Among some other causes, lack of a civil society is one. Why does Nepal not have a civil society by now? Historical institutionalism again. 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. " And what exactly leads to the development of civil society? I argue, like I have been all along, and I hope you won't get SURPRISED, that economic development is the only way to create a civil society in today's world. There are no other ways. So economic growth- rule of law (due to the developmnmet of civil society) and then political liberalization. This has to be the way. And I stick to this belief too. Nepal didn't have a civil society because of the lack of informed "citizinery" due to poverty and a widespread illiteracy. So democracy (the one you read about in the schools in US) does not succeed in Nepal- well, until we have an infortmed "citizinry" who knows its rights and which can place the limit on the state. And there's no consenus between the state and the people, as a result both sides violate the social contract (by which I mean the Constitution). In this scenario (and let's be realists here), you cannot have a functioning "liberal" democracy. Of cource you can have democarcy, but not funticoning and liberal.. and that explains the malfunctioning of Nepali democracy. Angry, hungry and uneducated people do not mka erational/informed choice for the most part.. and Nepal is nothing but a country filled with these people who are hungry, unedcucated and to make the matters worse, with "historical griviences" against others. "And oh yes, Nepal is no more a constitutional monarchy, if that is what your basis of argument is. It is somewhere in between absolute monarchy and electoral democracy (?). " I would rephrase this statement- And oh yes, Nepal is no more a constitutional monacrhy, it is an active monarchy. I would refrain, as of today, using strong adjectives. Instead of absolute monarchy (which I think is an obsolete concept) I use the word "active" and if it doesn't make you feel I am towing the official line, "constructive monarchy". You can disagree, be surprised.. but this is what, as of today, I stick to. "Lastly, you're saying Pakistan is more liberal today? Well, depends then on your definition of 'liberal'. I don't see much change between Bhutto's Pakistan and Musharaff's Pakistan." Yes, Pakistan is more liberal today despite examples of illiberal practices every now and then- the recent one being the rape victim. However, liberalism or society's liberty should not be only measured in terms of people's participation in the govt. through elections. Now Pakistani society and politics (for the most part) is free from islamic/radical/fundametalist influence and penetration, and in the absence of those, the society is turning (for the most part) tolerant. And this is what I mean by its getting more "liberal". " And IF, if nothing else, I'm very surprised by your sincere hope that the king will better the situation of the country." Let me repeat again, I am not surprised by your political views. And being a political Science student, you shouldn't be surprised with mine either. Try finding a better substitute for this word, if you want to engage in political debates or if you are contemplating a carrer in politics/IR. I be;lieve in what I believe in, and I believe in a strong rulers interfarance when things turn ugly. Blame it on my realist tilt. "Being a poli sci student, I thought you'd understand better." Also refrain from using this kind of strong rhetorical question. I understand what I understand based on my academic training and personal experience. You can assume any position but you have to be very careful with your choice of words. Just my sincere suggetsion to you. " but as a student, I've read and observed that monarchies, in most part of the world have history of repressive regimes. No surviving monarchies today or authoritarian regimes in the past have provided any impetus for freedom; forget about our Rights, as citizens, being protected by rule of law. In fact, instruments of freedom have been manipulated by all repressive regimes for their own political gains. And our Own history bears witness. " Look, you yourself admit, "monarchies, in most part of the world".. not everywhere.. :-) Nepal can be different. As of today, we have no basis/evidence whatsoever to dismiss today's Nepali monarchy as "repressive"- we ain't seen anything yet.. Let's just hope, and I do sincerely hope, the Nepali monarchy, the institution that I have immense faith and respect in, will be able to prove itslef (once again.. yet again) that it is for the people.