oops! lot of water has passed under the bridge! phew. looks like i really did 'challenge' someone... Ok, first things first. "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 don't need to tell me what to do. yes, people have beliefs, and its only natural to be surprised- political science students or not, i cannot supress my surprise, its a different thing i don't have to express it. and i've tried to keep emotions and personal biases out of discussion as much as possible. and indeed, when i say i am surprised that nepali elites keep hope that king's take-over will better the economic condition, i'm not surprised at their political belief and faith that the king will do good, but i'm surprised that they replace political system with economic system completely. nowhere during my arguments have i mentioned that democracy will bring economic development, i am only advocating for a fair political system, while the king's supporters directly relate his system to economy. and i'm not directing this individually at you, it has become a collective hope, and i think in democracies i'm allowed to express my disagreement :) and i've put my argument regarding why monarchy cannot do anything about it, in my first post, that u haven't counter-argued. Second, i't be easier if you could use technical terms instead of 'in disguise of Liberal Democrats', 'mild authoritarian rules', i don't know what to decipher out of them; what kind of regime are you talkin about when you say 'mild authoritative rules??' Third, incomplete pieces of examples on Greece or Turkey etc. when you say: "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." provide me with literature here (cause no where have i read greece is a democracy because of economic development. i will explain in another post why it is a democracy). Fourth, Carr, Morgenthau, Koehene, Schultz, Kenneth Waltz, are pioneers in international relations; they've contributed very little to the literature of democracy. Your argument: "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.." Koehene here is talking with an international perspective in mind. He is true, hegemons create institutions to foster their national interests abroad. but you might want to look at what specific institutions he is talking about. when it comes to protecting national interest in the form of political and economic security, he is talking about creating institutions that sustain or expand these interests- like military, monetary (USAID), etc., not necessarily institutions that foster a civil society at the domestic level. Again, when you say: "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. .... " Context again. yes it is inter-related, more intensely so in international politics. because, in a system of anarchy, states maintain a balance of power by securing their national interests; and when they say national interest in international relations, it has very much to do with national security, political and economic gains. obviously then, what would politics be without economics. but that doesn't conclude that economic development brings democracy. Your argument citing Machiavelli: "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." Nobody is assuming liberal ideological positions here. like you, i'm a realist, and i strongly believe that monarchy is not the solution to this quagmire. but this latter argument in the above sentence proves nothing (please don't bring pieces of quotes without context, if possible, try to bring their arguments). Machiavelli's The Prince is a masterpiece, and for him, protecting national interest will surpass all moral obligations. He doesn't propound immoralism, ethics for him is good if it is possible, but usually when you've to look at your interests, ethics does not have much value. and yes, the king is taking machiavellian steps, but there is nothing which even gives a little hint (for these three years he has ruled), that he is 'surpassing moral obligations to protect national interest'. And when i said this: " 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" i was pointing at the civil society, and our political parties, not the king. the king does not constitute the civil society, his is an 'authoritarian regime'. i said: "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". if you believe that gaining socio-political awareness and starting to question our rights, our system, and the marginalized ethnic groups starting to question their social identity is problematic, that is strong belief in authoritarianism. (but i thought somewhere you said bridging ethnic and economic gaps will bring out a stable democracy). how will one bridge this socio-cultural, ethnic, economic gap without creating awareness among the 'commoners' which will then coordinate with the elites? building infrastructure and implementing a top-down approach to development is not going to bring much social change, at least for the impoverished mass. and hypothetically, even if the economic 'theory' you proposed were supposed to work, we would start industries, build infrastructure, control market, do whatever to stabilize economy, but we will have no civil society; under a reppressive regime, political institutions have no chance to foster, like i've already given example in earlier post, and we will be living in the dark, without our individual, social, economic, and political rights, for ages. what i derived from your arguments is this: lets build an economically stable society, then implant a civil society, then implement a democratic model. it is not that simple. When i said: " 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. " i didn't phrase the first sentence properly then. sorry, i reframe it again: monarchies throughout the world have a history of reppressive regimes. it is not an individual king or a queen, but the 'system' of monarchy, the regime, is by nature, repressive. that is why we call them 'authoritative regimes'. adios!