And my Realist tilt makes me believe in Machiavelli: Politics is not what ought to be, but what is. Its not assuming liberal ideological positions but managing to get yourself succeed or fostering your interests in the prevailing conditions. Also to be popular in the long run, one has to be (and there's no exception to this rule) unpopular in the short run. You cannot ne popular and successful in the short run, and this should explain my support for the King. What liberals don't understand or why they fail for the most part is because they assume this very uncompromising position by cutting themsleves with the surrounding reality.. Woodrow Wilson and his 14 points and idealism failed because of this very reason. If I had to choose between Lee, Deng and Woodrow Wilosn, without any second thoughts I'd choose Lee and Deng, because despite their way of "governance" they were pragmatic and practical. " Second, ....gain. Personally, I believe this lack of a civil society also led to lack of strong and committed leadership, which partially bogged down the process of transition and led the state towards feckless pluralism. " You are too quick to judge the King. "Only after the advent of democracy did people freely start questioning about their social and economic rights. Even Mahendra?s Panchayat system could do little to bring socio-economic mobility between class and castes that we freely enjoy today. " And what did this lead to? It led to more political and social problems because democarcy came too early in Nepal. And I stick to the belief. Why Nepal doesn't have a civil society... Ok, on this after another smoke break..