What I have managed to get out of this thread is that democracy is great, we should aim for democracy and though a lot of people believe that there needs to be certain pre requisites for a functional long term democracy, there are those who believe that we should aim for democracy NOW instead of trying to creating a suitable atmosphere in which it can be strengthened. These people all at a fundamental level say (in different ways) "democracy is the way, not the end". What I dont understand is why people who have the latter point of view are so incapable of rational talk. Maybe because the past few years of "democratic heaven" in nepal has been a slap in their faces and they are venting their anger by hurling labels at others. Maybe. Like I said I dont get it at all. I also dont understand people who have been around for the past 12 years (like me) and seen the pathetic degradation of the democratic system in nepal and instead of thinking of ways to adapt the system to best fit Nepal, are just yelling for more of the same. If someone tries talking to them, they yell "ROYALISTS". All you self proclaimed "non-royalists" out there, I have always wondered, what is it that you stand for? Its pretty clear what you stand against, but what is it that you support, what is it that you defend? If democracy (as a means) is what you want, surely you are smart enough to know that before implementing it, we need to patch the holes in the system that were exploited by corrupt politicians who brought democracy to its knees. What changes are necessary to the multi party democratic system of government for it to not fail like it did before? Ever thought about that? If you have no answer, wait for someone who has one, instead of wasting our time with pointless mud slinging.