Democracy is not the way for Pakistan!

[gpit]

I don't think Pakistan should follow Chinese example exactly, but probably can learn something from it. It is simply because Pakistan and China are different countries: they have different social soil - different culture, tradition, history, etc.

The way of governance should be nothing but a cultural tradition.

However, for any country to progress, social stability is of vital importance.

Successful democracy comes with steps. In earlier stage, limited democracy should be exercised. Gradually, if conditions ripen, more universal democracy can be given.

Take US for example, early US democracy (as represented by voting rights) only gave to white male with properties. If American Indians were allowed to vote, the whites would be voted out of N. America. Later on, the voting right was spread to women and black.

Secondly, a social structure and way of governance is nothing but interest compromise between the existing privileged giants. US democracy is a compromise between dominant interest groups, such as oil giants and military lords. It is a democracy for the privileged few. For instance, if voting right is granted to American Indians, the white would be voted out of N. America. In order to achieve the maximum possible profit for the few, US politicians learn how to compromise with the unprivileged mass.

As such, Indian democracy is no exception but for privileged Brahmins or other dominant interest groups.

It doesn’t matter who is the president elected, he/she always represents, functioning as a CEO, the dominant interest groups.

It is vital important for those dominant interest groups to constantly brainwash the mass, to make them believe that the system is the best for them. If it doesn’t work as it is imaged, it is something else, not the way it goes. For instance, US giants print hundreds of millions of dollars worthy of materials, freely distribute to every school to trumpet the system. In contrast, dissidents experience hardship from interest groups in airing their view. Main US news channels are controlled by the same.

 

[vish]

"Democracy is not the way for Pakistan"... please somebody say that to the millions of Pakistanis who voted in the elections.

gpit:
There is no such thing as "limited democracy." Perhaps, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a perfect example.

You're views on Indian democracy are pretty flawed. India's democracy is not perfect; it is the abode of opportunists, just like any other democracy. These opportunists come from all castes and economic backgrounds.

This is for everyone: What exactly is a non-Western form of democracy/governance? Please enlighten my knowledge in this regard.

 

[muse]

If democracy is simply elections - then there are any number of democractic governments in the world.

Democracy must mean more than elections. Indian friends should consider this point.

there is a piece in todays Daily Times that suggests that development is a representation of good and effective goveranance:

Getting governance right —Dani Rodrik
Economists used to tell governments to fix their policies. Now they tell them to fix their institutions. Their new reform agenda covers a long list of objectives, including reducing corruption, improving the rule of law, increasing the accountability and effectiveness of public institutions, and enhancing the access and voice of citizens. Real and sustainable change is supposedly possible only by transforming the “rules of the game” — the manner in which governments operate and relate to the private sector.

Good governance is, of course, essential insofar as it provides households with greater clarity and investors with greater assurance that they can secure a return on their efforts. Placing emphasis on governance also has the apparent virtue of helping to shift the focus of reform toward inherently desirable objectives. Traditional recommendations like free trade, competitive exchange rates, and sound fiscal policy are worthwhile only to the extent that they achieve other desirable objectives, such as faster economic growth, lower poverty, and improved equity.

By contrast, the intrinsic importance of the rule of law, transparency, voice, accountability, or effective government is obvious. We might even say that good governance is development itself.

Unfortunately, much of the discussion surrounding governance reforms fails to make a distinction between governance-as-an-end and governance-as-a means. The result is muddled thinking and inappropriate strategies for reform.

Economists and aid agencies would be more useful if they turned their attention to what one might call “governance writ small”. This requires moving away from the broad governance agenda and focusing on reforms of specific institutions in order to target binding constraints on growth.

Poor countries suffer from a multitude of growth constraints, and effective reforms address the most binding among them. Poor governance may, in general, be the binding constraint in Zimbabwe and a few other countries, but it was not in China, Vietnam, or Cambodia — countries that are growing rapidly despite poor governance — and it most surely is not in Ethiopia, South Africa, El Salvador, Mexico, or Brazil.

As a rule, broad governance reform is neither necessary nor sufficient for growth. It is not necessary, because what really works in practice is removing successive binding constraints, whether they are supply incentives in agriculture, infrastructure bottlenecks, or high credit costs. It is not sufficient, because sustaining the fruits of governance reform without accompanying growth is difficult. As desirable as the rule of law and similar reforms may be in the long run and for development in general, they rarely deserve priority as part of a growth strategy.

Governance writ small focuses instead on those institutional arrangements that can best relax the constraints on growth. Suppose, for example, that we identify macroeconomic instability as the binding constraint in a particular economy. In a previous era, an economic adviser might have recommended specific fiscal and monetary policies — a reduction in fiscal expenditures or a ceiling on credit — geared at restoring macroeconomic balances.

Today, that adviser would supplement these recommendations with others that are much more institutional in nature and fundamentally about governance. So he or she might advocate making the central bank independent in order to reduce political meddling, and changing the framework for managing fiscal policy — setting up fiscal rules, for example, or allowing only an up-or-down legislative vote on budget proposals.

Macroeconomic policy is an area in which economists have done a lot of thinking about institutional prerequisites. The same is true in a few other areas, such as education policy and telecom regulation.

But in other areas, such as trade, employment, or industrial policies, prevailing thinking is either naïve or non-existent. That is a pity, because economists’ understanding of the substantive issues, professional obsession with incentives, and attention to unanticipated consequences give them a natural advantage in designing institutional arrangements to further the objectives in question while minimising behavioural distortions.

Designing appropriate institutional arrangements also requires both local knowledge and creativity. What works in one setting is unlikely to work in another.

While import liberalisation works fine for integrating with the world economy when import-competing interests are not powerful and the currency is unlikely to become overvalued, export subsidies or special economic zones will work far better in other circumstances. Similarly, central bank independence may be a great idea when monetary instability is the binding constraint, but it will backfire where the real challenge is poor competitiveness.

Unfortunately, the type of institutional reform promoted by, among others, the World Bank, IMF, and the World Trade Organisation is biased toward a best-practice model, which presumes that a set of universally appropriate institutional arrangements can be determined and views convergence towards them as being inherently desirable. But best-practice institutions are, by definition, non-contextual and cannot take local complications into account. Insofar as they narrow rather than expand the menu of available institutional choices, they serve the cause of good governance badly.

Good governance is good in and of itself. It can also be good for growth when it is targeted at binding constraints. Too much focus on broad issues, such as rule of law and accountability, runs the risk that policymakers will end up tilting at windmills while overlooking the particular governance challenges most closely linked to economic growth. —DT-PS

Dani Rodrik, Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School of Government, is the first recipient of the Social Science Research Council’s Albert O Hirschman Prize. His latest book is One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalisation, Institutions, and Economic Growth

 

[opinion786]

Out of 160 million Pakistani ONLY 27 million voted !

Democracy is DEMON-CRAZY ! We need leaders and not democracy. These leaders hould deliver : Education, infrastructure, Health, Economy, Job creation, Roads networks, Dams, electricity, water, etc.

We got most of these in Musharraf's semi-democratic era! Musharraf - our Leader!

 

[ddrbdgzy]

democracy is a good thing, but it decides by where,when,and how you use it, and sometime it is more like a ceonomic concept than political ,but it is converse at other time.

 

[batmannow]

looking at the democracy, and its failed history in pakistan, the only suitable
and posible, system comes into mind is CHINESE model , which made china became succsessfull in the every aspect of the commonman,s life .

democracy is realy is , the biggest problm, from which pakistan has been sufffering scince its creation... in 1947. i guss now it is the time that pakistan should move in the direction on CHINESE REVOLUTIONARY STYLE OF GOVERMENT. a little mix up of islamic values with chinese system would be good enough for pakistan to run smoothly... and achive succses in the departments of ECONOMY, DEFENCE, AND ENERGY.... and for the betterment of the common people should be put, on the list of top priorties.

the question is who can lead pakistan towards, that revolutionary system????
yes the answer is pakistan army, only pakistan army as a institution in pakistan had proved that it can remain intact and can sustain hits or preasure from every angle.

i would like to, advocate for a revolutionary martaillaw for the time of at least 15 to 20 years , in which elections could be allowed , at provincial level, and on city govt level... and the elected goverment should be given the tasks to achive economic, and energy... power sucsess all kind of critisizm should be banned........... it only way left........ for pakistan!!!

 

[blain2]

I don't blame democracy, rather the so called democrats of Pakistan. If they had ever acted or behaved in the manner of democrats, we would not be bad-mouthing democracy. Having said this, I also do not believe that some other hybrid/best of breed type of a system may not work for Pakistan. I think a Presidential system maybe better. Instead of a troika to deal with in Pakistan, at least then you only have two entities, the Presidency and the military to work it out.

 

[mujahideen]

I don't blame democracy, rather the so called democrats of Pakistan. If they had ever acted or behaved in the manner of democrats, we would not be bad-mouthing democracy. Having said this, I also do not believe that some other hybrid/best of breed type of a system may not work for Pakistan. I think a Presidential system maybe better. Instead of a troika to deal with in Pakistan, at least then you only have two entities, the Presidency and the military to work it out.

Well said. Democracy is made for Pakistan but our democrats are not made for democracy. We certainly need a Presidential system.

 

[muse]

Just a reminder to all to read with care - no where in his article does Mr. Quraishi suggest that "Democracy" has failed in Pakistan, rather the point he has made is that "Westminster" style of governance is a failure in Pakistan - reasonable persons will not doubt that "Westminster" is a failure in Pakistan. Mr. Quraishi and a good number of others suggest that we may find in the model of governance in China, a possible solution for Pakistan. Whereas "Westminster" in Pakistan offers up diverse power centers, Pakistan, as the China model suggests, needs a more unified, more central model of governance, a presidential system.

This does not mean that Majlis does not have a role in the presidential system, rather, it means that the role of the Majlis is to legislate, not govern!!!!, the role of the judiciary is to exercise law, not make law!!!

But ofcourse Pakistani politicians want little other than power - but which politician does not - on the other hand, power to do what?? what "SERVICE" can the ordinary Pakistani expect from the politician? Judges, lawyers movement, what service is provided to the pakistani people in this?? PCO was bad and wrong?? Why then did the Chief justice swear an oth to uphold it?? If PCO is bad and wrong, what about NRO??

The ambitions of the Sharif brothers and those behind them are the primary engine driving the present political instability, combined with terrorism, this instability, this inability to see the interest of Pakistan over personal interest, may in the near future, be regretted.

 

[batmannow]

MY DEAR MUSE SIR,
welldone, and well said. keep up the good work!!!

 

[gpit]

...

gpit:
There is no such thing as "limited democracy." Perhaps, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a perfect example.

...

Yes, there are.

In earlier US, for instance.

In some sense, low voting rate is another sign of partial/limited democracy: a kind of democracy that many people are not interested.

 

[x_man]

'' Corrupt Politicians, Arrogant Military Dictators, Hypocrite Mullahs ''

I AM NOT A PREJUDICE OR BIASED…..I HATE EVERYONE EQUALLY...

While we are trying our utmost to prove that our guy is the best for Pakistan and at the same time trying to score as many points against our opponent….we should realise that nobody in clean here…neither the civvies nor the military …..Everyone has damaged this country in his/her own way…and everone has blood of innocent on their hands..

Keep your biases and affiliations aside for one moment and have a serious look at the state of our country …. It’s been 60 years since independence and probably it’s in a more bruised and battered state than what we got…Both civilian and military leadership have equally played their part in its destruction…we cant isolate one and blame the other….Probably the only thing we can discuss here is that who has done the least damage or who is the least of the evil….

Till the time we are not able to confine the military to the cantonments and civilian leadership under control thru independent courts, we are not getting anywhere…..this marshal law / democracy cycle will continue to be like this and even after passing another 60 years, we will be in the same state , still having the same blame game and still kicking each others butts….

 

[fatman17]

PCO was bad and wrong?? Why then did the Chief justice swear an oth to uphold it?? If PCO is bad and wrong, what about NRO??.

good point and that is why CJ iftikhar ch. will not be re-instated because he will deem the PCO and NRO and everything anti-constitutional as illegal (the lawyers will want this) and we all know what that means. the whole current game is about personal vandettas and to hell with the needs of the people.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

One wonders what is limited democracy.

Low voting rate does not mean that full democracy is not at work. The very fact that one is allowed to vote or not vote, is in itself, democracy where one is allowed to exercise one's desire and will.

I don't think that forcing people by a diktat and ensuring 100% voting is full democracy!!

Democracy is the free will of the people.