Sucharya, We are discussing picayune differences here re: pseudo-elites (an unfortunate and unhelpful term YOU brought here). Let's let it pass. ****** Re: the evolution of monarchy, that is NOT my hypothesis. I could care less about monarchy for it does NOT represent me in any way. It never pretended to represent voters like me. But I do care a lot about the parties because they say that they represent me, yet have done such a poor job -- repeatedly. As a democrat, it's my hypothesis that: it helps a lot to think like a pro-palace person TO SHARPEN one's thoughts and ideas about democracy. Put yourself in your opponent's shoes, and map out what s/he would do to defeat you, and then make your plans accordingly. Thinking like this is a way of thinking -- NOT being a durbar ko bhakta -- why don't you guys understand this simple difference? True, pro-palace hardliners are evil and khattam, and jhoor. We all know that. By cursing them endlessly -- an easy and relatively uncontroversial thing to do and something that gets an easy wah-wah on Sajha -- we do NOT advance the debate about democracy. Instead, all we become is bitter about the reign of power enjoyed by Giri, Bista and the like. How long are we going to go on being bitter and reactive? Forever? Democracy, after all, does NOT come out of bitterness and hatred. It comes out of idealism. In that vein, let us first articulate the IDEALS we want in the building blocks of democracy --i.e. the parties. Let's then push for those ideals, knowing that doing so is not an easy task. That way, even with STIRRINGS of changes within the parties, the palace-hardliners will have no choice but to change themselves or prepare to perish altogether. So long as parties themselves are khattam, jhoor and beyond redemtion, no wonder people like Giri and Bista command all the power in Nepal. oohi ashu