Thanks IF for responding. I think we are getting into a loop. Here I will try to summarize our discussions. I'm not clear where you stand; I know clearly that you do not support democracy. With regard to authoritarian regimes, you've cited examples from military dictatorships to constitutional monarchy. So do your arguments advocate for a complete authoritarian regime or a democracy with constitutional monarchy in Nepal? If it is former you advocate, your argument is that with authoritative regime, we can build a strong economic base, and civil society will develop in the mean time, fostering the process of democratization in years to come. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I disagree. For democratization to foster: 1. A state should be able to hold a free and contested elections. Elections could assume real significance even under conditions of authoritarian rule, but the government resulting from elections like these lack the power to determine policies in significant areas because legislative and judicial powers are still constrained by 'authoritarian enclaves'. In these types of governments, significant national, economic, political actors spend resources attempting to achieve their objectives of sustaining a non-democratic regime. 2. You need a Civil and Political society, that checks the state's illegal tendencies and also incorporate the mechanisms of transparency and accountability. A Civil/Political society is not feasible in an authoritarian regime, even after massive economic development. A civil society means a society that has self-organizing and autonomous groups and movements that are geared towards articulating values and advancing interests, like the independent press, human rights organization, women?s movement, Dalit Sansthas. Political society means a society where political actors compete for the legitimate right to exercise control over public power. Dictatorial rule holds the concept of centralization of power within a group of elites to advance their political and economic interests. It is either a single leader or a group of people who enjoy the power to ignore, dismiss or alter other institutions- the legislature, the court, the constitutional limiets of power. It has very little, if at all, to do with the state and its polity. One reason why, during years of Rana rules, we didn't see any social/political organizations; for the most part, they would be banned before they can come into scene (you probably already know that Durbar High school was the first school opened in Nepal, very lately, and for many years, only the selected few, ruling elites were allowed to attain) Political society, and civil society to a large extent, is a direct threat to dictatorial rule. Authoritative regimes give no concessions to change and reform, hence there is no possibility a Civil society. There is no hope for a political society, because that would directly defy the interests of authoritarian regimes. This inability to relax their policies with regard to socio-political demands of the state, is also one reason why authoritarian regimes collapse. Because of extra-regional pressure, authoritarian regimes Today are opening up for concessions. 3. You need a State of law, which, also cannot sustain in authoritarian regimes. State of law, which means the government and the state are subject to law, and citizens could turn to courts to defend themselves against the state and its officials. In a dictatorship, law and order is created and controlled by the ruling elite. The citizens are not a part of this system of rule, and they cannot question its fairness, and mostly, this rule does not apply to the ruling elites themselves. Remember Paras getting away a few times from charges of murder? Whereas in democracy, a prime-minister (people-elect) who develops tendencies towards abuse of power is more likely to be checked (by institutions) than a president. If Girija were to defy rules, he would go to jail; in democracy. BUT, you saw the case of Girija defying orders of the Supreme Court, why? Because we have a weak democracy; we lack rule of law, and lack a strong civil society that could have otherwise questioned Girija's defiance. That is why time and again I always say, Nepal is not a democracy, but a country in transition. In the case of England, with a full functioning democracy, if the prime-minister were to be sacked by the Court, the society would have accepted it, because a rule of law persists there; but if the Queen were to sack him, this society in entirety, would voice their disagreement. In Nepal, when the king sacked the elected government, the society was divided. And a democracy is only a full democracy when, a strong majority of public opinion, even in a major economic or political crisis, holds the belief that democratic procedures are the most appropriate way to govern collective life. Therefore, your argument, that authoritative regime will bring economic development and in the mean time a state will open up for democratization, which will consolidate democracy in the long run, is false. Final: If it is the other regime that you argue for- democracy with constitutional monarchy, I will agree to it IF the constitutional monarchy upholds its definition of remaining within the boundaries of constitution. But for that, we need to change our constitution. Without this change in constitution, Nepal can no more move towards a democratic consolidation. The state apparatus, such as the military, has to be under the political leadership that govern democratically. Second, the prerogative rights of the democratic regime such as, creation and amendment of constitution, right to declaration of emergency, the right to dissolve the parliament, should be under the control of the polity, not a single dictatorial ruler. Only then, we can be assured that Nepal can and will move toward democracy, along with a constitutional monarchy on the side.