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.

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
34,456
361
70,989
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
So is this cabal a reality or mere perception? If one argues that the results matter the most, the present day situation can be taken to mean that Pakistan exists for benefiting this cabal and definitely not its people. However, if one goes by evidence, as some here on PDF argue adamantly, it does not exist.
Or is it simply a middle ground - there is a system for the elite in Pakistan and almost as a consequence of society and education it is perpetuating generation to generation solely in short term self interest. But if one does need to look at some positivity the suffrage movement took a very long time to get going and implement so the many small improvements for Pakistan may do the same.

Unfortunately, so do the negatives so it is important that net positives out do them.
What is also true and depressing if you care for it that it is likely that it may not happen in your lifetime. But , (1)^300 is 1 but (1.0001)^300 is 1.03 .. still progress.
Why do enemies of Pakistan so bothered about Army's involvement in Pakistan govt.
Unless it the only thing keeping Pakistan alive
Patients on ventilators are generally just waiting to be signed off as dead and their relatives permission given to say their last goodbyes.
 

python-000

FULL MEMBER
Sep 8, 2017
1,286
0
956
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
Our Army is the Best Army in the whole world & it knows how to move Cointry in a better way so it's a propaganda threat so kindly close it...
 

RoadRunner401

SENIOR MEMBER
May 28, 2015
3,171
0
3,204
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
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.
Read the way this Indian writes this as he is the Prime Minister's personal secretary and goes everywhere the Prime minister goes.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 

AsianLion

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 1, 2010
9,325
0
8,984
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
For any Pakistani it does not matter its Army General in Civilian posts, all that matters is Pakistan growing and growing, no matter who does it!!!

A simply shit article!
 

waz

SENIOR MODERATOR
Sep 15, 2006
17,336
68
45,008
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
@waz @krash @Foxtrot Alpha @AgNoStiC MuSliM @jaibi @Irfan Baloch @Kambojaric @WebMaster


We have another usual suspect spreading indian/gangu lies and propaganda against the Pakistani military. Making indian false accusations against them.



Will 732 million open defectors ever change?:

Yep, he's just ignored. He's of Indian decent.
There are six bona fide US posters we have here. He ain't one of them.
 

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 29, 2010
39,962
55
34,293
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Or is it simply a middle ground - there is a system for the elite in Pakistan and almost as a consequence of society and education it is perpetuating generation to generation solely in short term self interest. But if one does need to look at some positivity the suffrage movement took a very long time to get going and implement so the many small improvements for Pakistan may do the same.

Unfortunately, so do the negatives so it is important that net positives out do them.
What is also true and depressing if you care for it that it is likely that it may not happen in your lifetime. But , (1)^300 is 1 but (1.0001)^300 is 1.03 .. still progress.
That is why I maintain that the system in Pakistan, whatever it might be called, is entirely intentional and serves those for which it is designed very well, the OP in this thread included. And I do not see it changing anytime soon.

(As a corollary, whatever lifetime I have remaining is better served by looking ahead to the future of my grandchildren rather than looking back at my ancestors.)

And lastly, progress as you have mentioned, is progress, but it is only relative to what the rest of the world is achieving.

Not until certain quarters are done with their goals
Case in point? Libya
I have no idea how Libya has anything to do with what this thread is about. The reality of what the Pakistan military has done, and is doing to Pakistan, will always comes out, if it not clear already.
 
Last edited:

Zibago

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 21, 2012
35,026
10
56,200
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
That is why I maintain that the system in Pakistan, whatever it might be called, is entirely intentional and serves those for which it is designed very well, the OP in this thread included. And I do not see it changing anytime soon.

(As a corollary, whatever lifetime I have remaining is better served by looking ahead to the future of my grandchildren rather than looking back at my ancestors.)

And lastly, progress as you have mentioned, is progress, but it is only relative to what the rest of the world is achieving.



I have no idea how Libya has anything to do with what this thread is about. The reality of what the Pakistan military has done, and is doing to Pakistan, will always comes out, if it not clear already.
A false narrative built by US stays even if false until policy goal of US is achieved and if it turns out to be false the US merely says oops and moves on
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
4,096
19
5,037
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Should we even give a shit about what outsiders think or say? These irrelevant outsiders cannot live with or without Pakistan.
Pakistan should turn this lemon article into lemonade. It’s these same Civ-Mil type setups that propelled the Asian tigers in the 60s through the 80s; South Korea and Taiwan built up their industries during a time their militaries had considerable influence over politics.

This is why Pakistan should not hide its military and civilians being on the same page, but show it as proof of stability as the Asian tigers did. Ultimately, haters gonna hate. It only really matters if Pakistan finds a way to become successful. Everyone loves a winner.

Pakistan needs to find a way to sustain an average growth of at least 7% a year (on average) for the next 30 years to make it worth the world’s while to shut them up and maximize its demographic dividend, like China has done for the past 30 years. Do this and all these news stories will flip, and they will write how wonderful Pakistan is. This article is meant for the western investor class. If they can see profit they won’t care about anything else.
 

Old School

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2010
2,553
1
3,260
Every human being is prone to obedience of someone of higher stature in term of power and influences. This is human nature. Even a general has his obedience to someone above him which may be invisible to others.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
15,013
10
14,268
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
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
Images are destroyed in day and build over decades

Build your economy and dont worry about your images

Shutting up desi liberals will make things worse not better but that doesnt mean to govt should support them financially and with space(which we are doing now..why does army/govt pay money and interview such channels, if any channel air non sense news govt should bycott them, this is what happens in the west)

Also need to prop up your own media..whose stopping pakistan from making TRT like PTV

The problem isnt stopping someone but wrong actions(of supporting desi liberals & not doing anything your self)
 

S.Y.A

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 21, 2008
2,605
2
2,905
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Its repetition of the narrative that makes it credible without evidence. Say WMDs 10000 times and they become true.
The issue here is that the military's or some General's greed usually put it in cross-hairs. more often than not, there is pressure to choose an ex military to lead an organization. and more often than not, it is a retired General's company that gets to supply stuff to the military because of his connections (resulting in little to no competition, btw if i know this, then the military most certainly knows this and need to end this nepotism and corruption), and more often than not, it is the military owned enterprises that get priority access to resources and preferential treatment. the whole DHA thing has been thrown around far too long, so no need to mention it again.

IF the military needs to counter this propaganda, it needs to clean its own house first, and needs to learn to stop acting like land grabbers, and to learn to tolerate criticism.
 

Nasr

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 9, 2018
2,203
1
3,957
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
Yet another proof that the West see's Pakistan as a target because of israel and now increasingly so, as it sizes up against China. Whether it be Pakistan's Military or Civilian Government, Shia or Sunni, political association, the West has always used the divide and conquer strategy to destroy a country. Be it Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia or anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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


Top Bottom