What's new

If you can’t beat them, obey them. Pakistan’s generals are ever more involved in running the country: Economist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Norwegian

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 19, 2014
14,169
9
22,020
Country
Pakistan
Location
Norway
If you can’t beat them, obey them. Pakistan’s generals are ever more involved in running the country
The Economist • 3h

And the prime minister seems ever more dependent on their backing
BEFORE HE BECAME prime minister, Imran Khan was happy to hold forth about the role of the armed forces in Pakistan. They were so influential in politics, he told The Economist, only because civilian governments had been so ineffectual. Once in office, he said, he would change all that. Yet in early March, when his government lost an important Senate election, he did what he has done many times as prime minister, and rushed off to seek the advice of the high command, to the derision of his political adversaries.
For most of the period since independence in 1947, Pakistan’s army has either run the country directly, under military dictators, or pulled strings behind the scenes. Civilian politicians, in turn, have either rubbed along with the army or been ousted by it. No surprise, then, that far from Mr Khan putting the army in its place, opposition politicians contend that it was the army that awarded Mr Khan his current position. In return, they argue, Mr Khan has run a government of unparalleled subservience to the generals.
It is true that khaki tentacles seem to be reaching ever further into the business of government. For a long time retired generals have marched into ambassadorships and other sinecures. Jobs such as running the national disaster-management authority might come naturally to ex-soldiers, who are widely considered competent administrators. But current and former military men have gradually taken on more and more jobs that are central to the health of the economy. They run the civil aviation authority, the national institute of health, various state-owned firms including the national airline, and the government agencies in charge of power, water, telecoms and housing. To crown the army’s hold on the economy, a retired general, Asim Bajwa, heads the agency that supervises the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, helping funnel some $60bn of Chinese investment into infrastructure.
The main difference between Mr Khan’s relationship with the army and that of his predecessors, says Farzana Shaikh of Chatham House, a think-tank, is how harmonious it seems. “What is different about this particular government is the dropping of all pretence that it conducts policy independently of the military,” she says. Whereas previous governments sparred with the top brass, Mr Khan seems happy to do as he is told.
Mr Khan’s longest-serving predecessor, Nawaz Sharif, rose to prominence as a protégé of the military dictator of the day, Zia ul-Haq. But the army toppled him in a coup in 1999. After he came to power again in 2013, he bickered with the generals about their failure to clamp down on Islamic terrorism. At times during his premiership, the army was openly insubordinate, refusing to help disperse protesters who were paralysing the capital, Islamabad, for example. A television network that enthusiastically backed Mr Sharif mysteriously disappeared from the airwaves. Pakistanis widely assume that the army was behind Mr Sharif’s ban from politics at the hands of a special anti-corruption court in 2018. Since his ouster, he has railed publicly about the army’s interference in politics.
Mr Khan, in contrast, does not seem to be jostling with the generals. Instead, his relentless legal harassment of his political opponents has left him with only narrow political support and therefore especially reliant on the army, Ms Shaikh argues. Qamar Javed Bajwa, the chief of army staff, assures diplomats he has no desire to run the country. He makes a show of calling Mr Khan his “boss”. And he does seem ready to help drum up votes from pliable politicians when Mr Khan’s powers of persuasion fail him.
No one imagines, however, that the relationship is really a two-way street. If the army comes to view Mr Khan as a liability, it is unlikely to have much compunction about dropping him, just as it did Mr Sharif. At that point Mr Khan may remember the view he expressed in opposition, that the generals “just don’t have the vision to run the country”.
[/URL]

If this truly is how international community view Pakistan, then country has a real image problem abroad. It's time to market the country in a positive light, and stop army hating desi liberals from defaming the country.

@Jungibaaz @MastanKhan @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Patriot forever @AZ1 @ghazi52 @Jazzbot @ziaulislam @krash @koolio @Indus Pakistan @SQ8
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
34,195
356
70,108
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If you can’t beat them, obey them. Pakistan’s generals are ever more involved in running the country
The Economist • 3h

And the prime minister seems ever more dependent on their backing
BEFORE HE BECAME prime minister, Imran Khan was happy to hold forth about the role of the armed forces in Pakistan. They were so influential in politics, he told The Economist, only because civilian governments had been so ineffectual. Once in office, he said, he would change all that. Yet in early March, when his government lost an important Senate election, he did what he has done many times as prime minister, and rushed off to seek the advice of the high command, to the derision of his political adversaries.
For most of the period since independence in 1947, Pakistan’s army has either run the country directly, under military dictators, or pulled strings behind the scenes. Civilian politicians, in turn, have either rubbed along with the army or been ousted by it. No surprise, then, that far from Mr Khan putting the army in its place, opposition politicians contend that it was the army that awarded Mr Khan his current position. In return, they argue, Mr Khan has run a government of unparalleled subservience to the generals.
It is true that khaki tentacles seem to be reaching ever further into the business of government. For a long time retired generals have marched into ambassadorships and other sinecures. Jobs such as running the national disaster-management authority might come naturally to ex-soldiers, who are widely considered competent administrators. But current and former military men have gradually taken on more and more jobs that are central to the health of the economy. They run the civil aviation authority, the national institute of health, various state-owned firms including the national airline, and the government agencies in charge of power, water, telecoms and housing. To crown the army’s hold on the economy, a retired general, Asim Bajwa, heads the agency that supervises the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, helping funnel some $60bn of Chinese investment into infrastructure.
The main difference between Mr Khan’s relationship with the army and that of his predecessors, says Farzana Shaikh of Chatham House, a think-tank, is how harmonious it seems. “What is different about this particular government is the dropping of all pretence that it conducts policy independently of the military,” she says. Whereas previous governments sparred with the top brass, Mr Khan seems happy to do as he is told.
Mr Khan’s longest-serving predecessor, Nawaz Sharif, rose to prominence as a protégé of the military dictator of the day, Zia ul-Haq. But the army toppled him in a coup in 1999. After he came to power again in 2013, he bickered with the generals about their failure to clamp down on Islamic terrorism. At times during his premiership, the army was openly insubordinate, refusing to help disperse protesters who were paralysing the capital, Islamabad, for example. A television network that enthusiastically backed Mr Sharif mysteriously disappeared from the airwaves. Pakistanis widely assume that the army was behind Mr Sharif’s ban from politics at the hands of a special anti-corruption court in 2018. Since his ouster, he has railed publicly about the army’s interference in politics.
Mr Khan, in contrast, does not seem to be jostling with the generals. Instead, his relentless legal harassment of his political opponents has left him with only narrow political support and therefore especially reliant on the army, Ms Shaikh argues. Qamar Javed Bajwa, the chief of army staff, assures diplomats he has no desire to run the country. He makes a show of calling Mr Khan his “boss”. And he does seem ready to help drum up votes from pliable politicians when Mr Khan’s powers of persuasion fail him.
No one imagines, however, that the relationship is really a two-way street. If the army comes to view Mr Khan as a liability, it is unlikely to have much compunction about dropping him, just as it did Mr Sharif. At that point Mr Khan may remember the view he expressed in opposition, that the generals “just don’t have the vision to run the country”.
[/URL]

If this truly is how international community view Pakistan, then country has a real image problem abroad. It's time to market the country in a positive light, and stop army hating desi liberals from defaming the country.

@Jungibaaz @MastanKhan @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Patriot forever @AZ1 @ghazi52 @Jazzbot @ziaulislam @krash @koolio @Indus Pakistan @SQ8
This is the impression and people see IK simply as the zoom filter for the Pakistani military.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
18,807
186
54,430
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Sadly these rags have a agenda. I remember these same rahgs openly being apologetic about Gen. Pinochet who was guilty of mass murder in China, Gen. Evren in Turkey and even Gen Zia in 1980s Of course they killed leftists so that was okay. Pakistan needs stability for at least decade. And the importance of the army is not going to go away anytime soon. So a civilian leader who is in sync with the army is a good thing.

That said the law they just passed about the army is plain dumb.
 

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 26, 2018
2,215
5
2,312
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
If you can’t beat them, obey them. Pakistan’s generals are ever more involved in running the country
The Economist • 3h

And the prime minister seems ever more dependent on their backing
BEFORE HE BECAME prime minister, Imran Khan was happy to hold forth about the role of the armed forces in Pakistan. They were so influential in politics, he told The Economist, only because civilian governments had been so ineffectual. Once in office, he said, he would change all that. Yet in early March, when his government lost an important Senate election, he did what he has done many times as prime minister, and rushed off to seek the advice of the high command, to the derision of his political adversaries.
For most of the period since independence in 1947, Pakistan’s army has either run the country directly, under military dictators, or pulled strings behind the scenes. Civilian politicians, in turn, have either rubbed along with the army or been ousted by it. No surprise, then, that far from Mr Khan putting the army in its place, opposition politicians contend that it was the army that awarded Mr Khan his current position. In return, they argue, Mr Khan has run a government of unparalleled subservience to the generals.
It is true that khaki tentacles seem to be reaching ever further into the business of government. For a long time retired generals have marched into ambassadorships and other sinecures. Jobs such as running the national disaster-management authority might come naturally to ex-soldiers, who are widely considered competent administrators. But current and former military men have gradually taken on more and more jobs that are central to the health of the economy. They run the civil aviation authority, the national institute of health, various state-owned firms including the national airline, and the government agencies in charge of power, water, telecoms and housing. To crown the army’s hold on the economy, a retired general, Asim Bajwa, heads the agency that supervises the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, helping funnel some $60bn of Chinese investment into infrastructure.
The main difference between Mr Khan’s relationship with the army and that of his predecessors, says Farzana Shaikh of Chatham House, a think-tank, is how harmonious it seems. “What is different about this particular government is the dropping of all pretence that it conducts policy independently of the military,” she says. Whereas previous governments sparred with the top brass, Mr Khan seems happy to do as he is told.
Mr Khan’s longest-serving predecessor, Nawaz Sharif, rose to prominence as a protégé of the military dictator of the day, Zia ul-Haq. But the army toppled him in a coup in 1999. After he came to power again in 2013, he bickered with the generals about their failure to clamp down on Islamic terrorism. At times during his premiership, the army was openly insubordinate, refusing to help disperse protesters who were paralysing the capital, Islamabad, for example. A television network that enthusiastically backed Mr Sharif mysteriously disappeared from the airwaves. Pakistanis widely assume that the army was behind Mr Sharif’s ban from politics at the hands of a special anti-corruption court in 2018. Since his ouster, he has railed publicly about the army’s interference in politics.
Mr Khan, in contrast, does not seem to be jostling with the generals. Instead, his relentless legal harassment of his political opponents has left him with only narrow political support and therefore especially reliant on the army, Ms Shaikh argues. Qamar Javed Bajwa, the chief of army staff, assures diplomats he has no desire to run the country. He makes a show of calling Mr Khan his “boss”. And he does seem ready to help drum up votes from pliable politicians when Mr Khan’s powers of persuasion fail him.
No one imagines, however, that the relationship is really a two-way street. If the army comes to view Mr Khan as a liability, it is unlikely to have much compunction about dropping him, just as it did Mr Sharif. At that point Mr Khan may remember the view he expressed in opposition, that the generals “just don’t have the vision to run the country”.
[/URL]

If this truly is how international community view Pakistan, then country has a real image problem abroad. It's time to market the country in a positive light, and stop army hating desi liberals from defaming the country.

@Jungibaaz @MastanKhan @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Patriot forever @AZ1 @ghazi52 @Jazzbot @ziaulislam @krash @koolio @Indus Pakistan @SQ8
Usual media warfare... mix some truth and some lies together to confuse and dishearten the enemy nations 🙂🙃🙂
 

Sheikh Rauf

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 24, 2014
5,721
-10
4,354
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
I think its armys right to protect the country as Pakistani we are fail to produce good politicians they left when they are under pressure along with their kids and assets. Only army and civillian giving their lives our politicians cant even protect Pakistan narrative on international forum.
Nawaz cud not say kulboshan yadav in 2 years zardari said indian fighter jets just took a long turn inside pakiatans terrortiry do we need people like them.
Sind is for zardari sardars are holding balouchistan noon league wants punjab what people of pakistan own nothing but just army..
 

Khan_21

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 8, 2014
2,592
-1
4,450
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Sadly these rags have a agenda. I remember these same rahgs openly being apologetic about Gen. Pinochet who was guilty of mass murder in China, Gen. Evren in Turkey and even Gen Zia in 1980s Of course they killed leftists so that was okay. Pakistan needs stability for at least decade. And the importance of the army is not going to go away anytime soon. So a civilian leader who is in sync with the army is a good thing.

That said the law they just passed about the army is plain dumb.
In synch does not mean they have to takeover everything. The army shall remain under civilian government. There will be no space for incompetent corrupt generals whose only mission is to be power hungry , make DHA plots and farmhouses. For too long we have let them abuse Pakistan.
 

Pakistan Ka Beta

FULL MEMBER
Aug 7, 2019
1,674
3
4,578
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If you can’t beat them, obey them. Pakistan’s generals are ever more involved in running the country
The Economist • 3h

And the prime minister seems ever more dependent on their backing
BEFORE HE BECAME prime minister, Imran Khan was happy to hold forth about the role of the armed forces in Pakistan. They were so influential in politics, he told The Economist, only because civilian governments had been so ineffectual. Once in office, he said, he would change all that. Yet in early March, when his government lost an important Senate election, he did what he has done many times as prime minister, and rushed off to seek the advice of the high command, to the derision of his political adversaries.
For most of the period since independence in 1947, Pakistan’s army has either run the country directly, under military dictators, or pulled strings behind the scenes. Civilian politicians, in turn, have either rubbed along with the army or been ousted by it. No surprise, then, that far from Mr Khan putting the army in its place, opposition politicians contend that it was the army that awarded Mr Khan his current position. In return, they argue, Mr Khan has run a government of unparalleled subservience to the generals.
It is true that khaki tentacles seem to be reaching ever further into the business of government. For a long time retired generals have marched into ambassadorships and other sinecures. Jobs such as running the national disaster-management authority might come naturally to ex-soldiers, who are widely considered competent administrators. But current and former military men have gradually taken on more and more jobs that are central to the health of the economy. They run the civil aviation authority, the national institute of health, various state-owned firms including the national airline, and the government agencies in charge of power, water, telecoms and housing. To crown the army’s hold on the economy, a retired general, Asim Bajwa, heads the agency that supervises the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, helping funnel some $60bn of Chinese investment into infrastructure.
The main difference between Mr Khan’s relationship with the army and that of his predecessors, says Farzana Shaikh of Chatham House, a think-tank, is how harmonious it seems. “What is different about this particular government is the dropping of all pretence that it conducts policy independently of the military,” she says. Whereas previous governments sparred with the top brass, Mr Khan seems happy to do as he is told.
Mr Khan’s longest-serving predecessor, Nawaz Sharif, rose to prominence as a protégé of the military dictator of the day, Zia ul-Haq. But the army toppled him in a coup in 1999. After he came to power again in 2013, he bickered with the generals about their failure to clamp down on Islamic terrorism. At times during his premiership, the army was openly insubordinate, refusing to help disperse protesters who were paralysing the capital, Islamabad, for example. A television network that enthusiastically backed Mr Sharif mysteriously disappeared from the airwaves. Pakistanis widely assume that the army was behind Mr Sharif’s ban from politics at the hands of a special anti-corruption court in 2018. Since his ouster, he has railed publicly about the army’s interference in politics.
Mr Khan, in contrast, does not seem to be jostling with the generals. Instead, his relentless legal harassment of his political opponents has left him with only narrow political support and therefore especially reliant on the army, Ms Shaikh argues. Qamar Javed Bajwa, the chief of army staff, assures diplomats he has no desire to run the country. He makes a show of calling Mr Khan his “boss”. And he does seem ready to help drum up votes from pliable politicians when Mr Khan’s powers of persuasion fail him.
No one imagines, however, that the relationship is really a two-way street. If the army comes to view Mr Khan as a liability, it is unlikely to have much compunction about dropping him, just as it did Mr Sharif. At that point Mr Khan may remember the view he expressed in opposition, that the generals “just don’t have the vision to run the country”.
[/URL]

If this truly is how international community view Pakistan, then country has a real image problem abroad. It's time to market the country in a positive light, and stop army hating desi liberals from defaming the country.

@Jungibaaz @MastanKhan @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Patriot forever @AZ1 @ghazi52 @Jazzbot @ziaulislam @krash @koolio @Indus Pakistan @SQ8
Usual propaganda . I support Pakistan Armed forces on this .
 

SABRE

FULL MEMBER
Apr 16, 2007
889
7
1,263
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Sadly these rags have a agenda. I remember these same rahgs openly being apologetic about Gen. Pinochet who was guilty of mass murder in China, Gen. Evren in Turkey and even Gen Zia in 1980s Of course they killed leftists so that was okay. Pakistan needs stability for at least decade. And the importance of the army is not going to go away anytime soon. So a civilian leader who is in sync with the army is a good thing.

That said the law they just passed about the army is plain dumb.
You mean Chile, right?
 

koolio

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 5, 2006
3,366
0
3,882
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
If it wasn't for the ultra corrupt politicians who kept screwing Pakistan up for so many decades due to thier selfish greed, The military wouldnt have interfered in politics.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
18,807
186
54,430
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
More people died under the hands of Pakistani military backed Taliban than under Pinochet.
More people also died under US backed Mujihadeen. In fact even more died in the illegal US invasion of Iraq.Do you want me to go on?

Chile is a society where you can live peacefully. Can you say that for Pakistan ?
So would Pakistan if somebody like Pinochet cleaned it out.

Freudian slip
Or tired eyes.
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
7,822
-37
2,583
Country
United States
Location
United States
More people also died under US backed Mujihadeen. In fact even more died in the illegal US invasion of Iraq.Do you want me to go on?
illegal invasion of Iraq ?? Ask the people of Iraq

If you want a Pinochet in Pakistan go ahead and make my day. Of course you know deep down in your heart things in Pakistan won't change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom