Democracy is an ineffective system for Pakistan,the army has to act - Pervez Musharraf

[MastanKhan]

there is no doubt about the dedication and loyalty of the junior officers and men of the army but lions lead by lambs don't make a potent force. during the leadership of raheel sharif PA has eliminated TTP, BLA and MQM. it was the same army which served under kayani, musharraf , yahya. etc

Hi,

It was not Gen Raheel who did anything---it was the pakistani public who forced him to do something---.

Before that---the terrorists were islamic brothers who could not kill muslims.

Musharraf had his hands tied---and Kiyani---he was just another coward / drunkard like Yahya.

 

[A.M.]

Mushy seems to be feeling a little better. Why doesn't he come back to Pakistan to make these statements?

 

[SQ8]

Said the man who imposed Zardari on us.

 

[wiseone2]

Agreed. Especially if it is an imposed democracy.

imposed by whom ??

Speaking in reference to the recent Uri attack, Former Pakistan president, Pervez Musharraf said he would have counter-threatened India.
By: ANI | Islamabad | Published:October 4, 2016 1:54 pm

Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.
Asserting that democracy is an ineffective system in his country, Former Pakistan president and military ruler General (retd.) Pervez Musharraf has said failures have to be answered through military intervention.

Speaking at an event, Musharraf said that to counter failures, the army has to take action. “Democracy is an ineffective system for Pakistan as there are no checks and balances in the system, and to counter such failures, the army has to act because people of Pakistan expected too much good from the military, ”the Express Tribune quoted Musharraf, as saying .

He was of view that the ‘inherent weakness’ of Islamabad is that democracy in the country has not been modified according to the situation.



When asked about the future of democracy in Pakistan, Musharraf said, “So, therefore, we have to maybe tailor the political structure in accordance with the dictates of Pakistan, introduce checks and balances so that misgovernance does not take place and the army does not have to come into politics.”

He said that since independence, the army has always played an important role in Pakistan. “It has played a very prominent role in the governance of Pakistan, mainly because of misgovernance by all the so-called democratically-elected governments,” he further said.

Speaking in reference to the recent Uri attack in Jammu and Kashmir, he said he would have counter-threatened India. The former president also said that the United States has used Pakistan for its own interests.

Musharraf said he was still doubtful of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden’s continuous presence in Abbottabad town and the episode of 2011 raid. He insisted that government and intelligence agencies were not sheltering Bin Laden at the compound.



http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...-good-from-military-pervez-musharraf-3064830/

democracy works only when the tax payers and property owners have the exclusive right to vote
otherwise it is a lynch mob that steals goodies out of other people wealth

 

[litman]

Hi,

It was not Gen Raheel who did anything---it was the pakistani public who forced him to do something---.

Before that---the terrorists were islamic brothers who could not kill muslims.

Musharraf had his hands tied---and Kiyani---he was just another coward / drunkard like Yahya.

why pak public failed to make noora to do anything? why they failed to make zardari to do anything? only a person who has some pain for the country men can take tough decisions.

 

[scorpionx]

Democracy, as a principle has not been a very well proven system in India either; Its performance after seventy years, we can most enthusiastically say, is mixed. Despite being founded on Socialist philosophy, feudal lords, noble aristocrats, criminals dominate the parliament. The policy implementations are painfully slow and most importantly protecting minority rights has been a grave challenge to every government since 1947.

Yet, the reason we still resolutely have adhered to it and do not want any other system to replace it lies our history during the freedom struggle. The Gandhian principle that it is the people's wish that will dominate every decesion and policy of the future government and later Nehru's passionate propagation of it (despite few exceptions like the Kerala episode) has dissolved any chance of India being falling under autocracy. The case of subservience of the civilian leadership before the Military due to existential insecurity never arose at all. So it is wrong on part of Musharraf to blame democracy rather than blaming the men whose duty was to defend it.

 

[Moonlight]

@Mentee @Moonlight remember what i said about this OP

Do you want me to say it?

 

[MastanKhan]

why pak public failed to make noora to do anything? why they failed to make zardari to do anything? only a person who has some pain for the country men can take tough decisions.

Hi,

Because both of them are inherently thieves and sell out. Zardari sold pakistan to the U S to get into power---Nawaz sold pakistan to india.

Pakistanis only woke up a couple of years ago and realized that these terrorists are their muslim brethren---before that the pakistani did not believe in it and would fight you tooth and nail to prove your wrong.

One reasoning the pictures of the dead bodies---un-circumcized---the fools did not even know that almost 1/2 the poor population in balochistan and kpk / fata is uncircumcized----and that 1/2 men won't be able to recite the Kalimah either---.

Said the man who imposed Zardari on us.

Hi,

Mushy stopped listening to those whom he was close to at that time---. He got caught up in the mindset of a Benevolent president---.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

Mushy stopped listening to those whom he was close to at that time---. He got caught up in the mindset of a Benevolent president---.

Far from it, he was close enough to listen to them on smart share sales, real estate and even time on who to put where in the country's system. He was not caught up in anything except trying to keep his own seat.

 

[SherDil]

He was not caught up in anything except trying to keep his own seat

Indeed, but his time was far far better than these scums.

 

[SBD-3]

You could have said "lifters". You were too blunt.

Being lifter is not being "chukku". Chukku is a class apart.

Mushy seems to be feeling a little better. Why doesn't he come back to Pakistan to make these statements?

Doctors have asked him to refrain from travelling back to Pakistan as it may cause the back pain to return

 

[Zibago]

For all rooting for army law o remember baboon league was born in Military Rule

 

[SQ8]

Indeed, but his time was far far better than these scums.

Depends on how you view it. He had the option if he had the guts to execute any "scums" the day he took power. But he chose to bow down to Clinton and not do so. Then he had the choice to completely restrict them and actually change the system inside out, yet his fear of losing his seat at the slightest of hurdles kept him from making any real changes. His whole economy was propped up by Aid and consumerism brought in, so he really made little no or changes to infrastructure.

So besides taking over a government in 99 after creating the disaster that was Kargil, his actual achievements are in Media freedom and nothing else.

 

[Hamza913]

Democrazy is indeed a flawed system and IMO absolutely anti-islamic. There are no confusion here if one talks about the original meaning of democrazy (which is rule of the people & sovereignty lies with the people AKA absolute kufr).Under a democrazy you actually have to give absolute individual freedom (liberalism) to the people and lawmakers would have the power to adopt and reject laws. This is absolutely kufr and anti-islamic. BUT lets NOT confuse democrazy with electocracy (people just electing leaders ). Democracy is NOT just elections but carries a lot of western secular ideological baggage and that's why even Pakistan , Turkey , Tunisia are rated as semi-autocratic by the western think tanks , because for them you are NOT truly democratic unless you accept liberal ideas about society , trade , governance and embrace individualism and ditch Islam. Infact they pointed it out to the MB after arab spring that - "don't think democracy is just elections and we accept something more" .Given the current international circumstances (nations states , no monarchy , diverse polity etc etc ) , electrocracy is however , something neutral and can be looked into by the muslim world IMO.

Now the problem starts - the model of elections. Pakistan follows the first pass the post system AKA tyranny of the majority system. Here some one with 20% votes takes the whole constituency based on plurality of votes and this results in parties having mere 30% votes ruling over rest 70% for 5 years. You PML-N actually won 32 % of the votes but ended up with 50% seats and before your PPP won 30% votes but ended up with majority seats. There is NO fair proportionality here and this gives rise to political instability in developing countries. PAK is not UK and should NOT be. Infact its only UK , and US and India that follow this flawed electoral system. Super popular 56 chest Modi has actually won 31% of the national votes while unpopular congress won 20% but look at the difference in their seats - BJP won 250 + more seats than congress.

Most western developed countries follow some form of proportional representation system where parties roughly get seats proportional to their votes :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Tunisia , Turkey and Indonesia also follow this sytem. Nepal and SL just endorsed it as well.

NO comptemporary political parties enjoy 50% + support in reality except..............wait for it ............Turkey's AKP. This party is an anomaly in global electoral politics IMO and indeed is genuinely popular. NO western or eastern leader come close to erdogan's popularity. Erdogan has maintained 50% + support over 15 years via a proportional representation system. If Erdogan contested under UK/pakistani/Indian model he would have maintained a 3/4 majority in parliament for 15 years.

So pakistanis should think about this electoral reform to bring stability and accountability to their system. The best about this model is that it forces power sharing via coalitions since its very hard for a single party to gain absolute majority. It also reduces effects of possible rigging. I think your Imran khan would have less to comlpain about in such a system and can even get a shot at PM seat with help of smaller parties while your nawaz sharif won't get away with unchecked majority everytime . Also it may enhance legitimacy of civilian gov and army would have less chance or inclination to intervene.

P.S - another amusing fact : Awami league at the zenith of its popularity won 39% of votes in 1970 election but ended up with 160 of the 162 seats. Imagine that 60% did NOT vote the AL.. Official turnout was 62%. This 39% (all in E.Pakistan) actually dictated politics of 1971.

@litman @Apprentice @war&peace @dsr478 @Psychic @That Guy @Horus

Btw personally I am absolutely against the concept of democracy which is absolute kufr for the reasons I mentioned above. But I distinguish between democracy and electocracy.

So long as Pakistan doesn't become anti Islamic I am fine. Since that won't happen anytime soon, I'm not going to complain.

 

[ghazi52]

•