Should the parties stand alone and bet on international intervention? Tiwari highlights the parties' big problem: that they have descended into a rut. The parties merely shuttle between the king and the Maoists, thus reducing the impact of any shift in allegiances. Let us consider the following �crazy� scenario. What would happen if the parties destroyed all alliances with both palace and rebels? The parties have little power outside their moral authority within the UN and among democratic nations. Standing alone, the parties can urge external powers to cut off aid to the palace and Maoists. If the parties place their bets on outside intervention, they should start talks with international or regional organizations. They may send representatives to campaign for a joint UN-Indian peacekeeping mission. Standing alone is irrational: it leaves the parties open to attack from both sides. We've seen how the palace can hurt the parties, and the Maoists could do so as well. Yet by standing alone, the parties would threaten both sides. The parties could reduce the military aid that other nations send to the king. Meanwhile, if the parties brought in a peacekeeping force, the peacekeepers would restrict the movements of the Maoists. � For acting crazy to be rational, the person must have a conscious objective. What goal should the parties seek? An abstract goal of "restoring democratic government" means little. Few ordinary Nepalis put faith in the parties. If the parties just try to win back their legislative power, people will view their efforts as merely self-serving. The parties should instead attempt to build popular loyalty. Popular loyalty is the only way to strengthen their position in the long term. When the parties gain any bargaining power, they should demand the restoration of the civil liberties the country has lost. If the parties organize the citizens around the cause of civil liberties, they can prove themselves dedicated to the future of Nepal and not just their individual fortunes.