राजनैतिक दलहरु भ्रम, भ्रष्टता, साँघुरो स्वार्थन्धता र दिशाविहिनताको भासमा यतिका वर्ष के कारणले भासिएर रहे ? मेरो ठम्म्याईहरु: - http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24 The incompetence or corruption of the major leaders of ruling parties has been perceived as the major explanation to the political parties' failures. Leaders are generally seen as abusers of the unlimited political power and freedom that democracy provided to them. However, of late, particularly after October 2002 when the executive power was held essentially by the King, the limitations of their power and freedom have been revealed. It is becoming clearer that the political parties have power and freedom enough to abuse, but not enough to challenge the King and his interests. Does this inadequacy have something to do with the degradation of the political parties? If with great power should come great responsibility, then inadequate power perhaps brings an inadequate sense of responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basically, the parties have been the victim of a compromise which developed into a national denial and started to eat up the system like termites. The 1990 revolution of democracy was an incomplete one, not because of some unintended compromise made but because it was started from the beginning with the goal of an incomplete democracy. As a matter of fact, the goals were so modest that our leaders actually thought we disempowered the monarchy more than we had intended. Ganesh Man Singh, the commander of the 1990 movement, famously said, "We went to the palace hoping for a bowlful, but came back with a jarful." That sense of gratitude overshadowed the awareness of an incomplete job, and sidelined the work of keeping up the fight for full democracy. Our international communion of democracy certified that what we have is an allegedly genuine and full democracy. The Constitutional Monarchy and Multiparty system were declared to be the two pillars of democracy in Nepal. We have heard that democracy is a self-correcting system. So we deluded ourselves into believing that there was really nothing for us to worry about. We became oblivious to the fact that what we had was still a quasi-democracy, and a quasi-democracy is not a self-correcting but a self-destroying system. In this whole development of national denial, collective loss of memory, and general unawareness, the only guard should have been the Nepali intelligentsia. Why and how it failed is a good and timely topic for research. The responsibility of the Nepali intelligentsia in failing Nepal's democracy has yet to be exposed.