eastern European nations, you have to understand that, in their second (in many places; first in others) elections, people chose the former communists who partcipated in the elctions in the disguise of Liberal Democrats!! Chezh Republic and Poland could succeed becuse they "already had the institutions despite the long communist period" becuase of their close proximity to the "Austro Hungarian" empire.. which basically means, they benifinted from the European enlightenment/reniassiance(Sp?). So there was another factor "cultural" factor in those places where democracy succeeded.. in Nepal we don't and we never had a democratic culture/tradition, and this is one of the reasons for the malfunctioning of democracy there. In theory or in the theoretical level everything is possible, but the empirical data suggest otherwise regarding development and democracy. By development, I mean, economic development. If you look at the economic development of Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, they all developed economially under mild authritaian rulers.. because those mild authritarian rulers could make policies that no democartically elected leaders could make. Greece went throgh a lot of problems before it became a "fully functioning" liberal democracy. Even upto the 90s, Greece under Papendreu was not democratic in the sense the word is implied in the western countries. Now with its economic development, Greece has embarked on the liberal path, however, it is not an example- as of today- of a successful liberal democracy or democratic transition. Turkey is not a liberal democracy either. The constitution of Turkey is very interesting. It actually gives the military the power to intervene in the government through coup-de-tats when the civilian governmnet threatens the national unity of Turkey. Also Turkey has been carrying a massive "de-ethnicizing" campaign through coercive means when it comes to dealing with its Kurdish and Armenian populations. "It is very surprising that Nepali educated mass confuse themselves with notions that king's takeover will better the economic condition of the country. First of all, we are mingling two systems here. For the sake of clarity, let us separate political system and economic system. When we say we want democracy, we have very less to do with economic system, what we want is a fair political system. " Look people have their beliefs, so as a studnet of political sicence it shouldn't surprsie you to come across the educated mass who does not believe in what you belive. Try saying this to someone in your class- " I am surprised that you are a democrat/republican".. and watch their reaction.. So let's not get surprised at each other's political beliefs, and discuss ideas here. You are again mistaken to detach the conomic system from the political system. They go hand-in-hand; they go together. You cannnot seperate the political system from the economic system. Since I belong to or subrcibe to the Realist teradition of IR, one of the early modern Realist theorist, EH Carr, says: politics and economics are interrelated. You cannot seperate economics from politics. If you do, your whole analysis somehow lacks the most fundamental variable, in my view. .... " we have noe therefor returned, after the imoportant but abnormal, laissez faire interlude of the nineteeth century, to the position where economic can be frankly recognised as a part of politics. We can thus resolve teh controvery, which is in large part a produict of nineteenth-century ideas and terminology, about the so called economic interpretation of history. Marx was overwhelmingly right when he insisted on the increasing importance of the role played by ECONOMIC forces in politics..." (20 Years Crisis). And even the liberal school has not been fully able to justify the seperation between these two forces either.. didn't koehene (and Nye?) came up with ytis explanation on "regimes" that "international trading/economic" regimes/institutions are creaed by the dominant powers/hegemons to foster their own economic (and political) ineterests abroad when they come up with these regimes/institutions? Its only later the regimes/institutions develop on their own and separtae themselves from the hegemon that created those... but you need a hegemon to create those at the first place! They don't emerge themselves.. So I argue against your claim: Economics and Politics go hand in hand, and its always been this way.