"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" Context again. You fist said, economic and political systems are different, I used that quote of Carr to prove that economy and politics are inter-related. Economic developmnet leads to institutions that are necessary to sustain democracy in the future. For example, Chile under Pincohet was an authritarian regime, but it embarked on economic reforms. What happened? If I udnerstand democarcy as less governmnet, then that's what it lead to in Chile. Sudenly you saw the seoperation of judiciary and the govt. then you had more alws allowing economic freedom to people, and all of this later led to Chile's successful transition to democracy because all the institutions necessary to sustain/safeguard democracy was already there. Only economic developmnet can lead to rule of law in the nations were they don't have a tradition of it, and it also craetes a middle class.. these two things make democracies function properly. And this is what I meant. You can have political freedom without economic developmnet, and the result will be disastrous like in Nepal. Look at Taiwan and South Korea, there democracy functions because they democratized in the 80s when they were economically well off.. and their democracy is free of problems (for the most part). " 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'. " I strongly believe that the monarchy is the solution.. which other constitutional power is there to lead the nation or can lead the nation at this point? My quote re; popularity and unpopularity fits the context. Sorry didn't corroborate it.. The King is being unpopular now, he has taken a big risk.. and many people are against his move, if not against him. In this context, my analysis is, he is like a machiavellian prince who does not fear to become unpopular in teh short run to become popular in the long run. Maybe he knows how to deal with the situation and maybe the only way to execute his plan was Feb 1 move.. whatever it is, he has risked unpopularity to save the nation, and I give him credits for that. aaba euta churot fukera auchu..