Democratic system and Pakistan

[Slav Defence]

This post is response to @Aeronaut’s post, who made an excellent analysis and made good suggestion about replenishment of current system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy and Pakistan

Written By:Slav Defence


Before we make in- depth analysis of current democratic system of Pakistan, we must analyze that exactly what democracy itself is and how it is implemented in Pakistan.
I will give reference to you of Plato’s five regimes at first, who was a great thinker and philosopher, rather than my own idea:

Fig 1.1 shows Plato’s five regimes,a/c to Plato:
The Classical Greek philosopher Plato discusses five types of regimes. They are:

Aristocracy, Timocracy,Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. Plato also assigns a man to each of these regimes to illustrate what they stand for. The tyrannical man would represent Tyranny for example. These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom.

Aristocracy
Aristocracy is the form of government (politeia) advocated in Plato's Republic. This regime is ruled by aphilosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason. The aristocratic state, and the man whose nature corresponds to it, are the objects of Plato's analyses
throughout much of The Republic's books, as opposed to the other four types of states/men, that are studied primarily in Book VIII.
The aristocratic state that Plato idealizes is composed of three caste-like parts: the ruling class, made up of the aforementioned philosophers-kings (who are otherwise identified as having souls of gold); the auxiliaries of the ruling caste, made up of soldiers (whose souls are made up of silver), and whose job in the state is to force on the majority the order established by the philosophers; and the majority of the people (souls of either bronze or iron), who in contrast to the first two classes are allowed to own property and produce goods for themselves, but are also obliged to sustain with their own activities their rulers' - who are forbidden from owning property.
The aristocratic man is better represented by Plato's brand of philosopher: a man whose character and ambitions have been forged into those ideal for a just ruler through a rigorous education system designed to train intellectuals that are selfless and upright, and whose souls have been made calm and aware of the absolute Good by learning the Truth based on the Platonic Ideas. Plato envisages for this philosopher a disposition and ability that makes him the ideal governor of any state precisely because his soul knows the Truth of the Good and he is therefore not only dedicated to establishing the Good in the state but is also incapable of desiring anything but the Good, for both the state and himself. Thus this man is not tempted to abuse power for his own gain; and, through his knowledge of the true

virtues, is able to establish the ideal conditions for the citizens of his state to live the Good life.
In contrast to historical aristocracies, Plato's resembles a meritocracy or proto-technocracy of sorts. In it, a big government state keeps track of the innate character and natural skills of the citizens' children, and then directs them to the education that best suits those traits. In this manner, a child with a gold soul born to parents with silver, bronze or iron souls will be educated to levels above his kin according to his golden qualities, and, conversely, from parents with gold and silver souls, a child born with a bronze or an iron soul is educated to only the level earned by his natural aptitudes.

Timocracy
Aristocracy degenerates into timocracy when, due to miscalculation on the part of its governed class, the next generation of guardians and auxiliaries includes persons of an inferior nature (the persons with souls made of iron or bronze, as opposed to the ideal guardians and auxiliaries, who have souls made of gold and silver).
A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[1] The governants of timocracy value power, but they seek to attain it primarily by means of military conquest and the acquisition of honors, instead of intellectual means. Of the man who represents a timocratic state, Socrates says that his nature is primarily good: He may see in his father (who himself would correspond to an aristocractic state) a man who doesn't bother his soul with power displays and civil disputes, but instead occupies

Oligarchy
Plato defines oligarchy as a system of government which distinguishes between the rich and the poor, making of the former its administrators.
An oligarchy is originated by extending tendencies already evident in a timocracy. In contrast to platonic aristocrats, timocrats are allowed by their constitution to own property and thus to both accumulate and waste money. Because of the pleasures derived from it, money is valued over virtue, and the leaders of the state seek to alter the law to give way and accommodate to the materialistic lust of its citizens. As a result of this new found appreciation for money, the governors rework the constitution to restrict political power to the rich only. That is how a timocracy becomes an oligarchy.
Plato gives a detailed account of the problems usually faced by the oligarchies of his days, which he considered as significantly more troubled than the former system, that of timocracy. The following are examples of such problems:
• the very distribution of political power in an oligarchy, which prevents wise and virtuous, but poor, men from influencing public life, whilst opening such possibility to the rich but incompetent ones;
• an oligarchy is invariably divided, in the one hand, between very rich men, its governors; and, on the other hand, very poor men. The income disparities emerge mostly because of bad policy on the part of the state, which doesn't prevent citizens from enriching through exploitive contracts, or from becoming poor by wasting around their money and goods. The poor ones become either beggars or thugs imbued with anger at their condition and a revolutionary spirit which threatens the internal stability of the state;


an oligarchy will usually perform poorly in military campaigns because the rich men, who are few, will make a small army, and they are afraid to give weapons to the majority (the poor) due to fears of a revolution. If a revolution does ensue, and the poor ones become victorious over the rich, the former expel the latter from the city, or kill them, and then they divide their properties and political power between one another. That is how a democracy is established.
As to the man whose character reflects that of an oligarchy, Plato says that he might have been the child of a timocratic man: The son initially emulates the father, and is ambitious and craves for fame and honor. When, however, he witnesses the problems his father faces due to those timocratic tendencies - say, he wastes public goods in a military campaign, and then is brought before the court, losing his properties after trial -, the future oligarch becomes poor. He then rejects the ambitions he had in his soul, which he now sees as harmful, and puts in their place craving for money, instead of honor, and a parsimonious cautiousness. Such men, the oligarchs, live only to enrich themselves, and through their private means they seek to fulfill only their most urgent needs. However when in charge of public goods they become quite 'generous'.
Oligarchs do, however, value at least one virtue, that of temperance and moderation - not out of an ethical principle or spiritual concern, but because by dominating wasteful tendencies they succeed in accumulating money. Thus even though he has bad desires - which Plato compares to the anarchic tendencies of the poor people in oligarchies -, by virtue of temperance the oligarch managed to establish a fragile order in his soul. Thus the oligarch may seem, at least in appearance, superior to the majority.

Democracy
Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. Diversity is supreme. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so chose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.
Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.

Tyranny
Democracy then degenerates into tyranny where no one has discipline and society exists in chaos. Democracy is taken over by the longing for freedom.Power must be seized to maintain order. A champion will come along and experience power, which will cause him to become a tyrant. The people will start to hate him and eventually try to remove him but will realize they are not able.
The tyrannical man is the son of the democratic man. He is the worst form of man. He is consumed by lawless desires which cause him to do many terrible things such as murdering someone unjustly. He comes closest to complete lawlessness. The idea of moderation does not exist to him. He is consumed by the pleasures in life. He spends all of his money and becomes poor and leads a miserable life.
When Plato says the tyrant is a prisoner to the lawless master he means that if the tyrant should lose his power for any reason his life and the life of his family would be in great danger. The tyrant always runs the risk of being killed in revenge for all the unjust things he has done. He becomes afraid to leave his own home and becomes trapped inside. Therefore his lawless behavior leads to his own self-imprisonment.

Abstract

So after analysis Plato’s idea, one point is clear:
Democracy is the fourth degenerated form of oligarchic system, in which decision rights are given to public which are not fully educated and well aware of facts, and does not have indepth analysis of various factors and basis due to which they must choose a candidate,they only vote such candidate who lure them with various proposals of,the democratic man is thus not eligible enough to select a leader.

Democracy and Pakistan.

Well, if we analyze the current situation of our public, literacy rate and democratic system implemented then we can clearly understand the picture.
A country where literacy rate is 30 percent, where public are less learned and have less awareness of their arights,are given a power in ‘ideal state’ to choose their leader.
A country where majority comprises of mazaray and illiterate class,is given a power and authority to elect their leader.

Candidates:

Now if you look at our democratic candidates, who are common man, of any unknown background maybe repudiated or not, maybe corrupted or not, no clear discrimination, join parties of good or bad reputation, for this is Pakistan, therefore we all are well aware of bad reputation of our parties.
The following figure which I have drawn will clearly mention the method of their selection, their attitude and possible assumptions and the effect on governmental body on the basis of their character and attitude.

Now,

Now, if candidate elected is of good character and high reputation, then ratio of corruption will decrease as he will take steps to decrease ratio of corruption.
If candidate is not of good reputation, then will sabotage every single step taken from transfer of power till on power, as he will trigger more corruption thus giving severe damage to country’s economy, defence and security.

So I ask you in such ground realities Is democracy suitable for Pakistan?

Democracy can be ideal for Pakistan when:
--Literacy rate will be greater in Pakistan
--When government does not have it’s own lobby system of corrupted mindsets
--When Justice, law and order system be out of influence of corrupted politicians,
Now at this scenario let us apply Aeronaut’s ideology, as a solution:

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY AERONAUT

Since i know your intellectual ability and critical thinking skills are of the highest order, i feel compelled to shoot off a few more seemingly outrageous thoughts at you. You see the essence of democracy is that the 'majority opinion wins' and gets the power while the minority opinion loses and works hard to get into power. So, if the Democracy is Majoritist by nature and application, would it be wrong if a large portion of our society came up and demanded Islamic Democracy? - I think it wont be wrong, what do you think?

Now lets tackle the other argument of 'Pakistan was not created for Muslims only, because there are minorities in it, therefore an Islamic state is 'by design and definition discriminatory' to the minorities.' - But is it? - If Majoritism is a democratic behavior than why should the minority opinion be used to black mail the majority opinion? - Do we want to become like Syria, Apartheid S.Africa and Zimbabwe where a 'minority apartheid' has lead to multiple mass killings in the past 30 years - in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is that just a co-incidence? - Is this also, a co-incidence that a vast majority of Afghans were not communists, but when the commies ceased power by deception, it ultimately lead to an oblivion been inflicted on the Afghans?
If Democracy is majoritist by nature, than why should a vast majority of Pakistanis be bullied into submit their wish to see an Islamic egalitarian democracy and a reformed banking system, just to earn some brownie points that the 'minorities are protected' - what sort of IQ level does it take to sacrifice lets say 80% of the opinion for pleasing the 3% ? - Is that a democratic behavior or a destabilizing, potentially fatal minority apartheid which has proved its deadly affects over time?

Now I leave rest up to you, do you all agree with Aero’s idea?or not?
Best Regards,
Slav Defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Last Hope @Luftwaffe @Leader @nuclearpak @WebMaster @Awesome @Jazzbot @Talon @Secur @RescueRanger @Xeric @Secur @muse @Irfan Baloch @Major Sam @balixd @Oscar and others...

I have carefully worked on those figures I hope that you will find all these these figures useful to understand the infra structure of democracy and transfer of power.

 

[Slav Defence]

long story short?

this is an in-depth analysis..see for yourself..

 

[Leader]

long story short?

Walk like (the) Egyptians !!

 

[Jango]

Can the trolls please shut up? Aap sab to Naswari hain magr jo banda effort kar raha hai us ko to encourage karain.

 

[Slav Defence]

Summarize it

I can't...

you can see the figures which I have drawn and unbolded part,they are not much and yes,only the bolded part of democracy by Plato..and the @Aeronaut's post..

Can the trolls please shut up? Aap sab to Naswari hain magr jo banda effort kar raha hai us ko to encourage karain.

thankyou sir,I am very disappointed right now,I thought that readers will enhance this idea in a better way...thus we will be succeed in proposal of new system which may be the mixture consist of Islamic ideology and democracy...

 

[Leader]

True democracy starts with the municipal

True democracy starts with the municipal - The Globe and Mail


and also

http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...316-local-government-system-news-updates.html

True democracy starts with the municipal

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/true-democracy-starts-with-the-municipal/article13769781/


and also

http://www.defence.pk/forums/national-political-issues/268316-local-government-system-news-updates.html

 

[Jango]

Now after reading the OP, I see that you have built up a case and then left it for the reader to decide.

But you should have concluded it for yourself, give the final statement and then present a solution. Constantly pinpointing problems isn't going to get us anywhere, what is needed is an alternative to those problems and a solution.

So edit the OP or make a new post and give the alternative. What is the alternative to democracy? Is it a better system than that in place? Then there are 2 forms of democracy, which one of them is best suited to us?

 

[Slav Defence]

Now after reading the OP, I see that you have built up a case and then left it for the reader to decide.

But you should have concluded it for yourself, give the final statement and then present a solution. Constantly pinpointing problems isn't going to get us anywhere, what is needed is an alternative to those problems and a solution.

So edit the OP or make a new post and give the alternative. What is the alternative to democracy? Is it a better system than that in place? Then there are 2 forms of democracy, which one of them is best suited to us?

Nucleapak sir,this case is quite reciporcal,an unusual,in this case,aeronaut has already given a suggestion,

Originally posted By aeronaut:

if the Democracy is Majoritist by nature and application, would it be wrong if a large portion of our society came up and demanded Islamic Democracy? - I think it wont be wrong, what do you think?

So,I started this thread in support of his idea,my main point is that democracy is not benefiting Pakistan,because we are not eligible for democracy,I have given my in- depth analysis in this regard,second it is degenerated,fourth form of aristocracy and as Plato as himself described the demerits of system,therefore my focus is that we need an alternative system,as suggested by @Aeronaut as we are not eligible enough to tackle power of selection. .

Best Regards
slav defence

 

[SQ8]

Well put.. however we must also look for a defined factor in this ; that is the role of religious parties and how they effect the system. Perhaps the corrupt and honest crucible is much less rigid and "corrupt" itself than suggested by the chart.

 

[Slav Defence]

Well put.. however we must also look for a defined factor in this ; that is the role of religious parties and how they effect the system. Perhaps the corrupt and honest crucible is much less rigid and "corrupt" itself than suggested by the chart.

Yes,the main point is,that if we think an Islamic welfare system best,then how?by Islamic system first of all,I didn't mean to say that let mullahs rule us sir,by this system I meant to say that it is much better like of past if power of selection is transferred to a committee of honest people,but still I don't find it possible,that is why I have left this case on Intellects like you and other think tanks.
As it is cleared that democracy ie giving authority to people of Pakistan is a bad idea,but if we think that this power should be transferred to a specific committee of sincere mindsets as that of Islamic system then how?in such situation?

Best regards,
Slav defence

 

[Irfan Baloch]

If Democracy is majoritist by nature, than why should a vast majority of Pakistanis be bullied into submit their wish to see an Islamic egalitarian democracy and a reformed banking system, just to earn some brownie points that the 'minorities are protected' - what sort of IQ level does it take to sacrifice lets say 80% of the opinion for pleasing the 3% ? - Is that a democratic behavior or a destabilizing, potentially fatal minority apartheid which has proved its deadly affects over time?
Now I leave rest up to you, do you all agree with Aero’s idea?or not?
Best Regards,
Slav Defence

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...democratic-system-pakistan.html#ixzz2c2yMn9jf

I agree with the narrative but the argument is a bit overcooked. The problem we have is that the definition of tyranny vs. a Just governance is subjective and depends who you ask.
West thinks its important to deprive the Muslim Women from their right to cover themselves in order to protect the French values & “freedom”. Moving on in the middle east they want democracy and the right of people to choose their leaders but “only those leaders that are cleared by the west”.
A good part of the extract from aranout revolves around Syria where the example of minority Assad regime (and by extension Alawites) where a case is built why a Secular tyrant should “bully” his majority subjects. I can see that West & Turkey, KSA and UAE are in agreement that such minority should be removed from power by force but same rule doesn’t apply in Bahrain where a ruling family of Saudi origin has all the power and has used all the modern firepower that money can buy to subdue the majority. We Muslim Pakistanis have a different view when it comes to certain Arab countries.
I understand that the difference of opinion will remain forever . but it doesn’t give anyone the right to behead anyone or blow up people to make a point.

Pakistan is not an Arab country and it will never be Syria, Suadia or Iran so it should be left as it is and its flag and its meaning in essence and spirit must be protected I mean the white portion not at the cost of the green. Part and for heavens sake, lets not change the crescent and the star with a sword that is hanging above us in the shape of TTP.

No minority in Pakistan is in the position to bully the majority so it should be absolved from the blame of the western armchair analysts & politicians. there are many minorities in Pakistan but some of them are pressure groups , in recent times I see enforcement of "halal" label on everything

Halal walking
Halal scratching your butt
Halal breathing
Halal Cars, financing or banking maybe what aeronaut pointed at?
and so forth (now I am overcooking things)

finally I would like to know the name of "fatal minority apartheid" mentioned in the last lines of the quoted post.

 

[Slav Defence]

I agree with the narrative but the argument is a bit overcooked. The problem we have is that the definition of tyranny vs. a Just governance is subjective and depends who you ask.
West thinks its important to deprive the Muslim Women from their right to cover themselves in order to protect the French values & “freedom”. Moving on in the middle east they want democracy and the right of people to choose their leaders but “only those leaders that are cleared by the west”.
A good part of the extract from aranout revolves around Syria where the example of minority Assad regime (and by extension Alawites) where a case is built why a Secular tyrant should “bully” his majority subjects. I can see that West & Turkey, KSA and UAE are in agreement that such minority should be removed from power by force but same rule doesn’t apply in Bahrain where a ruling family of Saudi origin has all the power and has used all the modern firepower that money can buy to subdue the majority. We Muslim Pakistanis have a different view when it comes to certain Arab countries.
I understand that the difference of opinion will remain forever . but it doesn’t give anyone the right to behead anyone or blow up people to make a point.

Pakistan is not an Arab country and it will never be Syria, Suadia or Iran so it should be left as it is and its flag and its meaning in essence and spirit must be protected I mean the white portion not at the cost of the green. Part and for heavens sake, lets not change the crescent and the star with a sword that is hanging above us in the shape of TTP.

No minority in Pakistan is in the position to bully the majority so it should be absolved from the blame of the western armchair analysts & politicians. there are many minorities in Pakistan but some of them are pressure groups , in recent times I see enforcement of "halal" label on everything

Halal walking
Halal scratching your butt
Halal breathing
Halal Cars, financing or banking maybe what aeronaut pointed at?
and so forth (now I am overcooking things)

finally I would like to know the name of "fatal minority apartheid" mentioned in the last lines of the quoted post.

So what do you suggest?what is the best solution in your sight?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Sultanate with one leader supported by tribal elders and Sardar

no kidding
we prospered a lot more under military rule (there is a hint why)

dont look at half empty glass with news of horrid punishment by Punjabi punchaiats or Balochi sardars.
we as individuals are smart but as a group we are buch of nobheads
look a the characters that acted and misbehaved during elections. do you want them to decide who leads us?

western democracy doesnt work for us. nothing wrong with Islamic caliphate even if I want to entertain the possibility of a Secular dictator who is very good with governance, people well being and progress.
we have a pseudo democracy anyway which is basically run by some corrupt political dynasties so why not do away with the foreplay and just go for a very capable and honest king/ dictator/ Sultan / Chakkar or a Caliph who looks after his people.

hmmm?

 

[SBD-3]

Walk like Egyptians !!

Sure you can, but can you take bullets like Ikhwan?

 

[Slav Defence]

Sultanate with one leader supported by tribal elders and Sardar

no kidding
we prospered a lot more under military rule (there is a hint why)

dont look at half empty glass with news of horrid punishment by Punjabi punchaiats or Balochi sardars.
we as individuals are smart but as a group we are buch of nobheads
look a the characters that acted and misbehaved during elections. do you want them to decide who leads us?

western democracy doesnt work for us. nothing wrong with Islamic caliphate even if I want to entertain the possibility of a Secular dictator who is very good with governance, people well being and progress.
we have a pseudo democracy anyway which is basically run by some corrupt political dynasties so why not do away with the foreplay and just go for a very capable and honest king/ dictator/ Sultan / Chakkar or a Caliph who looks after his people.

hmmm?

well yes,but if we apply such scenario on Pakistan,so I think that a team from best military minds and from civil sectors must be made,and this committee must be given responsibility to choose best people of high reputation for ministry,the ministry must consists of think-tanks of all four provinces and different sectors of army and other important civil sectors,and together as one,they choose their leader,who has no relation with any political party.
while in case of ministers they can extract people like Musltufa Kemal,and appoint them for desired locations.
What do you think?
Best regards

Slav Defence