what_more/no_more-jee (same person I suspect?), "i don't agree with you on education being a pre-requisite for democracy." I repeat: May not be a prerequisite, but if you want democracy to work, yes... "but i seriously had a problem trying to figure out why the reference was relevant to our discussion here. perhaps, you were trying to point towards the ideas of enlightenment (professed by the educated) as the basis for the revolution? perhaps, you want me to see the discontent harbored by the educated as a proponent of the revolution." There you go. And b/c it's good to read wikipedia :-) But it is important to understand that for an 18th century France, the education [in context] of alternative ideologies did play a major role. No doubt that it was the poor who did the fighting, but at least they genuinely knew what they were fighting for, and what other [and better] forms of governance were possible. This awareness is accepted (although not unchallenged) as a cause for the Revolution. "ok, the main reason i draw a comparison to the French is because we are at a cross-roads. a cross-roads between feudalism and a republic, however imperfect." Sure. Understood. All I am saying is that the people need to be educated. "but i don't see it that way. they way i see it, even though they had a "highly skilled workforce" they were not achieving. why? 'cause freedom was absent. " Of course, they were achieving. They contributed significantly to the USSR. It was when Ukraine got the independence that it all of a sudden found its experts out of work. But my argument is that even though Ukraine is just as new [in fact, newer] democracy as Nepal, theirs is a more effective and promising democracy because it has had a very educated public to help it build and strengthen its democratic institutions. "you see freedom as mere ends. but i see freedom as both ends AND means. freedom is a primary end and it is the principle means. in freedom's "constitutive" (with apologies to Sen) role it becomes a goal, but it is in it's "instrumental" (again, apologies to Sen) role that freedom makes the attainment of the goal possible. i view the latter as perhaps the more important one in our context. " There's no question that freedom is good and multi-faceted in terms of what it can attain. The question (and our disagreement), however, seems to be on whether freedom will automatically educate the people. Experience shows that that's not the case. Explicit and serious efforts need to be made. On the other hand, does the absence of freedom necessarily deny education? Turns out no. Even the worst regimes [if they desire] can produce extremely competitive population and world-class experts. So my point again is, sure freedom is great we should strive for it, but education should independently get its own priority, and we shouldn't be making it contingent upon a particular system of governance. Educated people are useful regardless, and when there's enough people educated, it works as a powerful and prepared (for the aftermath--unlike what happened to Nepal since 1990) force that will fight for democracy (if missing) and make it work. I hate it when my posting gets lengthy. Good day!