just wondering..

There is a land A. In land A there is a king. The king is old. He has ruled the land for many a long years. Now he is weak. His ministers who once swore by him now have the audacity to raise their voices against him.

But he was not this weak old wreck always. In his heyday he was vibrant and rebellious. He had overthrown the king who was ruling then. He did not like the myopic view that the then king took. He thought the then king had a myopic view and there was the need of change. So he did all he could, young blood was flowing in his veins, he was strong. He overthrew the powers that be.

But today he is old. His own eyesight has become weak. He does not enjoy the authority he once commanded on the others. Now there is a new kid on the block. He speaks up, he is violent, he is ready for a fight. The king coils back. All the others who did not know how to oppose this king side with the kid.

The king is old but he is wise, he has seen the world and he has learnt. There were things he had done when he was young which he knows are wrong. He goes back on them; he brings in fresh views, sometimes contrary to his views of the young age.

Is it fine to keep land A under the old king? In that case A remains stable, there is less violence, A improves from the state that it is in. Or should the new kid take on the reins. A is put through a whirlwind again, there is instability, uncertainty.

Will the question ever be answered?