Difference in Constitution to allow Military rule

[KillBill]

Hi Guys,
A couple of days back there was a news that, there may be another coup in Pakistan and similar news was there just after the General Election in Pakistan.

So, I just wanna know what difference the Constitution of Pak and India has to allow such a thing. I heard from people that Its not possible for Army to take over in India but in Pakistan. So whats the fundamental difference for the same.

Please, do not start debating over whether democracy is better or dictatorship is better for Pakistan on this thread. Also, would really appreciate if mud slinging can also be avoided in this.

Give your input from your understanding of the situation.

Thanks

 

[KillBill]

Hmmm... So such a big silence on this topic, does that mean people dont know or dont want to discuss this topic? Or is it because I asked not to mudsling and hence no one is interested ;-)

 

[rajeev]

I really dont know exactly what makes dictatorship a favorite past time for most generals in Pakistan.

But regards to your question whether democracy or dictatorship is better for Pakistan, I think democracy is better because there is more freedom.

In case of Pakistan, I dont see it happening! PA might be craving to get back in power now that it has spent time being subservient to civilian rule. It is my opinion that if democracy has to sustain in Pakistan, they should follow the Turkish model where Turkey had problems with coups until they changed the constitution to reflect that.

I dont think Pakistan has potential to become completely democratic country because of the long history of coups, it seems more like a characteristic of Pakistani form of government.

 

[Beskar]

Forget the constitution, its always possible for the Pakistan Army to takeover. Aren't you aware of our history? We only require the following to topple the government at ANY given time;

- COAS
- 111 Brigade.

As for your other question, I don't think "Emergency" will be imposed anytime soon. The month of November will be crucial for the government. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Hi Guys,
A couple of days back there was a news that, there may be another coup in Pakistan and similar news was there just after the General Election in Pakistan.

So, I just wanna know what difference the Constitution of Pak and India has to allow such a thing. I heard from people that Its not possible for Army to take over in India but in Pakistan. So whats the fundamental difference for the same.

Please, do not start debating over whether democracy is better or dictatorship is better for Pakistan on this thread. Also, would really appreciate if mud slinging can also be avoided in this.

Give your input from your understanding of the situation.

Thanks

The biggest difference is that out leader Liaqat Ali Khan was assasinated , when our democracy was - young.

This created a dependency on non democratic institutes to come in take over, if we had steady dosage of democracy for 10-20 years we would not have been in this situation

Who killed Liaqat Ali Kahn its debatable - perhaps its about JFK assasination of public voice and , people's representation in power

But if you analyse

Iran's Mossadeq assasination
Saudia King Faisal Assasination
Our own Liaqat ali khan assasination
Egypts Anwad saddat assasination
Bhutto Assasinations by Zia
Then Bhutto (benazir) again assasination luckily we had no army intervention
so that is good sign

Also assasination of leaders in Bangladesh that normally democracy was derailed by assasinations -

That is the difference - In last 50-60 years, most of the local Muslim democracies have been intentionally derailed by assasinations to keep the countries from developing democrative institutes - because there is alot of money involved..

Also the cream of the crop ppl like Fatima Ali Jinna not winning elections when being most popular leader after Jinnah and also leaders like Imran Khan not being in government has been a sad affair of our national democracy. Imran Khan is an ideal person to lead pakistan based on his character and social work aspect -even thou his kids are with jewish heritage, to me he is the best ideal candidate to lead pakistan in new century.

I think in our history , if we had democratic gov under Fatima Ali Jinnah or may be even liaqat ali khan for 5 years each that was the 10 years under civilian rule we needed in our first years.

Again you cann't say more becasue we know how India took pakistani land by force , and our democracy was fragile - back then. So that played a role in destabalizing our institutes -

Our Army is a great institute but we prefer our army to focus on protecting borders with our Indian friends.

There has been great development in democratic process in Pakistan - and hopefully the political parties will start coming to elections based on mandates rather then family name or heritage ... etc which is what slows our democracy

Untill - an average joe has a chance of representing ppl of pakistan - we can't say our democracy is doing well.

There are still major flaws in how our political parties handle population issues -

Constitution is not a major element as it has been written and over written several times - based on who ever ruled our nation.

But lately we have made positive strives towards a normal democracy and next 20-30 years I am positive we will have a solid democratic institution

Also any successful democracy must have seperation of State and Population - this is why some of the most successful countries like US have that seperation of state and population.

The current political - cloud in Pakistan has been seperated , into specific families and specific name brand or ethnicity , and that is quite backward. Unless , leaders are pushed up with out a consideration if they belong to a certain , family or group neither we nor india can claim we have true democracy.

Most political parties fight an election with no specific goal or reason , its all sentimental choices, either its someone coming back from exile and they win sentimaltal win , or someone's family member died so win a land slide victory -

No one ever - comes out with a clear plan that look if our party comes to power we will eliminate the electricty crises by 90% in country

Or no one comes with mandate that when we come to power we will create 200 universities all over country .....

The only person who has done something in past 10 years is obviously a military leader , Mr. Musharaf - who did incresed our national reserves, and established out IT sector and also established gwadar port development ...And our banking sector has seen great improvements in last 5-8 years. Also the privatization of telecom sector also improve communication with in the country - I think if we had created the DAM water projects in our country perhaps our energy crisis would have been solved.

But as we know , our sentimental choices made him leave the country and reside in England for time being to promote his book -

So things improved to great extent under musharaf's watch it was just bad luck that he had to slow down his initiatives for country due to the war on terror.

So we do get some development but we are slowed down as something that should be our political parties job is being done by a person.

What system is better - Political Parties , or Army - hard to tell but ideally the decisions should be made thru a political party. But our Political Parties Lack the professionalism that is needed to successfully run a country -

Our country needs ppl who have PHD in political science - and humanites - and less of the feudal lords or people who are coming to power based on just family last names.

Untill that culture is established where the best educated , and talented are pushed forward we can operate to full potential, I think the PHD or BA in political Science should be mandated for all people interested in standing up in elections -

Marshal Law - is a temporary state that should not last more then 7-10 days - in state of emergency such as a president or primeminister is killed or major earth quake or desaster ... its never a mean to rebuild a nation , never was and never will be

 

[Sinnerman108]

I really dont know exactly what makes dictatorship a favorite past time for most generals in Pakistan.

But regards to your question whether democracy or dictatorship is better for Pakistan, I think democracy is better because there is more freedom.

In case of Pakistan, I dont see it happening! PA might be craving to get back in power now that it has spent time being subservient to civilian rule. It is my opinion that if democracy has to sustain in Pakistan, they should follow the Turkish model where Turkey had problems with coups until they changed the constitution to reflect that.

I dont think Pakistan has potential to become completely democratic country because of the long history of coups, it seems more like a characteristic of Pakistani form of government.

Being an Islamic republic democracy does not suite us, and it violates
the basic tenants of religion and our society.

 

[EjazR]

When the PA takes over the country it is actually unconstitutional. So all the PA has to do is to follow the constitution. The PA has no right according to the Pakistani constitution of 73 to take over the country's administration.

Being an Islamic republic democracy does not suite us, and it violates
the basic tenants of religion and our society.

Islam doesn't have any problem with democracy and in fact democratic govt. is closer to tenets of Islam than a dictatorship.

 

[90210]

When the Pa takes of the country it is actually unconstitutional.

This statement is true.

Islam doesn't have any problem with democracy and in fact democratic govt. is closer to tenets of Islam than a dictatorship.

Islam is closer to democracy but not western DAMN HYPOCRISY

The best thing in Constitution of 1973 is that it is the only constitution of the world that formally acknowledges "Sovereignty Belongs to Allah alone" after that it also states that no legislation will be made repundunt to Quran and Sunnah but ties this clause with the Islamic Ideological Council.

If 1973 constitution is adheared to in its true spirit it provides the ample solution to problems of Pakistan.

 

[Awesome]

No country's constitution allows for a coup and a coup is punishable by death. But guns seem to be more powerful. So whoever has the gun, wins.

The difference is that the Indian government does not serve foreign powers, and is subjected to a stronger degree of accountability. There is also a lot of fragmentation and coalition governance within India. This allows for civilian overthrow of the government. All constitutions allow that.

In Pakistan's elections absolute power is won. No chance of a constitutional change of government if the public demands it since all the power is held by a single party. The parties have no democracy within them. Like in India Advani got a lot of flak from BJP, in Pakistan Zardari will never get that flak from PPP.

That leads to another point, the mentality of dictatorship is deep instilled within common society. There is always a family head, who can order and the family follows at will. There are always respectable seniors within a community who tend to do the same. The district Nazims, then the parliamentarians and then the Chief executives, all don't consider themselves subservient to the public but rather Kings and Queens.

They create a culture where forcible removal by the gun is the only option. ALL coups have been welcomed in Pakistan initially.

 

[third eye]

Being an Islamic republic democracy does not suite us, and it violates
the basic tenants of religion and our society.

This surprisingly honest post has briefly put the whole issue very succinctly.


I am surprised for two reasons. One that someone has had the courage to put it so accurately. Two, that no one has objected to the point highlighted.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

There is nothing un islamic about democracy , and that is why we chose the democratic process to gain our freedom from british and our friends to the east side.

Had it not been appropriate we would have formed a kingdom or other mechanism to rule the people.

Our main issue is our friends to east , who weakened our democracy in 1947/1948. And then continue to interfer in Pakistani politcal system by continuous meddling in around occupied territories with their armies and now in Afganistan.

Secondly the aid from outside forces, generally is a curse on the nation - and this keeps us reseting our progress , by depending on rules and regulations approved by outside forces -

 

[KillBill]

I really dont know exactly what makes dictatorship a favorite past time for most generals in Pakistan.

But regards to your question whether democracy or dictatorship is better for Pakistan, I think democracy is better because there is more freedom.

In case of Pakistan, I dont see it happening! PA might be craving to get back in power now that it has spent time being subservient to civilian rule. It is my opinion that if democracy has to sustain in Pakistan, they should follow the Turkish model where Turkey had problems with coups until they changed the constitution to reflect that.

I dont think Pakistan has potential to become completely democratic country because of the long history of coups, it seems more like a characteristic of Pakistani form of government.

Thanks Rajeev, But you did the opposite of what I requested
I said please lets not discuss military vs democracy here.

As I am completely unaware of constitutional issues, I wanted to know why thats possible.

 

[Bane Blade]

Well generally the reason Pakistan has had made it easy for its Generals to forget their duty and behave as twats is because of the first martial law that was administrated in our country by FM Ayub Khan who in his long reign changed the beureaucracy of our system causing them to strengthen and hold power in their certain families when this powerfull group was created they flexed their muscles and still do so today.