‘For forms of government let fools contest. Whatever administered best is best is best.’ Alexander Pope must have been living in tumultuous English times in the turn of seventeenth century England when his poetic skills of one of the most quoted poet in England was poured on the systemic struggles of his times. The new intellectualism that blossomed those days must have clashed equally vociferously with old worldly thoughts as we see in Nepal today. It is the empirical wisdom of old heads such as Pope that must have nurtured British democracy to towards evolutionary change regardless of the fact that the British too could not escape the effects of hotheads bent on immediate change. Change after all need not result in all good and the British learnt that, too and not without concomitant damages as well. For us denizens in Nepal, that seem to utterly lack eggheads of the type, we marked a constitution day with manufactured official enthusiasm amidst worries of impending inevitable change; yet another change that is hopefully yet another cure-all for the all round national shamble that not even the blind cannot but see. In another part of the democratic world, the United States of America, their eggheads are worried that a mere seventeen percent of the total population express their trust in public institutions. Their permanent representative at the United Nations expresses anger at a U.N. poverty report that states that nearly a million and a half in the United States were found below the poverty line. For those of us who are aware that the word ‘nationalism’ was conspicuous in its absence in their Dictionary of American Political Science and was merely mentioned in its context of’ xenophobic nationalism’ today express bewilderment at the ease with which the American President uses the term in justifying his policies aimed at American welfare. Indeed, highly charged academics in Nepal were a mere three decades ago were, hereto, dismissing the term outright as old hat in the fresh days of globalization and Francis Fukumaya’s ‘ Demise of State’. Looking back, there is growing consensus that these popular tautological new wisdoms at that time proved seminal to the destruction of our painstakingly built infrastructures which were further aggravated by the pursuit of a republican, federal and secular constitution for which the Maoist movement was later deemed utilitarian as per the seeming public ambitions denied the population by the old state. By this thought process thus, there is nothing wrong in celebrating the new constitution. The people have finally won. Whether or not it serves its people, an elected constituent assembly has served its purpose in drafting the constitution. The constitution is in its implementation phase and all elections have been concluded under that constitution. If not the people, the officials in and out of government who contributed to the making of the constitution need celebrate. For those perpetually griping about today’s malfunctions, dialectic materialism becomes utilitarian. ‘Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.’ Today will inevitably yield tomorrow. The struggle must continue for the better. This suits the two thirds majority who subscribe to this intellectualism. But, for the people that do not, they could perhaps be better off to see nothing wrong and celebrate the constitution; and how.