I believe I had read this before, but indeed a very analytical and interesting article. However, my take on it is that it is too narrowly focused and sometimes way too generic. Narrowly focused because the author's main theme is political stability. While it is an essential aspect of multifaceted development of a country, political stability doesn't equate development. We don't need to go far, our neighbour, Bhutan has been one of the most stable nation (despite the uprising) in the Asian subcontinent. We know where it stands as far as development. Presence of monarchy cannot be blamed solely for the instability, hence too generic. Great Britain, Canada under same monarchy have shown a good stable political history with Mr. Blair being reelected for second term. The writer does point out an important message that it is upto the citizens, the people are the source of the stability. Indeed, but they should have the consience to chose the right leader and clearly Nepal's history has shown that we still can't decide what is best for us, YET. A good read all in all.