Democracy ... or Hypocrisy

[XTC]

Hypocrisy is at large today. All the poeple talking about democracy, free and fair judicary, blaming the old government have done what they claim (and worst) in the past.

Lets start point wise for easier reference. Point are the claims, below the hypocrisy.

- First of all you have Cheif Justice Iftikhar Chaudery. He promises to bring a fair judicary in the country that is according to the constitution of Pakistan and he promises to restore the constitution.

Ironically, on Feb 4, 2000 ... Iftikhar Chaudery who belonged to the Baloch High Court that time, took oath under the PCO after the military coup. During that time, the Supreme Court's Chief Justice denied taking the oath saying its against the consitution he has vowed to defend.

Iftikhar Chaudery however did not worry about upholding the constitution that time even when the Chief Justice of that time did and then he took oath under the PCO on Feb 4,2000 and got promoted to the Supreme Court.

Hypocrisy isnt it ? Faida dheka to screw the constitution, take an oath.

- Second comes the exiled Nawaz Sharif. A vow to bring judicary back in Pakistan, end inflation and restore law and order.

Nawaz Sharif doesnt have a very clean record on judicary either. In 1997 ... members of his party, in the form of a mob, attacked the Supreme Court when it was about to give a ruling in a case against Nawaz Sharif. That and the self imposed war with CJ Syed Sajjad Ali Shah. Asking the President to bring in a CJ of his (Nawaz) own choice.

- Third. Lets see now ... ahh yes, FREEDOM OF MEDIA. In over 10 years, niether the PPP or the PML-N even thought of doing the same. No freedom of media in the 1990s .. all we had was PTV.

Infact, Nawaz Sharif got HAMID MIR (one of the most biased journalists today) fired from his position as cheif editor of DIaly news of Islamabad over writing an article defacing the corruption against Nawaz Sharif.

And yet the last "dictatorship" government actually gave the media some freedom, that which it never had.

- Fourth. Going against a dictator

While the PML-N is strongly against dictatorship, calls the President an un-constitutional President ... happily took part in the elections that the unconstitutional President arranged and supports the Chief Justice who took oath on the PCO of said dictator.

- Fifth. Lawyers and there cry for a free and fair judicary

They blame the President for removing a FREE judicary which will bring justice to the people. Exactly WHAT have these lawyers done in the past damned 60 years ? Pakistani jails are over crowded with people stuck because there cases never went to court. The Judicary wasnt exactly honest, infact ... its always been the top 3 most corrupt institutions in Pakistan.

Im sure some of you here have been to court hearings etc. You would know how the system works. The TRUTH and JUSTICE doesnt prevail ... MONEY prevails.

Even before President Musharraf we had a corrupt, unfair judicary ... Wonder why ? Im guessing on corrupt lawyers and judges taking money over justice.

- Sixth. The killing of innocents saga.

So everyone is whining and moaning about the Lal Masjid innocents dead and the FATA and WANA ones. One of them is Nawaz Sharif.

Where exactly was Nawaz Sharif when the Operation Cleanup started in Karachi .. something which lead to the death of thousands of innocents (yes, some bad were killed ... the deserved it ... but not everyone else). I remember now ... Nawaz Sharif was the ruling party when the operation started. PPP-P came next. Innocents werent so important then I guess.

- Seventh. Musharraf, a Dictator even with an elected Parliment

Thats another one. Calling Musharraf a dictator even though he served as a President with a properly elected parliment.

Exactly what is happening now ? Mr. Zardari, not belonging in the Government actually giving the orders. Mr. Nawaz Sharif the same, last time I checked ... he wasnt in the National Assembly.

Isnt that dictatorship ? A puppet parliment and what Zardari says goes ?

- Eight ... Economy destroyed, mega inflation, poverty blah blah. Blame on Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz etc.

Anyone remember 1990s ? Dollar went up like crazy, inflation was TWICe of what it was in 2000-2007, no industry, poverty rose from 26% to 35% from 1991 to 1999 ... if Im right, this was under the rule of the great DEMOCRATIC parties which are now part of the coalition. It went down to 23% again in the 02-07 era. Sounds like an improvment to me. Also for those who use logic rather than TV news channels to understand stuff ... the fact that the new policies made thousands upon thousands of jobs available with mega rise in multiple industries is proof enough the the economy has benifited the people, and isnt that the purpose ?

Whatever happened to the concern for the economy back then in the 1990s? :S

- Ninth ... making money of Steels Mill case and other stuff to make money, inshort ... corruption and dirty money.

Exactly what has Benazir Bhutto(late), Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif done ? I can list down a whole page full of things. The Ittefaq Industries income tax, qarz utaro mulk sunwaro ... the cases in Switzerland against Zardari ... there is a long list.

They forget all what they did ?

(Pardon if the post seems a bit disorganized, its late night heh)

 

[mujahideen]

The Quaid warned us not to listen to these political parties and the words of the politicians, but we did look wherewe are at. The Quaid told us every government in Pakistan will be worse then it predesestor, look how correct this was. When a nation forgets what its founding fathers told it then it is bound to fail. We have already lost half of our country, I fear what is remaining will dissolve unless we change our ways.

 

[niaz]

Agreed 100 % with Hon XTC’s comments. However let me point out a few things in favour of democracy. An elected leader can be replaced after 5 years. Can we replace a leader who usurped power by force?

No doubt that the leaders elected are a bunch of crooks, thieves and autocrats within the party. However some dictators can be really bad as well; such as the bigot Zia ul Haq, whose legacy of Kalashnikov culture, drug mafia and sectarian violence is eating away at the fabric of our society, even then some people consider the same bigot as a mujahid of Islam!! This includes Nawaz Sharif, someone who used to go to his grave every year and vow to continue Zia's mission. (This the main reason, why I don’t like the Sharif Brothers)

As you correctly pointed out, three non elected persons, Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussein are running their respective parties like tyrants. Whose fault is this? Our elected parliamentarian are spineless and refuse to stand up for their rights (such as Makhdoon Amin Fahim), other are greedy and start blaming their own party leaders after they have lost (such as Kashmala Tariq). There is a dearth of meritocracy in the parliamentarians because the party tickets are only issued to the sycophants.

That fact is that in Pakistan, voting and election is seldom on the issues; except in 1970 election when ZAB won on Roti Kapra aur Makaan; it is always based on personality, braderi, ideology and ethnicity ( such as Kashmiris ). This is no fault of democracy but of the people. A lot of current leaders are Sardars, Chaudhries, Pirs and large landlords. Because, Pakistan is still not an urban society. We are a feudal people; full of prejudices based on religion, sect, ethnicity and language. It is unfair to blame the system because people keep returning the same people or same name with a younger face.

In my opinion, power tends to gravitate towards charismatic leaders; regardless of whether the person is from the military or a civilian. That is why we have autocratic leaders in the most democratic societies as well; Mrs Margaret Thatcher was one such example in the UK. Not all autocratic leaders are good for the country; some such as Lee Kwan of Singapore can however work wonders.

Please don’t blame the democracy, but blame the people who support and elect corrupt leaders. People get the leaders they deserve. This however does in no way imply that we should have perpetual dictators in Pakistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Unless the democratic institutions are firmly in place, it is very difficult to establish a nation.

It is not the fault of the Pakistani people that such institutions are still groping. It is the fault of the way the military intervene, wilfully or otherwise, preventing the institutions to fructify.

Therefore, the people cannot be blamed!

The fault is of the governance!

 

[muse]

Zardari's googlies



Quantum note

By Dr Muzaffar Iqbal
Just five months ago, Asif Ali Zardari was a nobody in Pakistani politics, albeit in the public arena, although he was fully operational behind the scenes. The exact nature of his involvement in Pakistani politics prior to the Dec 27th assassination of his wife remains unclear, but it is certain that he was part of the negotiations that led to the USA-brokered deal between Benazir Bhutto and General Musharraf. Whatever his role may have been in the pre-December wheelings and dealings, he suddenly emerged as the most powerful man in the country after the February 2008 elections. This unforeseeable development occurred for two reasons: Benazir's assassination left behind a political vacuum which was quickly filled by her shrewd husband, who simultaneously made certain that he gains a long-term role in Pakistan's future through his son Bilawal who was made the dummy head of the PPP in a move that can only be called undemocratic.

The second reason for his sudden power is the lack of any genuine process of grassroots politics in Pakistan. Political power in Pakistan remains in the hands of a small number of people, all of whom have shown great cunning in hereditary politics. As such, Pakistani politics itself allows for sudden turns in individuals' fortunes. The case of Mr Zardari is typical.

His sudden rise to power has nothing miraculous or unexpected about it. He has certainly shown himself capable of simultaneously playing at different pitches: he has made and broken several promises to the nation in the short span of four months since the elections; he has signed deals and agreements with other politicians with no intention of keeping them; he has threatened to impeach and remove the General several times without really meaning to do so; he has sided with and supported the lawyer's movement without really meaning to take any action on the restoration of the deposed judges.

Zardari has been able to bowl his googlies in so many directions because there is no real and genuine political process in Pakistan. Power is held by individuals who wield it in the name of political parties which do not operate on any moral or democratic principles. Members of these political parties are treated like kummies by a handful of vederas and industrialists who have dominated Pakistani political scene for decades. Individuals who are elected to become members of Parliament can be made to sign on anything their masters prepare. Most of them have no personal opinion on any matter of state or governance. For the most part, they are a pack of dummies whose combined weight is used to make deals, but who themselves have no weight or say in the deals.

In a polity dominated by lawlessness and lack of any moral principles, it is easy for any shrewd individual to gain control of state institutions. This is exactly what has been happening in Pakistan during the last sixty years. A general, a cunning bureaucrat or a clever politician comes out of the pack, gains control over state resources and tries to mould the lives of millions of people according to his limited and often corrupted vision of how this unfortunate nation should live. Most Pakistanis have no say in who should rule over them, and how. Their lives have been reduced to the most basic survival struggle.

There has been a great surge in the power of the media during the last decade, but the media itself is interested in individuals and the soap opera that has dominated Pakistan's political scene for months now. There are no higher goals anywhere. The lawyer's movement has achieved a certain degree of strength on the basis of its adherence to principles, but even that noble cause is overshadowed by individuals who are playing a very complex role in the murky politics of the country. Even the man who has steadfastly led the struggle for the restoration of judges is an important member of the ruling political party which can restore the judges in one day by simply fulfilling the promises and agreements it has made with other political parties. Yet, he is unable to bend the dark and unbending will of a man who has been bowling his googlies left and right since the sudden departure of his wife from this world.

What is really most painful and degrading in all of this is the fact that Pakistan as a nation has entered a state of servitude to the unknown players behind the scene who have gained unprecedented control over the long-term strategic goals of our country. The dark deals made by individuals to secure their personal survival are ripping apart the very fabric of the country. This loss of independence means that there is very little that anyone can do to regain a sense of control in sectors such as economic, education, foreign policy and defence.

Once these crucial sectors of Pakistani polity are bartered for the sake of personal gains, no government can make any independent decisions. Thus, it is not surprising that over the last few years, Pakistan has not been able to make any independent decision regarding its role in the American war of terror, its educational and economic direction, and its defence-related policies; everything has been dictated to us. And those who have taken this dictation have done so trembling with fear, because they are inherently spineless weaklings beholden to the foreign masters for their own survival.



The writer is a freelance columnist. Email: quantumnotes@gmail.com

 

[muse]

sorry double post

 

[Comet]

Well Said XTC. We are people who quickly forget the mischief's of Politicians and forgive them

 

[XTC]

However let me point out a few things in favour of democracy. An elected leader can be replaced after 5 years. Can we replace a leader who usurped power by force?

Whats the use of replacing one corrupt person with another ?

The political heads of partys can run there partys however they want ... but Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are running the GOVERNMENT (or atleast were together till the Dubai n London 'muzakrat' ... now its all Zardari).

This isnt democracy, its more like democrashy.

It is not the fault of the Pakistani people that such institutions are still groping. It is the fault of the way the military intervene, wilfully or otherwise, preventing the institutions to fructify.

How much did the military intervene in the 2008 elections where people elected the same persons who have done so much to ruin the country in every possible way (as ive pointed out in my original post) and even more.

This is a classical political excuse ... blame the military. Yet, when the going gets tough ... go and whine n moan to the military. Odd isnt it that whenever there are elections, civil disorder, natural disasters etc. people call in the miltiary ? Oh and ... another point of hypocrisy I just rememberd. Nawaz Sharif himself called on the military to take over WAPDA when there were a lot of blackouts in early 1999

Dont forget seeing the fact that the politicians themselves are nothing but money laundering fuedal lords.

An example can be this, the DEMOCRACY never gave the people the freedom of the media ... the freedom of speech ... the government led under a retired Army general DID! Ironic isnt it ?

Please don’t blame the democracy, but blame the people who support and elect corrupt leaders.

Judging by how many people support one politician or the other, the blame would be on the people of Pakistan themselves ? Which is kinda right I suppose ... blindly following like sheep, believing stuff without research or logic ... and such stuff is bound to happen.

 

[muse]

South Asia’s ailing political culture —A G Noorani

None of the political parties in our democracies is run democratically within its own organisation. Change can come only with infusion of new blood

“Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” Feudal, Dr B R Ambedkar might have added. He was addressing the Constituent Assembly of India on November 4, 1948 as chairman of its Drafting Committee on a motion to consider the Draft Constitution as settled by the Committee.

It is neither chauvinistic nor presumptuous to say that what Ambedkar said of India was equally true of the entire South Asia. Far more than we realise or are prepared to admit, we have a fairly common political culture which is distinctly South Asian.

What other democracy in the world has anti-defection laws? India has its “aya rams gaya rams”, Pakistan has its lotas, Sri Lanka probably has an equally expressive epithet for such merchants of the vote in Parliament.

But this isn’t all. We have yet graver affinities and they all stem from the basic malaise. Burke warned that “the law sharpens the mind, by narrowing it”. Ambedkar was no mere lawyer. He was steeped in history, political science, and economics. He administered three warnings a year later on November 25, 1949, just as the Assembly was about to adopt the finalised draft. “It is quite possible for this newborn democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact.” This in fact happened, at some time or the other, in all four States — India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Ambedkar’s warnings were ignored at our peril. “The first thing, in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to Constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives”. He added: “The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it, social democracy.”

I advisedly skipped the second for quotation at the end in extenso because it touches the roots of our feudal structure.

“The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy; namely, not ‘to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions’. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot, Daniel O’Connell, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.... Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

It is a failing rooted in our culture.

There are as many as six common features in the post-independence histories of South Asia’s States.



1. A charismatic leader coins populist slogans and marginalises other leaders (Indira Gandhi, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, SW R D Bandaranaike and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman).

2. Unable to deliver on tall promises, the supreme leader turns authoritarian. In Sri Lanka this was left to Mrs Sirimao Bandanaike to accomplish.

3. There is a spell of dictatorship (“the emergency” in India in 1975-77) or army rule. In 1962 there was an abortive coup in Sri Lanka. In 1975 Sheikh Mujibur Rehman installed his dictatorship.

4. In each of the four, the leader was assassinated: S W R D Bandaranaike, Mujibur Rehman, Indira Gandhi and Z A Bhutto, with useful help from the judiciary.

5. In each, dynastic succession followed.

6. In each, in consequence, there was a sharp polarisation of political forces between “them” and “us”.



South Asia’s countries are split polities and this has warped democratic governance. The middle ground shrank. The legislature, the civil service, the judiciary, the media, federalism and not least political morality were undermined. In 1973 Indira Gandhi’s advisers formulated the doctrine not only of “committed civil servants” but also of “committed judges”.

We are forced to learn old truths anew because their neglect has cost us dear. What Balfour wrote of parliamentary democracy describes the lot of our split politics.

“Multiplicity of political parties is not the only vice that can impair democracy. Let the political parties be reduced to two (admittedly the most convenient number for Cabinet government), but let the chasm dividing them be so profound that a change of administration would in fact be a revolution disguised under a constitutional procedure.”

In India the split between the Congress and the rest was replaced in 1998 by that between the BJP and the rest. In each case a coalition had to be forged to oust the populist party. The BJP nailed its colours to the Hindutva mast in 1989. Even now, its leader L K Advani declaims (June 27, 2008) that “the country will not be satisfied unless a magnificent Ram temple comes up at Ayodhya”.

Demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, for which he has successfully avoided facing criminal trial all these years, has not assuaged his lust for dominance. No wonder it is now a clash between the BJP and the rest.

There is, however, yet another common feature that binds our split polities. The ruling party stifles debate; the opposition refuses to accept defeat and continues to topple the elected government. This, Ivor Jennings remarked, “is one of the causes of the failure of so many of the progeny of the Mother of Parliaments and of the supersession of parliamentary government by dictatorship”.

This should not drive us to despair, however, but to introspection and correction.

In 1976 some Labourites defended Indira Gandhi’s dictatorship and argued that democracy was ill-suited to India anyway. They drew a withering retort from Professor W H Morris-Jones, Constitutional Adviser to the Viceroy of India in 1947.

In a letter to The Times (London) on June 25, 1976 he pointed out that the “jibe about exhibit A of the Westminster model abroad misses the point that it had become a specifically Indian achievement; it only adds insult to the injury already suffered by Indian democrats. Such denigration has long been a sport in which high imperial Tory and revolutionary Marxist could find common enjoyment.... Unitedly, Indian democracy had freely mobilised demands and grievances; in its place is put none of the usual alternatives.”

This is true of all of us in South Asia. The people have not failed democracy, only their leaders have and they prevent the people from running their parties. Add one more common feature in our political culture. None of the political parties in our democracies is run democratically within its own organisation. Change can come only with infusion of new blood.

A G Noorani is a prominent lawyer and a commentator on regional affairs

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Noorani should realise that these ''charismatic'' leaders were leaders voted into office. They used democratic means to marginalise others. Yet, because of democratic process, they were all shown the door.

However, the military when it came to power, it not only marginalised others but wiped out the country's flailing democracy. Zia is the best example of total bigotry that set back Pakistan decade back and he killed the only charismatic leader who could have been a challenge to him. He was treacherous and ruthless and self oriented selfish man so much so he had no qualms to murder his own mentor! And to imagine he ruled Pakistan so long through sheer chicanery and the baton!

Today's woes in Pakistan is all because of Zia and the military. The military has repeated sabotaged the rise of democratic institutions and in fact has taken over large part of the governance and economic mechanisms wherein even when there is a democratic govt, the military is also near to supervise and garner its own interests. It is only Kayani who is trying to distance the military from governance by recalling the military personage in civil institutions! Will he succeed. He should, for the sake of Pakistan!

Noorani makes a valid point that politics and religion does not mix.

 

[ejaz007]

Kiyani is trying but one should know that it is very difficult to change an institution who has developed the taste for power unless people don't make their voice heard. My belief is that unless people don't impose their power military coups will continue. It would be better for Pakistan if military understands the need to let other institutions develop themselve instead of bulldozing them.

 

[muse]

"Noorani should realise that these ''charismatic'' leaders were leaders voted into office. They used democratic means to marginalise others. Yet, because of democratic process, they were all shown the door"

Hitler was also "voted" into office? was he not?? So to marginalize is OK, al long as the "process" is democractic? In which case nothing wrong with Hitler being voted into office.

Now as for the "they were all shown the door" -- presumably, assasination is now part of the "democractic process"??

Clue - think!!

Noorani's point isn't that Zia is to blame, his point is that there is something wrong with our understanding of democracy and that it's not the people who have failed demcracy but rather it's leadership of political parties that have failed:

"The people have not failed democracy, only their leaders have and they prevent the people from running their parties. Add one more common feature in our political culture. None of the political parties in our democracies is run democratically within its own organisation. Change can come only with infusion of new blood."

 

[BATMAN]

Nawaz Sharif doesnt have a very clean record on judicary either. In 1997 ... members of his party, in the form of a mob, attacked the Supreme Court when it was about to give a ruling in a case against Nawaz Sharif. That and the self imposed war with CJ Syed Sajjad Ali Shah. Asking the President to bring in a CJ of his (Nawaz) own choice.

Let me add on issue in same context, which is often forgotten and just clicked to my memory.
Justice Shah had also had a ruling against NSharif in contempt of court.
I don't remember exact details but may be Mr. Niaz remember the issue.

 

[BATMAN]

Hon. members why are we forgetting that we can't have democracy through an undemocratic process.
As far I know in democracy majority should rule but unfortunately the party who secured most votes is not in power and few small regional parties (sharing each less tha 10% votes) form coalition govt. hence defeating democracy in the name of democracy.
We should have a system which truly empower majority and not opposite.

 

[MHCN]

Democracy is ……..HYPOCRACY

The essence of democracy is related to the right of legislation. The Greek words “Demos” and “Cratus” mean “people” and “ power”. Therefore In the democratic system sovereignty and the right to legislate lies in the hands of human beings. Yes the Democratic systems also covers issues related to selection of a ruler and accountability but the essence of Democracy is that people have the right to legislate. In Islam we are informed in the Quran that sovereignty and the right to legislate is Allah SWTs alone. Our role is to implement Islam via the Khilafat system, not legislate. Granted the Islamic system also allows us to choose our rulers and makes it a duty to account them.

It is now wonder that there is so much corruption in the world since the democratic system elevates man to the status of a King and allows him to legislate. This corrupt political culture also exists in the beacons of democracy in the West, the difference being that its manifestation is usually much more subtle. Being born and raised in the UK I have ample examples. Just to name a few there are numerous cases of Members of Parliament (MPs) filing “irregular” expense claims mounting to tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds. MPs regularly vote themselves massive pay increases above the rate of inflation, whilst freezing or minimising pay rises for Govt workers under the pretext of tightening “Govt. expenditure”. It is a well known fact MPs rarely represent their electorate when push comes to shove as loyalties can be purchased by large companies.

This attitude is a symptom and endemic within the democratic system, as it makes man sovereign where he legislates and makes laws for other human beings all be it through the Parliament. When you elevate him to the position of a King he behaves like one as can be seen openly in our system, after all a famed American journalist, H.L. Mencken (1880 – 1956), said “A good politician under democracy is quite unthinkable as an honest burglar”.

This criminal political culture will not change with the democratic system, but needs a fresh outlook and culture. A culture similar to what the Muslims had in the past. A culture, which does not view leadership as a business venture with an initial investment but a culture which views leadership as being servants that are accountable to the people, but more importantly to one’s Creator. With this in mind one fears being a leader and does not seek it, can one imagine standing in front of your Creator and having to justify the spending of every single rupee. This attitude and political culture of fearing positions of power was best nurtured by the Islamic ruling system the Khilafah. Take the example of the Khalif Omer Ibn Abdul Aziz, who use to keep a personal candle along with the candle allotted to him from state funds. If some one came to discuss a personal issue he would extinguish the govt. candle and light his personal candle. He feared being accounted by his Creator on how he used a small piece of thread and a few drops of wax, imagine his immense fear when using govt. funds and property. Compare this with the attitude of our leaders who openly plunder govt. funds without a fear in the World and the Western leaders who use more subtle methods.

Other Quotes:
H. L. Mencken:
“Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and …”.

Thomas Jefferson:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”.