What's new

Do you still support Musharraf?

Please vote after the discussion (Do you now support Mush?)

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 61.3%
  • No

    Votes: 29 38.7%

  • Total voters
    75
I am saying that the Courts should not be partisan

The CJ has proved he is a third rate political hack with political ambitions.

He is using his mobile calling lawyers to revolt!
 
I think what Musharraf has done is illustrate how pragmatism and compromise can be used to advance ones goals. The criticism leveled against him - that he did not end corruption, end mismanagement etc. is all valid, but he has taken visible steps, that should continue, to transform our society.

Whether it was liberalization of the media (and I know that all that is suspended right now, but I would chalk that down to the imposition of emergency, and not a longterm policy), a moderation of the curriculum, a moderation of the justice system (Hudood laws), he has taken significant steps to right the wrongs put in place by Zia and mini Zia (Nawaz Sharif). He liberalized the economy and attracted investment and spurred growth. Granted it was uneven, but which country in world that has seen sharp economic growth has not suffered from social and economic inequities?

Yes he made deals with politicians to advance his agenda, but was it really feasible for him to stay in power for the amount of time required to implement his reforms, without "elected representatives"? Whose fault is it, that corrupt and incapable politicians, keep getting elected, and were the ones he made deals with? Remember that the PML-Q is essentially composed of members of the PML-N and PPP anyway, so their existence as politicians is the fault of Nawaz and BB.

At BB's rally, I was listening to Talat Hussain interview random people dancing around, when asked why they were so happy about BB's return the answer was, "She will eliminate unemployment, provide jobs, and end corruption and inflation'. When asked how, the answer essentially was that "because she is a great leader!'

What nonsense is this! There is a reason why RR argues so vociferously against democracy for an uneducated populace (but I'm not saying I agree with him).

The fact is that Pakistanis sent the Chaudhries to office, and essentially tied Musharrafs hands with respect to the reforms that needed to be enacted, and despite that he was still able to accomplish a whole lot more than NS did with his two thirds majority.

With respect to the situation with militants and extremism, just because we are seeing the effects of extremism during this tenure does not mean that Musharraf is responsible. It is the result of a silent acquiescence of society to the forces of extremism - blackmailed into submission by the Islam card. Extremism, to the extent that we see in Pakistan today, cannot exist with the support of a significant section of society. If you want to find out who is truly responsible, just read the statements, or lack thereof, of our politicians.

The MMA -"don't kill our Muslim brothers"
The PML-N - "don't kill our Muslim brothers"
Imran Khan - "don't kill our Muslim brothers"

The only party that came out against extremism was the PPP, and that too after the "deal" was confirmed. The only individual who took an unequivocal stand against this menace was Musharraf, and thats why he is suffering the consequences. So if these politicians represent the views of the "people", then who exactly is supporting terrorism and extremism?
 
Who does not further one's agenda?

Show me this pure soul!

And I will show you a liar!

In most parts, you have hit the nail on the head or so it appears!

I think what Musharraf has done is illustrate how pragmatism and compromise can be used to advance ones goals. The criticism leveled against him - that he did not end corruption, end mismanagement etc. is all valid, but he has taken visible steps, that should continue, to transform our society.
 
Dear Salim,

Are you stating that the Supreme Court should be populist ? Their job is interpret law and thats what they are doing. Thats the bottom line.

Regards

Have you read the report of his taped conversation discussing the verdict of "Musharraf's eligibility"? How he stated exactly how many lawyers were going to rule against Musharraf, and who they were, weeks in advance of the date proscribed by the judges themselves, while arguments from both sides were still continuing. Then you had recesses for a week over "marriages", and all along the verdict was apparently decided. How can you call this an impartial judiciary? This is not interpretation of the law, it is manipulation, skulduggery, and unethical by any standard.
 
What charms me is that the vociferous chaps on this forum have deserted the sinking burning deck!

Take heart from this poem:

The Boy stood on the burning deck,
Whence all but him had fled;
The flame that lit the battle’s wreck
Shone round him o’er the dead.

Yet beautiful and bright he stood,
As born to rule the storm;
A creature of heroic blood,
A proud though childlike form.

The flames rolled on; he would not go
Without his father’s word;
That father, faint in death below,
His voice no longer heard.

He called aloud, "Say, Father, say,
If yet my task be done!"
He knew not that the chieftain lay
Unconscious of his son.

"Speak, Father!" once again he cried,
"If I may yet be gone!"
And but the booming shots replied,
And fast the flames rolled on.

Upon his brow he felt their breath,
And in his waving hair,
And looked from that lone post of death
In still yet brave despair,

And shouted but once more aloud,
"My father! must I stay?"
While o'er him fast, through sail and shroud,
The wreathing fires made way.

They wrapt the ship in splendour wild,
They caught the flag on high,
And streamed above the gallant child,
Like banners in the sky.

There came a burst of thunder sound;
The boy, - Oh! where was he?
Ask of the winds, that far around
With fragments strewed the sea,-

With shroud and mast and pennon fair,
That well had home their part,-
But the noblest thing that perished there
Was that young, faithful heart.
 
Have you read the report of his taped conversation discussing the verdict of "Musharraf's eligibility"? How he stated exactly how many lawyers were going to rule against Musharraf, and who they were, weeks in advance of the date proscribed by the judges themselves, while arguments from both sides were still continuing. Then you had recesses for a week over "marriages", and all along the verdict was apparently decided. How can you call this an impartial judiciary? This is not interpretation of the law, it is manipulation, skulduggery, and unethical by any standard.

Dear AM,

Firstly what you say is a rumour in the press. Do you think the CJ was so naive that he used his phone to speak about it to a lawyer ?

If your highest institution cannot find 11 patriotic and honest judges then even Gen M cannot save Pakistan! Thats all i am going to say.

Best Regards
 
Patriotism and honesty are relative terms and vary with individuals.
 
Dear AM,

Firstly what you say is a rumour in the press. Do you think the CJ was so naive that he used his phone to speak about it to a lawyer ?

If your highest institution cannot find 11 patriotic and honest judges then even Gen M cannot save Pakistan! Thats all i am going to say.

Best Regards

Well he hasn't shown himself to be the sharpest tack in the box either. The reason I place some credence on this "rumor" is because there had to be something really out of the ordinary for Musharraf to impose an emergency at this point - otherwise he would have imposed it the last time they were to rule on his eligibility - it was the same court, the same chief justice, and he had just as much to lose, so why would he take a chance with being disqualified then and not now?

I am not suggesting that the reports are exactly true, it may not have been a "phone call" from the CJ, but something did transpire, that put the impartiality of the court under a cloud.
 
I am not suggesting that the reports are exactly true, it may not have been a "phone call" from the CJ, but something did transpire, that put the impartiality of the court under a cloud.

Dear AM,

How do you expect the overseas investor to have confidence to openly invest in your country's economy if there is no viable and independant judiciary ?

I am just thinking of the larger picture and as far as I am concerned both the CJ and Gen M are not indispensible for that matter fact nor is Mrs BB or Mr NS.

Regards
 
Dear AM,

How do you expect the overseas investor to have confidence to openly invest in your country's economy if there is no viable and independant judiciary ?

I am just thinking of the larger picture and as far as I am concerned both the CJ and Gen M are not indispensible for that matter fact nor is Mrs BB or Mr NS.

Regards

I expect the overseas investor to invest in Pakistan just as he has over the last 8 years. In fact, the overseas investments slowed down as the court started asserting itself more and more. Investors like predictability and continuity of policy. Musharraf in charge assures them of continuity of policy - judicial activism on the other hand does not assure them of anything, but rather makes things unpredictable.

Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with courts being cognizant of irregularities and taking appropriate action when necessary, but what do you think the investor prefers - a court acquiescent to Mousharraf and therefore to his investor friendly policies, or one run amuck, taking suo moto action and stalling investment left and right?
 
Bad democracy is still better than a good dictatorship. The reason is that politicians do go through a process of elections and are voted in. In this way they face the people and a sort of accountability is done by the people. While a general only has to keep his fellow generals happy and he is in control. No accountability of his actions and no authority to challenge his policies that is against the interest of country.
On the point of economy I think sound economy alone is not necessary for the survival of a country. USSR had a very strong defense related economy and was earning billions of dollars a year yet it collapsed. What I mean to say is that for a country to survive all its institutions should work within the parameters defined by the constitution and one-man show should end forthwith.
 
Bad democracy is still better than a good dictatorship. The reason is that politicians do go through a process of elections and are voted in. In this way they face the people and a sort of accountability is done by the people. While a general only has to keep his fellow generals happy and he is in control. No accountability of his actions and no authority to challenge his policies that is against the interest of country.

lol, dude, we know this. Read my post again, uneducated people make stupid decisions in a democratic vote (hence vote in Bhutto). So bad democracy is not better than good dictatorship always.

At the very least the political parties need to be purged of these figureheads to clean them up, before even thinking of democracy.
 
Bad democracy is still better than a good dictatorship. The reason is that politicians do go through a process of elections and are voted in. In this way they face the people and a sort of accountability is done by the people. While a general only has to keep his fellow generals happy and he is in control. No accountability of his actions and no authority to challenge his policies that is against the interest of country.
On the point of economy I think sound economy alone is not necessary for the survival of a country. USSR had a very strong defense related economy and was earning billions of dollars a year yet it collapsed. What I mean to say is that for a country to survive all its institutions should work within the parameters defined by the constitution and one-man show should end forthwith.

Actually I have to disagree. Dictatorships have been around for a while as they have tendency to be successful. The idea that democracy is a panacea to all known ills, is somewhat annoying to me. How can democracy flourish where cults of personality still exist? When you still have tribalism in the country? Where others make sure you vote for whomever serves their interest? I think Iraq and Yugoslavia are good examples of what happens when you give the people what they want........If we can get rid of the scum that inhabit the political parties and start again then it might work.
If we can raise educational standards so that people think for themselves rather than be told what to do (and who to vote for) then maybe it might work......
If we can get rid of the corruption of the likes of Shariff and Bhutto and build a successful economy where everyday people can enjoy the benefits and not just a select few (including a few that lurk on these boards) then it might work.
Otherwise it is just a waste of time. I have seen what bad democracy does.....No thanks......

Oh and the USSR collapsed because it could not sustain itself economically. that is a matter of history........
 
Ejaz,

I think the people of some Gulf Sheikhdoms would definitely take exception to your statement.
 
lol, dude, we know this. Read my post again, uneducated people make stupid decisions in a democratic vote (hence vote in Bhutto). So bad democracy is not better than good dictatorship always.

At the very least the political parties need to be purged of these figureheads to clean them up, before even thinking of democracy.

However, the sad part is that parties dont continue with new faces.. I will be happy when NS and BB time is over.. How old are they? Retirement plan? Haji? :azn:

Its no less than dictatorship.

If Musharraf has to step down as an army cheif in order to become a candidate for election, than BB shouldn't be a candidate for the 3rd time.
 
Back
Top Bottom