Democracy Myth

[Energon]

Primarily because IMO Pakistan has to eventually become a democracy. Transition from a dictatorship via a sham democracy is better than continued dictatorship. In the north of England there is saying:

"Softly softly catch a monkey"

This applies to democracy in Pakistan. It is only by repeated elections and change of government by peaceful means that democartic values can be inculcated into our society.

Again, I have to disagree with you on this point.
Your conclusions seems to based on the "axiom" that democracy is a superior form of governance under any and all conditions. This is far from true. This idea was nothing more than propaganda proliferated by the USA and other developed NATO nations during the cold war for their own interests (including social engineering at home). Unfortunately after years of rhetoric they now have to act like they actually believe this in order to stay in good stead with their constituencies who believe the absolute superiority of democracy to be a fact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-democracy by any means. In fact I enjoy all its benefits in my own country as well as that of my ethnic heritage where a large number of my family still lives. But one cannot deny that democracy is an extremely complex form of governance that requires certain societal foundations to be in place which are not that easy to engineer.

This is why there are many countries and societies in which democracy does not seem to work; and attempting to impose it on account of the above mentioned propaganda does more damage than good. There are also nations out there which have rejected democracy and seem to be doing very well without it. Oman, UAE, Qatar etc are some examples. I myself have spent a few years living in these countries and find that the local populace is very content with their form of leadership.

Stability and progress with prosperity in mind IMO are far more valuable virtues; and as China and the previously mentioned nations have proven, aren't necessarily contingent upon democracy.

Let us not forget that Pakistan has already had it's chances with democracy; and time and time again it has failed; this should indicate something. Also, as I mentioned in my earlier post, during Pakistan's democratic years in the 80s and 90s it was far more unstable and regressive than under Musharraf's regime. At least Musharraf has shown the ability to put Pakistan on an upward trajectory... which is a whole lot more than either Benazir or Nawaz.

 

[Energon]

Just to further clarify my stance; I am by no means endorsing autocracy. I believe stability, progress and prosperity to be the most important objectives for an under developed nation; and method of governance or leadership should be evaluated on a case by case basis. It just so happens that in the case of Pakistan right now, Pervez Musharraf as a dictator-general seems to be the best candidate and should have been supported whole heartedly.

By projecting unrealistic values of democracy in this case and weakening Musharraf by asking him to resign his military post as well as entertaining proven bad apples such as Benazir and Nawaz is a big mistake.