Democracy Myth

[fatman17]

a must read for democracy supporters (read nawaz supporters)...reality bites

Democracy Myth
Fantasy Pakistan.

By Stanley Kurtz

Pakistan is not a democracy. Pakistan has never been a democracy. Should Pakistan adopt the electoral trappings of democracy in the near-term, that would not make Pakistan an authentic liberal democracy. Free and fair elections just might dissolve Pakistan into chaos, and/or begin a process of evolution toward Islamist domination. Elections or not, if Pakistan achieves stability any time soon, it will not be due to democracy. Pakistani stability in the near-term can only be the result of a precarious balance between political factions that are largely illiberal and undemocratic. Elections, at best, will throw a veil over a complex and fragile behind-the-scenes political deal. Pakistan’s 1970 election — the freest and fairest in the nation’s history — resulted in civil war, war with India, and the partition of the country into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Led by a naive media, the United States and Europe are being sold a bill of goods. We hear a lot about a “genuine return to democracy,” “the restoration of full democracy,” or the “restoration of the constitution.” All of this will supposedly follow an end to the emergency and the advent of free and fair elections. This is nonsense. Democracy and the constitution cannot be restored in Pakistan because, in any serious sense, neither democracy nor constitutional rule has ever existed there.

The army has been openly in power for about half of Pakistan’s history — and in control behind the scenes for most of the rest. Pakistan’s most democratic leader was the nation’s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Yet in practice, even Jinnah insisted on total control, leaving an autocratic legacy to successors who cared far less than he for democracy. In all of Pakistan’s history, there has never been a peaceful transfer of power between two elected governments. Every elected Pakistani government has been deposed or summarily dismissed. Most elections have been manipulated by Pakistan’s intelligence services. Only Zulfikar Ali Bhutto completed an elected term in office, and he was subsequently hanged after a military coup. From independence day to the present, Pakistan political trajectory has been one long evolution away from the democratic ideals of its founding.
In near-willful ignorance of this history, America is opening itself up to manipulation by savvy Pakistanis, and setting this country up for disappointment and failure. Instead of calmly confronting the exceedingly difficult options we face in this troubled land, we are allowing ourselves to be misled by naive hopes for the “restoration” of a democracy that never existed.

Consider “Digging in Deeper in Pakistan,” a New York Times editorial that nicely summarizes the implicit consensus behind mainstream media reporting on Pakistan’s emergency. The Times chastises the Bush administration for retaining any connection whatever with General Musharraf. In place of the administration’s attempt to put together a deal between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf, the Times wants us to encourage Bhutto to join with her longtime rival, Nawaz Sharif, in a “civilian democratic front.” That would cut Musharraf and the army out of power altogether. President Bush “must make it clear once and for all that Washington is firmly on the side of democracy,” says the Times. Remarkably, the Times is willing to hold American efforts to recruit tribal allies in Pakistan’s Islamist northwest hostage to greater democracy.

I’d revert to jokes about the Times turning neocon, but that’s not quite what’s happening here. (See “More Armed Brothers.”) For all the Democrats’ attacks on the naivete of the president’s democratization policy, a powerful stream within the Democratic party would take the administration’s democratization strategy a giant step further, in effect trying to buy off Islamists by allowing them into the political process. Of course neither the Islamists nor the process in question would be authentic liberal democracy. But that won’t stop many Dems from using offers of electoral participation as a substitute for standing up to the Islamists. The New York Times is foreshadowing such a shift already.
Democracy might be a solution to Pakistan’s problems if there were anything like an authentically liberal democratic tradition available to support. Unfortunately, the media’s focus on protesting lawyers notwithstanding, there is no such tradition in sight. Authentic liberal democracy may be a fine long-term goal for Pakistan to work toward, but holding the war on terror hostage to the phantasm of near-term democracy is very bad policy indeed.
The New York Times is eager to forge a coalition between Benazir Bhutto and her erstwhile rival Nawaz Sharif, whose boisterous return to Pakistan on Sunday has jumbled an already chaotic political scene. Be careful what you wish for, NYT. Sharif, who has been sheltered by “democracy central” (a.k.a. Saudi Arabia) since Musharraf displaced him in a 1999 coup, is the most Islamist-friendly mainstream leader in Pakistan. A protege of General Zia ul-Haq, the military dictator who first brought Islamist influence directly into Pakistan’s government and army, Sharif has allied with Islamists to gain power before and could easily do so again. The “secular” scion of a wealthy, religiously conservative family, Sharif lifted not a finger to roll back Zia’s Islamist reforms when he was in power. (For that matter, neither did “Western, secular, liberal,” Benazir Bhutto.)
On the contrary, Sharif openly honored Zia’s memory and goals. In fact, he extended them. Having pushed a bill to enshrine Sharia law in Pakistan’s constitution through the lower house in 1999, Sharif was one “democratic” election away from moving the bill through the Senate when Musharraf deposed him. Since then, Musharraf alone has pushed back against Zia’s Islamist reforms. And Musharraf made that effort from the moment he took power — well before his famous post-9/11 turnaround.

Ah, but you say that, unlike that nasty old military dictator Musharraf, at least Sharif is part of a “civilian democratic front.” Really? Since when has Nawaz Sharif had a democratic bone in his body? Apparently, since yesterday. It seems that as soon as his flight from Saudi Arabia landed in Pakistan, Sharif was on the phone to the BBC. “We want democracy and nothing else,” Sharif told the BBC. Boldly promising to make “efforts to rid the country of the dictatorship,” Sharif pledged to “restore the rule of law and strengthen democracy.” (There’s that word “restore” again.) Well, anyway, I believe the part about Sharif wanting to get rid of Musharraf.

Aside from being corrupt and incompetent, what did Nawaz Sharif actually do during his two, rudely interrupted (as usual) stints as Pakistan’s Prime Minister? After having been displaced in the middle of his first term (a term which was, in any case, the product of a manipulated election), Sharif began his second term determined to destroy all political opposition. Sharif bought glowing press coverage with a steady stream of bribes (Musharraf has allowed much more press criticism), while launching tax investigations against critical voices in the press. (By the way, virtually no-one in Pakistan pays taxes. The Pakistani “state,” such as it is, survives on taxes collected from less than one percent of citizens — and nearly half of that is pocketed by the tax collectors themselves. So “tax investigation” is a synonym for “jail.” But let’s get back to Pakistani “democracy” under Sharif.) In his second term, Sharif saw to it that newspapermen not already silenced by tax investigations were directly arrested and beaten.

Having bought off and intimidated the press, Sharif blocked political opposition by pushing through a constitutional amendment requiring all members of Pakistan’s National Assembly to vote along party lines. So much for parliament. Meanwhile, Sharif got rid of troublesome judges by transferring them, and saw to it that local elections were fixed. The boldest move of all was a physical attack on Pakistan’s Supreme Court by a mob of furniture-smashing Sharif supporters when the Court was about to restrict the Prime Minister’s actions. That’s right, the same Supreme Court so rudely and recently strong-armed by Musharraf was even more crudely attacked by the man the media has now anointed as one of Musharraf’s premiere “democratic” opponents.

Although the our newspaper of record faces a declining subscription base, I feel sure Nawaz Sharif is an avid reader of the New York Times, and the rest of the Western press as well. Sharif knows the West has elevated him into a savior of democracy, and Sharif understands how desperately we want to believe it. So naturally, even before Sharif joined his delirious supporters on the tarmac in Lahore, he was on his mobile phone to reassure a credulous BBC that he was indeed the fulfillment of the West’s democratic dreams. Sharif (and his far smoother politician-brother) are wise in the ways of the West, while we are pitifully naive about Pakistan.

Pakistan’s politicians and their followers are manipulating us at will. But mostly, with our hopes for easy escape from the terrors of the war on terror, we are manipulating ourselves. We want to be fooled. We want to believe that someday soon they’ll be “just like us,” that all will be well, that democracy provides a simple way to avoid the agonizing struggle ahead. Let’s stop playing all those nasty old tribal games (the rules of which we ill understand) and have all those far-away folks play our pleasant democratic game instead. The trouble is they’ve been pretending to play our game for the past sixty years and it hasn’t worked yet. Pakistan is not a democracy. Pakistan has never been a democracy. Woe to us if Nawaz Sharif and his “democratic” friends take power. And shame on us if, charmed by manipulators of that magical word “democracy,” we hand power to Nawaz Sharif and his Islamist allies on a silver platter.

 

[aryan2007]

a must read for democracy supporters (read nawaz supporters)...reality bites

Democracy Myth
Fantasy Pakistan.

By Stanley Kurtz

Pakistan is not a democracy. Pakistan has never been a democracy. Should Pakistan adopt the electoral trappings of democracy in the near-term, that would not make Pakistan an authentic liberal democracy. Free and fair elections just might dissolve Pakistan into chaos, and/or begin a process of evolution toward Islamist domination. Elections or not, if Pakistan achieves stability any time soon, it will not be due to democracy. Pakistani stability in the near-term can only be the result of a precarious balance between political factions that are largely illiberal and undemocratic. Elections, at best, will throw a veil over a complex and fragile behind-the-scenes political deal. Pakistan’s 1970 election — the freest and fairest in the nation’s history — resulted in civil war, war with India, and the partition of the country into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Led by a naive media, the United States and Europe are being sold a bill of goods. We hear a lot about a “genuine return to democracy,” “the restoration of full democracy,” or the “restoration of the constitution.” All of this will supposedly follow an end to the emergency and the advent of free and fair elections. This is nonsense. Democracy and the constitution cannot be restored in Pakistan because, in any serious sense, neither democracy nor constitutional rule has ever existed there.

The army has been openly in power for about half of Pakistan’s history — and in control behind the scenes for most of the rest. Pakistan’s most democratic leader was the nation’s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Yet in practice, even Jinnah insisted on total control, leaving an autocratic legacy to successors who cared far less than he for democracy. In all of Pakistan’s history, there has never been a peaceful transfer of power between two elected governments. Every elected Pakistani government has been deposed or summarily dismissed. Most elections have been manipulated by Pakistan’s intelligence services. Only Zulfikar Ali Bhutto completed an elected term in office, and he was subsequently hanged after a military coup. From independence day to the present, Pakistan political trajectory has been one long evolution away from the democratic ideals of its founding.
In near-willful ignorance of this history, America is opening itself up to manipulation by savvy Pakistanis, and setting this country up for disappointment and failure. Instead of calmly confronting the exceedingly difficult options we face in this troubled land, we are allowing ourselves to be misled by naive hopes for the “restoration” of a democracy that never existed.

Consider “Digging in Deeper in Pakistan,” a New York Times editorial that nicely summarizes the implicit consensus behind mainstream media reporting on Pakistan’s emergency. The Times chastises the Bush administration for retaining any connection whatever with General Musharraf. In place of the administration’s attempt to put together a deal between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf, the Times wants us to encourage Bhutto to join with her longtime rival, Nawaz Sharif, in a “civilian democratic front.” That would cut Musharraf and the army out of power altogether. President Bush “must make it clear once and for all that Washington is firmly on the side of democracy,” says the Times. Remarkably, the Times is willing to hold American efforts to recruit tribal allies in Pakistan’s Islamist northwest hostage to greater democracy.

I’d revert to jokes about the Times turning neocon, but that’s not quite what’s happening here. (See “More Armed Brothers.”) For all the Democrats’ attacks on the naivete of the president’s democratization policy, a powerful stream within the Democratic party would take the administration’s democratization strategy a giant step further, in effect trying to buy off Islamists by allowing them into the political process. Of course neither the Islamists nor the process in question would be authentic liberal democracy. But that won’t stop many Dems from using offers of electoral participation as a substitute for standing up to the Islamists. The New York Times is foreshadowing such a shift already.
Democracy might be a solution to Pakistan’s problems if there were anything like an authentically liberal democratic tradition available to support. Unfortunately, the media’s focus on protesting lawyers notwithstanding, there is no such tradition in sight. Authentic liberal democracy may be a fine long-term goal for Pakistan to work toward, but holding the war on terror hostage to the phantasm of near-term democracy is very bad policy indeed.
The New York Times is eager to forge a coalition between Benazir Bhutto and her erstwhile rival Nawaz Sharif, whose boisterous return to Pakistan on Sunday has jumbled an already chaotic political scene. Be careful what you wish for, NYT. Sharif, who has been sheltered by “democracy central” (a.k.a. Saudi Arabia) since Musharraf displaced him in a 1999 coup, is the most Islamist-friendly mainstream leader in Pakistan. A protege of General Zia ul-Haq, the military dictator who first brought Islamist influence directly into Pakistan’s government and army, Sharif has allied with Islamists to gain power before and could easily do so again. The “secular” scion of a wealthy, religiously conservative family, Sharif lifted not a finger to roll back Zia’s Islamist reforms when he was in power. (For that matter, neither did “Western, secular, liberal,” Benazir Bhutto.)
On the contrary, Sharif openly honored Zia’s memory and goals. In fact, he extended them. Having pushed a bill to enshrine Sharia law in Pakistan’s constitution through the lower house in 1999, Sharif was one “democratic” election away from moving the bill through the Senate when Musharraf deposed him. Since then, Musharraf alone has pushed back against Zia’s Islamist reforms. And Musharraf made that effort from the moment he took power — well before his famous post-9/11 turnaround.

Ah, but you say that, unlike that nasty old military dictator Musharraf, at least Sharif is part of a “civilian democratic front.” Really? Since when has Nawaz Sharif had a democratic bone in his body? Apparently, since yesterday. It seems that as soon as his flight from Saudi Arabia landed in Pakistan, Sharif was on the phone to the BBC. “We want democracy and nothing else,” Sharif told the BBC. Boldly promising to make “efforts to rid the country of the dictatorship,” Sharif pledged to “restore the rule of law and strengthen democracy.” (There’s that word “restore” again.) Well, anyway, I believe the part about Sharif wanting to get rid of Musharraf.

Aside from being corrupt and incompetent, what did Nawaz Sharif actually do during his two, rudely interrupted (as usual) stints as Pakistan’s Prime Minister? After having been displaced in the middle of his first term (a term which was, in any case, the product of a manipulated election), Sharif began his second term determined to destroy all political opposition. Sharif bought glowing press coverage with a steady stream of bribes (Musharraf has allowed much more press criticism), while launching tax investigations against critical voices in the press. (By the way, virtually no-one in Pakistan pays taxes. The Pakistani “state,” such as it is, survives on taxes collected from less than one percent of citizens — and nearly half of that is pocketed by the tax collectors themselves. So “tax investigation” is a synonym for “jail.” But let’s get back to Pakistani “democracy” under Sharif.) In his second term, Sharif saw to it that newspapermen not already silenced by tax investigations were directly arrested and beaten.

Having bought off and intimidated the press, Sharif blocked political opposition by pushing through a constitutional amendment requiring all members of Pakistan’s National Assembly to vote along party lines. So much for parliament. Meanwhile, Sharif got rid of troublesome judges by transferring them, and saw to it that local elections were fixed. The boldest move of all was a physical attack on Pakistan’s Supreme Court by a mob of furniture-smashing Sharif supporters when the Court was about to restrict the Prime Minister’s actions. That’s right, the same Supreme Court so rudely and recently strong-armed by Musharraf was even more crudely attacked by the man the media has now anointed as one of Musharraf’s premiere “democratic” opponents.

Although the our newspaper of record faces a declining subscription base, I feel sure Nawaz Sharif is an avid reader of the New York Times, and the rest of the Western press as well. Sharif knows the West has elevated him into a savior of democracy, and Sharif understands how desperately we want to believe it. So naturally, even before Sharif joined his delirious supporters on the tarmac in Lahore, he was on his mobile phone to reassure a credulous BBC that he was indeed the fulfillment of the West’s democratic dreams. Sharif (and his far smoother politician-brother) are wise in the ways of the West, while we are pitifully naive about Pakistan.

Pakistan’s politicians and their followers are manipulating us at will. But mostly, with our hopes for easy escape from the terrors of the war on terror, we are manipulating ourselves. We want to be fooled. We want to believe that someday soon they’ll be “just like us,” that all will be well, that democracy provides a simple way to avoid the agonizing struggle ahead. Let’s stop playing all those nasty old tribal games (the rules of which we ill understand) and have all those far-away folks play our pleasant democratic game instead. The trouble is they’ve been pretending to play our game for the past sixty years and it hasn’t worked yet. Pakistan is not a democracy. Pakistan has never been a democracy. Woe to us if Nawaz Sharif and his “democratic” friends take power. And shame on us if, charmed by manipulators of that magical word “democracy,” we hand power to Nawaz Sharif and his Islamist allies on a silver platter.

I think it is very insulting to the Pakistani to call them unable to rule over themselves.. the simple thing is to change the constitution to make the country secular, ban religous political parties(the country as such is a Muslim nation), and reduce the role of army... I think the Pakistani people can forego their differences to bring about peace and stability and reduce the armed forces budget and power....
India as a threat is low primarily because now both have nukes.. so defence spending, preference and power should be reduced and power should be given to an independent judiciary..
Having patriotic people in politics will help too... Education budget should be increased... Pakistan can help themselves and to some extent India by competing economically with them instead of competing miliatirly.. I mean you guys have nukes you guys can give a fight to any country... now Pakistan must focus on economic and human resource development... Religion should also be delinked from the state and religious aids and organizations regulated...Jihad is not a solution to unemployment or a low educatin budget... cheers

 

[Energon]

I completely agree. I was going to start a thread about this myself today but was happy to find this one.

The whole "democratization of Pakistan" is a futile idea being promoted by clueless Western nations (especially the USA) and being further exploited by Pakistani politicians to settle scores with one another. These politicians also seem to be far more driven by their greed for power (they already have more money than they can spend in this lifetime) rather than any sense of democracy or well being of the nation at large.

Now don't get me wrong, I am by no means a Musharraf fan. He did after all wrest power via a coup; and was the architect of the Kargil debacle which other than being a military failure, ended up empowering India on the international diplomatic front while diminishing the Pakistani economy and it's credibility world wide. It is also evident from his memoir that he is a megalomaniac who probably sees himself as the second coming of the Qaid-e-Azam. There is no doubt that he has also played some double games with the oodles of US aid, promoted his lackeys in the military to exert control over vast aspects of the nation ("Military Inc." Ayesha Siddiqa) and probably has a shoddy past with the terrorist elements themselves.

That however does not change the fact that right now he is Pakistan's best bet.
1. First of all, his administration has fared far better than his two political opponents and predecessors. The economy has done a lot better, the country (prior to the current turmoil) was far more stable and the corruption seems to have been lesser (I don't know this for a fact). The corruption during the reigns of Benazir and Nawaz are however legendary.
2. He has also done a lot more for the Indo-Pak peace process knowing very well that Pakistan's economic future lies in the normalization of relations with India and jumping on the prosperity bandwagon. Although the cross border terrorism in Kashmir hasn't come to a complete halt, it certainly has decreased at an exponential rate. The lowest point of this issue came under Benazir's watch when a full scale insurgency was mobilized in the Kashmir valley in 1989.
3. The tribal areas of Western Pakistan are a big problem now. But the truth of the matter is that Musharraf isn't really "responsible" for it since he inherited the unstable tribal areas and has merely continued to fail at bringing them under control. Also, one should not forget that the taliban was brought to power at the behest of Benazir's administration.
4. The pogrom against the Baluchis may be an issue (granted nobody cares about it in the international community) but this is nothing compared to Yahya's exploits with the Banglas.

As a pragmatist, and one who believes in the notion that "the best predictor of the future is the past", I can't possibly bring myself to endorse Nawaz or Benazir as two possible "solutions" to Pakistan's problems. I am also extremely disappointed in the way the USA has made a mess of this situation (our "signature c0ck-up" if you will) by feeding fuel to this sham-democracy fire.

IMHO everyone should just accept Musharraf as the sole dictator for now, let him continue to do what he started and only think about deposing him when he falls off the barrel (as all dictators do at some point).

 

[Energon]

I think it is very insulting to the Pakistani to call them unable to rule over themselves.. the simple thing is to change the constitution to make the country secular, ban religous political parties(the country as such is a Muslim nation), and reduce the role of army... I think the Pakistani people can forego their differences to bring about peace and stability and reduce the armed forces budget and power....
India as a threat is low primarily because now both have nukes.. so defence spending, preference and power should be reduced and power should be given to an independent judiciary..

I think you're oversimplifying the issue. First, history shows that time and time again, when leaders come into power in Pakistan, they either totally disregard the consitution or freely edit it for their personal convenience. Hence, there is no point in re-writing the constitution (again) if it isn't going to be followed in the first place. Secondly, I think you're overlooking the fact that Pakistan was created with the sole intention of being an Islamic nation governed by some version of Islamic law. If this weren't the case the constituency would have remained with India, a Secular democracy. It will be impossible to decrease the influence of the army considering that in Pakistan, the army itself has always been a political party, and the most powerful one at that. Most of the nation's core capacities are under the control of the military on account of years of military dictatorship. How does one realistically go about reversing all of this? It's easy to say that the military should be removed from power, but the reality on the ground negates this assertion at all levels.
India historically has never really been a threat since none of the open conflicts (47,65,71, 99) were ever initiated by India. Nor will India be a threat in the near future since their economic development objectives are antithetical to initiating military operations against Pakistan. This was evident during 2002. It's funny how many people are still under the impression that it was Pakistani directed American pressure that stopped the Indian Army from marching into Pakistan. As Thomas Friedman aptly put in his book... 'It wasn't General Colin Powell that stopped the Indian army from going all out on Pakistan but General Electric.' Also, as the 'defender of the nation', the Pakistan Army hasn't ever succeded given the less than favorable outcomes of each open conflict. The most damage done to India has been via covert insurgencies and terrorism which although supported by the PA up to a certain degree is far more under the control of the ISI.
IMO India is only the "boogeyman" used by the PA to stay in power and monopolize the limited resources.

Having patriotic people in politics will help too... Education budget should be increased... Pakistan can help themselves and to some extent India by competing economically with them instead of competing miliatirly.. I mean you guys have nukes you guys can give a fight to any country... now Pakistan must focus on economic and human resource development... Religion should also be delinked from the state and religious aids and organizations regulated...Jihad is not a solution to unemployment or a low educatin budget... cheers

Again, you are over simplifying the issue. Increasing the education budget will do nothing if the level of education is substandard and marred with religious dogma. I'm sure the Saudis will be more than happy to spring for more Madrassas... would that be fine?
Also how do you expect Pakistan to "compete economically" with India or even China for that matter if they do not have the same industrial and service based infrastructure or the necessary qualified/trained human resources to do so?
And again, you are overlooking the fact that Pakistan was established to be an Islamic state in the first place. It will be impossible to sever religion from politics in a nation based on religious identity unless there is a vast concerted movement from within (such as in the case of Turkey). But such an endeavor imo is unrealistic for Pakistan in the near future.

 

[aryan2007]

I think you're oversimplifying the issue. First, history shows that time and time again, when leaders come into power in Pakistan, they either totally disregard the consitution or freely edit it for their personal convenience. Hence, there is no point in re-writing the constitution (again) if it isn't going to be followed in the first place.

The constitution is like the cornerstone of a nation, like the core of the nation.. Constitution should have self safeguard and checks and when the next democratic gov comes stop the army or intel agencies from taking over simple. there are a variety of ways to do this...follow the one's which are toughest to enforce..

Secondly, I think you're overlooking the fact that Pakistan was created with the sole intention of being an Islamic nation governed by some version of Islamic law. If this weren't the case the constituency would have remained with India, a Secular democracy.

Pakistan's creation was to retain the Muslim influence and safeguard Muslim interests and nothing to do with religion as such... It was not an Islam versus non Islam fight.. the areas with a muslim majority voted for Muslim League and during election and these areas became part of E&W Pakistan in 1947..

It will be impossible to decrease the influence of the army considering that in Pakistan, the army itself has always been a political party, and the most powerful one at that. Most of the nation's core capacities are under the control of the military on account of years of military dictatorship. How does one realistically go about reversing all of this? It's easy to say that the military should be removed from power, but the reality on the ground negates this assertion at all levels.

Who said it is going to be simple.. if Pakistan honestly wants good for itself some tough steps have to be taken.. and major stumbling blocks are Army, Intel, Madrasa, foreign dependence and weak media and judiciary..

India historically has never really been a threat since none of the open conflicts (47,65,71, 99) were ever initiated by India. Nor will India be a threat in the near future since their economic development objectives are antithetical to initiating military operations against Pakistan. This was evident during 2002. It's funny how many people are still under the impression that it was Pakistani directed American pressure that stopped the Indian Army from marching into Pakistan. As Thomas Friedman aptly put in his book... 'It wasn't General Colin Powell that stopped the Indian army from going all out on Pakistan but General Electric.' Also, as the 'defender of the nation', the Pakistan Army hasn't ever succeded given the less than favorable outcomes of each open conflict. The most damage done to India has been via covert insurgencies and terrorism which although supported by the PA up to a certain degree is far more under the control of the ISI.
IMO India is only the "boogeyman" used by the PA to stay in power and monopolize the limited resources.

Couldn't agree with you more...

Again, you are over simplifying the issue. Increasing the education budget will do nothing if the level of education is substandard and marred with religious dogma. I'm sure the Saudis will be more than happy to spring for more Madrassas... would that be fine?

Pakistan should completely stop madrasa's foreign funding at least.. and start a centralised education system
They should Initate reforms aggressively and radically.. There is a semi clash of civilastion ongoing in Pakistan .. there are the ultra-conservatives and the liberals.. and these are not relegated to rich or poor class... I mean UC's are there in rich and middle classes as well.. so it won't be easy..
It will take time to correct the wrong policies but it can be done..

Also how do you expect Pakistan to "compete economically" with India or even China for that matter if they do not have the same industrial and service based infrastructure or the necessary qualified/trained human resources to do so?

I think when it comes to govt.s Indian govt is much worse than Pakistani govt even under emergency.. there is pervasive corruption, no govt support, draconian laws.. It is a wonder that India is clocking growth... honestly..

And again, you are overlooking the fact that Pakistan was established to be an Islamic state in the first place.

Nope.. Pakistan was a Muslim dominated "theocractic" democracy but Jinnah's vision was of a secular state at least in his speech he said that..

It will be impossible to sever religion from politics in a nation based on religious identity unless there is a vast concerted movement from within (such as in the case of Turkey). But such an endeavor imo is unrealistic for Pakistan in the near future.

I agree but Political will is something which can be generated.. and Pakistanis don't realise that they are in midst of a turmoil and identity crisis..
I see lots of Pakistanis cheering Defence purchases which are a massive strain on their weak economy and is a false ego boost.. India is at a stage that cannot outdo Pakistan in defence by at least 10:1.. there is a very heavy leaning towards religion which IMO is not a bad thing but coupled with young people with nothing else to do and propganda of ultra-radicals is a cocktail for disaster.. they have to revolutionise stuff in their country even if they feel presently there country is progressing etc.. you have to lay a solid foundation for the future growth which is lacking in Pakistan today;.. They don't have the oil or the money like the Arabs to become that backward they must follow the example of Turkey or Malaysia as model progressive Muslim nations..

 

[BATMAN]

I think it is very insulting to the Pakistani to call them unable to rule over themselves..

there is no such history that Pakistan ever was ruled by any non-Pakistani.
I agree there has been lot of foreign interference in our domestic affairs.

the simple thing is to change the constitution to make the country secular, ban religous political parties(the country as such is a Muslim nation),

OK and as per your experience what exactly should we change in our constitution which will help the sincier cause?

and reduce the role of army...

I agree, if you mean in politics but Army has always been dragged in to the politics by the very same political party. remeber PPP celebrated when Military took over in 1999.
Nawaz Sharif has openly hailed Zia during and after his life. At occasoins he mentioned him as his spiritual father.

I think the Pakistani people can forego their differences to bring about peace and stability and reduce the armed forces budget and power....
India as a threat is low primarily because now both have nukes.. so defence spending, preference and power should be reduced and power should be given to an independent judiciary..
Having patriotic people in politics will help too... Education budget should be increased... Pakistan can help themselves and to some extent India by competing economically with them instead of competing miliatirly.. I mean you guys have nukes you guys can give a fight to any country... now Pakistan must focus on economic and human resource development... Religion should also be delinked from the state and religious aids and organizations regulated...Jihad is not a solution to unemployment or a low educatin budget... cheers

Couldn't agree more

 

[aryan2007]

there is no such history that Pakistan ever was ruled by any non-Pakistani.

But for many years Pakistan was ruled by leaders not elected by its own people against their will.. they if they turned out to be good or not is not the question.. Musharraf being in power is an insult IMO..
I remember Saddam was hailed as a saviour too.. leaders undemocratically chosen should be made illegal and illegitemate...

OK and as per your experience what exactly should we change in our constitution which will help the sincier cause?

Place Judiciary higher than all braches.. and army lower than the executive and legislative.. Army is for outside borders purposes only...

I agree, if you mean in politics but Army has always been dragged in to the politics by the very same political party. remeber PPP celebrated when Military took over in 1999.
Nawaz Sharif has openly hailed Zia during and after his life. At occasoins he mentioned him as his spiritual father.

Well this is stupidity and exploitation.. Pakistani people by now ought to look through such political motives.. Army is just a stop gap measure..constant army influence has not helped the Pakistani cause.. they are regularly in the failed state's list for precisely this reason.. even in Thailand where you have the army seizing power but they have the King who is the highest authority Pakistan doesn't have anyone to keep the army in check and the only body that can keep it in check is the Constituion and its protector Judiciary...

 

[fatman17]

its really surprising that not many pakistani forum members have re-acted to this thread. i wonder why?
I can understand the re-action of our indian forum friends.

 

[niaz]

IMO Mr Stanley Kurtz should be applauded for writting an article about Pakistan without minicing words. I can confirm, based upon my personnel experience, that what he says is true to a large extent.

However, Mr Kurtz seems to have been partial to PPP. Pray tell me in which Western Country has any party elected any one Chair Person for LIFE!! as in case of PPP. Unless BB is killed off, no one else can ever become leader of PPP and she is champion of democracy. This is not a travesty of democratic principles, what is??

When Nawaz Sharif goes to jail, he appoints his wife ( Kulsoom Sharif) as acting leader of Muslim League. Even in the ANP, Wali Khan made his wife acting leader ANP. Mufti Mahmood leaves his son Fazlur Rahman to lead JUI.
( Lalu Parshad did the same in Behar in India, but two wrongs dont make a right)

Even though I dislike Jamaat Islami, its Amirs are democratically elected.

We shouldn't feel insulted when someone writes the truth. For heavens sake, in Pakistan, women are sentenced to gang rape just because their brother insulted another tribe by an alleged liasion ( Mukhtaran Mai). What do you expect of a culture where such actions and "Vani" is common place. There is still bonded labour in Sindh and women are married to 'Quran' to avoid giving them dowry. Unless we recognise that such heinous acts are present in our culture, we will never be able to get rid of these.

Lawyers, judges, polticians, generals, and the media; all of them are hungry for power and have their own axe to grind. West should understand that their values cannot be applied to Pakistan which is still a largely tribal society. What we seriously lack are Statesmen, who are able to ramrod unpopular decisions and reform the society.

Not withstanding the above, I would prefer a sham democracy to a military rule and would hope that elections are held as scheduled. Also upto 1958 some sorts of democracy existed in Pakistan which was better than what was to follow.

 

[Energon]

Not withstanding the above, I would prefer a sham democracy to a military rule and would hope that elections are held as scheduled. Also upto 1958 some sorts of democracy existed in Pakistan which was better than what was to follow.

This is the part I do not follow. Evidence suggests that Musharraf has done a lot more for the well being of Pakistan than either of his two opponents. It is also clear that neither Nawaz nor Benazir are beholders of true democratic spirit. Also it is unlikely that the power the Pakistan Army weilds in the politics of the nation is going to go away. In the past this has led to misunderstandings between the non military politicians and the Army such as the nuclear arms standoff in the latter part of the Kargil war. Is is not better to just stick with the military and Musharraf for now since they seem to be doing better than the rest?

 

[niaz]

This is the part I do not follow. Evidence suggests that Musharraf has done a lot more for the well being of Pakistan than either of his two opponents. It is also clear that neither Nawaz nor Benazir are beholders of true democratic spirit. Also it is unlikely that the power the Pakistan Army weilds in the politics of the nation is going to go away. In the past this has led to misunderstandings between the non military politicians and the Army such as the nuclear arms standoff in the latter part of the Kargil war. Is is not better to just stick with the military and Musharraf for now since they seem to be doing better than the rest?

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.

 

[danishsaleem]

Salam to all,


My question is , We separated from INDIA, because of two nation theory, and the Two nation Theory clearly stated that Hindus and Muslims are two seperate entities, and they cannot be live together. But on the other hand Hindus said, that India is a secular state, and their no distinguish between any religius entity.

So if we want to be secular, then its absuletly bases less, that we seperated from the world most biggest Secular state and wanted to be secular, with our own entity.

Thirdly i wanted to know what's the meaning of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, now if you clearly read the name, we are now not islamist nor republicans.

So my point is we lost our way, and we are heading towards unknown distination.

Danish saleem

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Salam to all,


My question is , We separated from INDIA, because of two nation theory, and the Two nation Theory clearly stated that Hindus and Muslims are two seperate entities, and they cannot be live together. But on the other hand Hindus said, that India is a secular state, and their no distinguish between any religius entity.

So if we want to be secular, then its absuletly bases less, that we seperated from the world most biggest Secular state and wanted to be secular, with our own entity.

Thirdly i wanted to know what's the meaning of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, now if you clearly read the name, we are now not islamist nor republicans.

So my point is we lost our way, and we are heading towards unknown distination.

Danish saleem

I believe both you and Energon are mistaken in suggesting that a "secular" Pakistan implies that we should not have separated from India. Aryan explained it quite well - creating a state that allows Muslims to safeguard their interests does not automatically imply that it has to be a theocratic Islamic state. I don't think most Pakistanis are able to make the distinction either.

Jinnah, as my signature indicates, was quite clear about what he expected this nation to exist as, and it is a shame that he was not able to cement his vision.

With respect to the article, I completely agree with his assessment, and perhaps this arrangement of Musharraf as president, along with a coalition government, may allow some more time for the country and society to evolve.

 

[aryan2007]

IMO Mr Stanley Kurtz should be applauded for writting an article about Pakistan without minicing words. I can confirm, based upon my personnel experience, that what he says is true to a large extent.

However, Mr Kurtz seems to have been partial to PPP. Pray tell me in which Western Country has any party elected any one Chair Person for LIFE!! as in case of PPP. Unless BB is killed off, no one else can ever become leader of PPP and she is champion of democracy. This is not a travesty of democratic principles, what is??
When Nawaz Sharif goes to jail, he appoints his wife ( Kulsoom Sharif) as acting leader of Muslim League. Even in the ANP, Wali Khan made his wife acting leader ANP. Mufti Mahmood leaves his son Fazlur Rahman to lead JUI.
( Lalu Parshad did the same in Behar in India, but two wrongs dont make a right)
Even though I dislike Jamaat Islami, its Amirs are democratically elected.

Though this family based politics is prevalent in many countries but if people don't want 'em don't vote for 'em... therein comes one's sense of duty to the nation... but everyone needs an anchor.. for example the anchor of Congress is the Gandhi family, the anchor of PPP is Bhutto Family etc.. This also reflects the subservient attitude of South Asia but things are looking up it shall take time... as for appointing one's spouse in absence is a very political one.. LIke Lalu did it because he didn't want to let go and he can control his wife but not his unruly party members etc..

LIke JamatIslami even RSS leaders are democractically chosen ;-) we must learn something from religious parties..

We shouldn't feel insulted when someone writes the truth. For heavens sake, in Pakistan, women are sentenced to gang rape just because their brother insulted another tribe by an alleged liasion ( Mukhtaran Mai). What do you expect of a culture where such actions and "Vani" is common place. There is still bonded labour in Sindh and women are married to 'Quran' to avoid giving them dowry. Unless we recognise that such heinous acts are present in our culture, we will never be able to get rid of these.

Social ills plague every country acknowledging them is good but correcting them is better...

Lawyers, judges, polticians, generals, and the media; all of them are hungry for power and have their own axe to grind. West should understand that their values cannot be applied to Pakistan which is still a largely tribal society. What we seriously lack are Statesmen, who are able to ramrod unpopular decisions and reform the society.

I have been told that Pakistan in the 60's and 70's was more modern society wise than even in India.. but I feel that Pakistanis always depend on foreigners whether it is Saudis, Chinese or Americans ... they should realise that people have hidden agendas and the only people without a hidden agenda is Pakistanis themselves...

Pakistan is a tribal society etc. because they chose to be.. there is a massive wave of Islamisation in Pakistan as what I have observed...the day soldiers realise their not Ghazi's or the Mullah's realise religion cannot be enforced or gullible youngsters buy into calls of Jihad till then there will be a problem.. Religion is not bad.. religion mixed with politics is volatile.. and most often then not it backfires..

Not withstanding the above, I would prefer a sham democracy to a military rule and would hope that elections are held as scheduled. Also upto 1958 some sorts of democracy existed in Pakistan which was better than what was to follow.

One thing that I like in Pakistani politics is that there is not a very ethnic bias.. for example Bhutto was a Sindhi, Musharraf is a Mohajir, Sharif is Kashmiri, etc... so that is not a problem.. so democracy can exist.. tribal society like in NWFP, FATA, PATA etc can be reigned in by bringing in prosperity and actually having a political will to do it.... Issues of rural Punjab and Sindh can be tackled by enforcing Land ceiling acts or seizing their lands and thereby reducing the power of rural overlords...

What I personally feel is that Pakistan has a very foreign dependence syndrome, and a lack of Political will.. even the people prefer religious justification for their shortcomings and laziness.. as in it is ordained by God or Allah ki marzi hai..or no need for education etc. etc.. One thing God helps them who help themselves..

No one is going to salvage you out and no one can but yourselves, certain tough measures and laws are required to be enforced
democracy is one way that Pakistan can bail itself out or smother itself. communism will fail in case of Pakistan, dictatorships are good for the first couple of years and then sets you back by a decade, nor is a revolution Islamic or not is required.. Pakistan has enough smart people to undo the mess only if they act for the nation and not themselves.. and Pakistani citizens act a bit more mature and intelligent... In case of a revolution or a oligarchy .. one bad leader is all it'll take to set Pakistan back... Democracy is teh only way.. slow but effective..

 

[Energon]

I believe both you and Energon are mistaken in suggesting that a "secular" Pakistan implies that we should not have separated from India. Aryan explained it quite well - creating a state that allows Muslims to safeguard their interests does not automatically imply that it has to be a theocratic Islamic state. I don't think most Pakistanis are able to make the distinction either.

Jinnah, as my signature indicates, was quite clear about what he expected this nation to exist as, and it is a shame that he was not able to cement his vision.

With respect to the article, I completely agree with his assessment, and perhaps this arrangement of Musharraf as president, along with a coalition government, may allow some more time for the country and society to evolve.

Both you and aryan2007 are right. The conclusions I drew in my earlier posts are wrong and based on faulty logic.

Having said that...
In theory I do agree with your assertion regarding the basic premise of the two nation system and why that has nothing to do with secularism in Pakistan. However pragmatically, IMO it is a near impossible endeavor for a few reasons.
1. History of Modern Islam and its relation with politics and governance. Although I am not well versed with the principles of Islam, evidence world over shows that it is very difficult for nations with Islamic majorities to truly endorse secularism without an arduous and concerted effort such as in the case of Turkey.
2.Despite Jinnah's personal beliefs (which from what I understand were fairly secular) and the initial adoption of British styled secular politics, Pakistan for the longest time had Sunni-Islam designated as the state Religion. This for all practical purposes pretty much negates any intended growth of secularism in a developing nation situated in a region with a history of religious fractionalism.
3. The two nation theory in itself being shoddy. One need not break away from a secular nation to forge a new one in order to "protect the interests" of any one religious group.

Hence, I think aspirations of bringing secularism or even true democracy to Pakistan are for the time being are far fetched given the history of the heavy influence of Islam in its governance and the inability to sustain healthy democracy. IMO what is more damaging is trying to pass off Pakistan for what it's not... secular and/or democratic. This in turn I think is on account of unwarranted comparisons with India. Frankly people world over (especially the USA) should accept Pakistan as an Islamic state which isn't democratic.