Isolated Freak - I have not know you to be one to take personal shots at others so I am surprised to see you do that in your last post. "Its always easy to preach democracy and democratic ideals from faraway in DC, NYC and Boston, but once you are in Nepal and constantly dealing with the problems created by democracy, you get quite disillusioned with the whole system. " How about it is easy to reminisce about the Panchayat from China or Japan or South Korea but to actually have the balls to take that conviction to the streets of Nepal and try and convince others on the ground? I dare anyone to do that before they accuse others of preaching. The Congressis, UML and Maoists faced the bullets of the Panchayat and risked their lives to speak up and mobilize - why can't the Panchayat admirers/supporters do the same? Too scared? "Whether the Panchayati peace was superficial or real does not matter. What matters is: we were pretty stable and a functioning state. And that's enough to romanticize that period" Au contraire, I'd argue it does matter. The factors that supposedly held that "peace" - the suppression of dissent, the concentration of power into extra-constitutional bodies and the lack of accountability that it created, the imposition of Khas language and culture, the oppression of religious minorities like Christians and to a lesser extent Muslims, the concentration of development on Kathmandu - all of which gave that sense of "peace" to some - is what triggered the tinder box - the flames of which still are burning. Of course the parties and their mis governance added more fuel to the fire but I find it preposterous to argue that somehow the Panchayati peace was sustainable for any period beyond which it lasted. As for romaticizing, be my guest. I have no problems with that. From the sounds of it, there isn't much more Monarchists can do at this time it seems. Also, as someone alluded to before, the Panchayat was good, oh sure, if you were a part of the predominantly Rana/Shah/Thakuri ruling elite, and a sub-elite comprising of mostly valley based Chettri families along with a sprinkling of other valley based Brahmins and Newars and some other ethnicities who had access to the Palace or the power brokers of the day. It's no surprise that the revolution of 2046 was driven by those district and terai elites who the Panchayat was so indifferent towards. Likewise the Maoist movement, or at least the initial stages of it, were driven by the village level elites that the new rulers ignored at their own peril. Power has shifted along class lines and I see this clearly as the result of too much concentration of power in the hands of the Palace and those around it during those "peaceful" days of the Panchayat. Sadly in each case, the new rulers, have been stingy about devolving power out to others - and that's shameful and deplorable. There is still too much power concentrated in the hands of party elites for any kind of stability to come - hence federalism and elections to a new system, and not more concentration of power in a resurgent monarchical system, might be our best bet. But that's a whole other debate.