Do you still support Musharraf?

[Flintlock]

Corruption can never be a criteria to jufge a polticians utlity! Poltics is a risky game, millions take that up as a carear but only a handfull has the chance to make the cut, higher the risk higher the reward, ethical or not thats a sad fact of life.

As far as im concerned i alywas vote for politicians for what they do the country or constitueny, i dont care about the corruption charges against him. Rajiv gandhi was corrupt but as far as i am concerned he was a good leader, he introduced computers at a time when he was accused of working for the MNC's to steal Indian jobs!!!

Bull, the fact is that politicians are in it for the money and nothing else. Given the expenses of a modern election, an honest man would find it impossible to fight an election.
However, it is upto the people to ensure that politicians are kept in check and their job is done. This is what makes democracy so powerful. A dictator cannot be held accountable to anyone, while a politician, however dishonest and corrupt, has to depend on the satisfaction of his constituency.

People on this forum have been arguing that dictatorship is better than democracy, and the truth is quite the opposite I'm afraid.

A bad democracy is always better than a bad dictatorship, and a good democracy is always better than a good dictatorship.

The key to an efficient democracy is electoral reforms (apart from education of course). There should be strict rules regarding campaign propaganda and expenses during campaigning.

 

[roadrunner]

People on this forum have been arguing that dictatorship is better than democracy, and the truth is quite the opposite I'm afraid.

A bad democracy is always better than a bad dictatorship, and a good democracy is always better than a good dictatorship.

..which is precisely what noone was arguing about on the forum The argument I recall was a bad democracy always being better than a good dictatorship, and that it's not, since you cannot get accountability from uneducated people, just as you cannot get accountability from a kid being offered bags of candy.

 

[Flintlock]

..which is precisely what noone was arguing about on the forum The argument I recall was a bad democracy always being better than a good dictatorship, and that it's not, since you cannot get accountability from uneducated people, just as you cannot get accountability from a kid being offered bags of candy.

Um....name a good dictatorship?? I'm afraid there are very very few, if any.

Also, illiterate people aren't necessarily the morons you are making them out to be. They are smart enough to ensure that the ruler of the country doesn't go around taking "extreme" measures, if you know what i mean. And in the end, that is what matters.

There are exceptions of the above of course, for example talibanization. There are only 2 weapons against this ideology.
One, wish that the AK-47 was never invented (not gonna happen)
Two, a decent education with Civics as a subject.

But assuming that the illiterate society in question is not talibanized (or afflicted by any other extreme ideology), they will obviously develop a literate civil society over time and the quality of democracy would naturally improve.

 

[roadrunner]

Um....name a good dictatorship?? I'm afraid there are very very few, if any.

Name a good dctatorship?? .. Musharraf's record investing, media liberalizing dictatorship

Also, illiterate people aren't necessarily the morons you are making them out to be. They are smart enough to ensure that the ruler of the country doesn't go around taking "extreme" measures, if you know what i mean. And in the end, that is what matters.

Actually, this is just your own tunnelled mentality in action. There are far more important things than extreme measures coming into play in a dictatorship (which I would call a bad one eg. Zia's one). For example, uneducated poor people will generally be suckered into the uneconomical line that jobs for all will mean everyone would get a job if only bibi was in power. That's one example. How do you expect an illiterate population to read news so they can have alternative viewpoints. The other thing mentioned is the tribal systems, the method of voting for those democrats that will give the biggest financial gain to the tribal heads, and so on. Simple fact is, democracy can be very bad, and poor, illiterate people can elect bad leaders and NOT hold them accountable.

There are exceptions of the above of course, for example talibanization. There are only 2 weapons against this ideology.
One, wish that the AK-47 was never invented (not gonna happen)
Two, a decent education with Civics as a subject.

But assuming that the illiterate society in question is not talibanized (or afflicted by any other extreme ideology), they will obviously develop a literate civil society over time and the quality of democracy would naturally improve.

You said it..in time they will become literate, which is one of the reasons that Pakistan is not yet ready for democracy.

 

[Flintlock]

Name a good dctatorship?? .. Musharraf's record investing, media liberalizing dictatorship

We don't know yet...Musharraf's reign is hardly over. Only time will tell whether he was a democrat or a despot.

Remember, even Hitler built highways. Mushy has destroyed the institutions which make the foundation of Pakistan. It is entirely in his hands to rebuild these from scratch. Let us see if he will do it.

Also, Musharraf isn't going to last forever. His reign might have brought some short-term gains, but what about the future?

Actually, this is just your own tunnelled mentality in action. There are far more important things than extreme measures coming into play in a dictatorship (which I would call a bad one eg. Zia's one). For example, uneducated poor people will generally be suckered into the uneconomical line that jobs for all will mean everyone would get a job if only bibi was in power. That's one example. How do you expect an illiterate population to read news so they can have alternative viewpoints.

So? Even if they do get suckered, it won't be into killing themselves. A democracy is much, much more likely to get a statesman leader than a dictatorship. And that is where the difference lies.

Also, a democracy is dependent on institutions that balance and regulate power.Unfortunately, Pakistan has not been able to build these institutions with much success. This is another reason why democracy didn't do well there. Democracy isn't all just votes.

40% of India is illiterate.
By your assumptions, Indian democracy should be dysfunctional. But that is not so, elections are held, and regulations are implemented quite well. These institutions take time and patience to build, and don't just appear overnight.

I still think that democracy is the best option for Pakistan. Assuming that Musharraf is indeed a statesman, what is the chance that another Musharraf will come to power? Very slim. Musharraf has a tough task ahead of reforming the Pakistani democracy. He will have to start with rebuilding the Judiciary and the Legislature, and hammer out a plan that will ensure the necessary checks and balances.

The other thing mentioned is the tribal systems, the method of voting for those democrats that will give the biggest financial gain to the tribal heads, and so on. Simple fact is, democracy can be very bad, and poor, illiterate people can elect bad leaders and NOT hold them accountable.

There will still be some accountablilty, and even this will be much, much more than a dictatorship with zero accountability.

You said it..in time they will become literate, which is one of the reasons that Pakistan is not yet ready for democracy.

There is no specific time where a nation is ready for democracy. Pakistan will be ready for democracy whenever the leaders decide to implement it. If the Pakistanis themselves fight for their democracy and obtain it by revolution, then even better, since they will then guard it with pride.
Even a bad democracy is better than a dictatorship.

 

[roadrunner]

^Most of this has been answered before. I might answer it later when I feel like wasting time.

Just some basic points. India and Pakistan are not the same countries. India is bigger economically, and so can tolerate looting better. India is about as illiterate as Pakistan and these people obviously won't vote sensibly, which is probably why BJP comes to power. However, these politicians don't have the power to wreck the economy for whatever reason. Yes, the Indian people vote idiots into power (there's little doubt about it), but corrupt/nationalist politicians don't seem to have much of an impact on the economy or society in India for whatever reason. Perhaps it's the size of the country.

You also say there is some accountability in a bad democracy. This might be true, but it might not be. Illiterate people are the ones doing the accounting, they might be more easily conned by the candy wheeling politicians. Would you trust an illiterate person with your accounts? Neither would I. A good dictator with good morals, and a sense of pride in his country would make sure his whole government is accountable. Then you do not need an illiterate person doing the accounts, if you know the person in charge is not corrupt. You can see I hope, that a bad democracy can be worse than a good dictatorship from this example. I am pretty sure Musharraf's dictatorship is a good one, judging by his economic results and investor friendly laws. So in this case it's better to go with dictatorship.

 

[Flintlock]

Just some basic points. India and Pakistan are not the same countries. India is bigger economically, and so can tolerate looting better. India is about as illiterate as Pakistan and these people obviously won't vote sensibly, which is probably why BJP comes to power. However, these politicians don't have the power to wreck the economy for whatever reason. Yes, the Indian people vote idiots into power (there's little doubt about it), but corrupt/nationalist politicians don't seem to have much of an impact on the economy or society in India for whatever reason. Perhaps it's the size of the country.

To some extent, it is the size of the country that balances out things. For example, in Gujarat you have Right Wing Nationalists in power, whereas in Kerela and WB you have socialists. So it becomes difficult for the leaders to run amok with one agenda or another. (Hence Unity in Diversity )

However, India has had some good leaders thankfully, who might have been corrupt, but still managed to do a reasonable job of running the country.

You are underrating the importance of Public Institutions in maintaining democracy. The Indian Judiciary is fiercely Independent, and the Election Commission never pleases the govt. either, not to mention the press, so these factors go a long way in counterbalancing the effects of poor decisions of voters.

You also say there is some accountability in a bad democracy. This might be true, but it might not be. Illiterate people are the ones doing the accounting, they might be more easily conned by the candy wheeling politicians. Would you trust an illiterate person with your accounts? Neither would I. A good dictator with good morals, and a sense of pride in his country would make sure his whole government is accountable. Then you do not need an illiterate person doing the accounts, if you know the person in charge is not corrupt. You can see I hope, that a bad democracy can be worse than a good dictatorship from this example. I am pretty sure Musharraf's dictatorship is a good one, judging by his economic results and investor friendly laws. So in this case it's better to go with dictatorship.

Of course, a good dictatorship will be better than a worst-case-scenario democracy.

But where are the good dictators? There aren't any. Dictators are simply power hungry despots with a military uniform, who either want to force their ideas upon the nation or want to get rich.


Also, I"m repeating myself, but Musharraf's gains have been short term. There is not point sacrificing the long term future of Pakistan for short term gains from a dictator.


Musharraf might be a lucky exception, but as I said earlier, only time will tell...he will have to rebuild Pakistan from scratch...

 

[Always Neutral]

^Most of this has been answered before. I might answer it later when I feel like wasting time.

Just some basic points. India and Pakistan are not the same countries. India is bigger economically, and so can tolerate looting better. India is about as illiterate as Pakistan and these people obviously won't vote sensibly, which is probably why BJP comes to power. However, these politicians don't have the power to wreck the economy for whatever reason. Yes, the Indian people vote idiots into power (there's little doubt about it), but corrupt/nationalist politicians don't seem to have much of an impact on the economy or society in India for whatever reason. Perhaps it's the size of the country.

You also say there is some accountability in a bad democracy. This might be true, but it might not be. Illiterate people are the ones doing the accounting, they might be more easily conned by the candy wheeling politicians. Would you trust an illiterate person with your accounts? Neither would I. A good dictator with good morals, and a sense of pride in his country would make sure his whole government is accountable. Then you do not need an illiterate person doing the accounts, if you know the person in charge is not corrupt. You can see I hope, that a bad democracy can be worse than a good dictatorship from this example. I am pretty sure Musharraf's dictatorship is a good one, judging by his economic results and investor friendly laws. So in this case it's better to go with dictatorship.

Dear RR,

Care to tell me where did democracies in UK, USA, Germany, Japan, India all evolve from ? Look at the histories of all these countries they all had the same problems / or were born under the same circumstances as Pakistan. They have all had corrupt PM's who were forced to resign. Heck Japan lost nearly 4-5 PM's that way. As the evolution of democracy took place the people became wise and and educated about their rights just as the Pakistani's should have become by now. You know the only difference between the above countries and Pakistan are ? We have never interfered in the freedom of the Press (no matter how yellow faced they were) or with the judiciary or let the Armed Forces tell us whats good for us.

Regards

 

[blain2]

Dear RR,

Care to tell me where did democracies in UK, USA, Germany, Japan, India all evolve from ? Look at the histories of all these countries they all had the same problems / or were born under the same circumstances as Pakistan. They have all had corrupt PM's who were forced to resign. Heck Japan lost nearly 4-5 PM's that way. As the evolution of democracy took place the people became wise and and educated about their rights just as the Pakistani's should have become by now. You know the only difference between the above countries and Pakistan are ? We have never interfered in the freedom of the Press (no matter how yellow faced they were) or with the judiciary or let the Armed Forces tell us whats good for us.

Regards

Short memory my friend. All of the above mentioned countries have screwed around with press and dealt with some sort of encroachment of emergency powers over the normal functioning of the governments.

You just need to look up the history a bit more. Its nice to lecture forgetting your own mess. You went through yours (not sure if you are Indian or English) but in any case, let Pakistanis also go through their growing pains.

Each nation has its own dynamics and sometimes going through such issues leads to a more lasting solution.

 

[Always Neutral]

Short memory my friend. All of the above mentioned countries have screwed around with press and dealt with some sort of encroachment of emergency powers over the normal functioning of the governments.

You just need to look up the history a bit more. Its nice to lecture forgetting your own mess. You went through yours (not sure if you are Indian or English) but in any case, let Pakistanis also go through their growing pains.

Each nation has its own dynamics and sometimes going through such issues leads to a more lasting solution.

My friend Blain I am English if that helps. Would you care to give some concrete examples why we, Germany, Italy France, Japan have maintained our democracy inspite of WWII destruction? Its the sametime Pakistan was born. ( I won't use India since you are sensitive to that word)

After WWII how many of these countries were not pulverised to dust but never has the Army needed to intervene to teach us how to govern our country ?

How many times have the CJ's been sacked and emergency declared in these countries ?

How many times press censor ship has been done ?

However what we had comman with Pakistan was poverty, destruction and corrupt population and illiterate voters. Heck we did not allow women to vote for a long time.

Lastly Pakistan has never had or will have going up pains as always some military man will come and lead you down that same circle as done by them in the last 60 years.

Regards

 

[BATMAN]

AN, Would you be kind enough to tell us why should we believe that you are English!
I remember few days ago Queen invited Saudi King for defence related deals, next German chancelor and than next French.
No English, German or French press or public had any problems with that, than why you, only one so called English care so much about Pakistan's politics of power.
Some western countries forbid to wear head scarf but allow to wear turban!
Is this democracy and justice?
Stop going in circles we have proved many times that in India people don't have the courage to speak against dictatorship of Hindus where minorities don't have releigous and ecnomic freedom.
Generally minorities in India are poor, care to think why?
Of course, In your opinion they are inferior humans because they are not brahmans.
Some times women are burnt alive when there husband dies and some times they go to special house, wearing white dress for whole life.
Is this democracy?

 

[blain2]

My friend Blain I am English if that helps. Would you care to give some concrete examples why we, Germany, Italy France, Japan have maintained our democracy inspite of WWII destruction? Its the sametime Pakistan was born. ( I won't use India since you are sensitive to that word)

After WWII how many of these countries were not pulverised to dust but never has the Army needed to intervene to teach us how to govern our country ?

How many times have the CJ's been sacked and emergency declared in these countries ?

How many times press censor ship has been done ?

However what we had comman with Pakistan was poverty, destruction and corrupt population and illiterate voters. Heck we did not allow women to vote for a long time.

Lastly Pakistan has never had or will have going up pains as always some military man will come and lead you down that same circle as done by them in the last 60 years.

Regards

Germany was a dictatorship if there is a good example of one before and during WWII. Italy was in the same boat. Forget press, what parts of governance and public life were not disrupted in these countries? Then look at the age of the countries and their experimentation with various forms of governance prior to WWII and then active US support in maintaining their democratic credentials in connection with the Marshall Plan post WWII. The biggest benefit that came about after WWII to the European nations was the external stability and security. Pakistan is right in the middle of the worst kind of destabilization, hardly the most conducive environment for political development.

India and Pakistan can also not be compared as apples and apples. The Indians were involved in politics, governance much before the partition. Yes both countries started off with their independence at the same time, however the composition of Pakistan was as such that we ended up with a very vast and powerful feudal base. Pakistani public was not as educated as the Indian population and these sort of issues also caused the West and East Pakistan to look at things at a different frequency.

So there were very many issues from the get go that retarded Pakistan's political maturity and much of it was of our own making.

Abe Lincoln usurped powers to take care of business in the land of freedom (US of A). So you have to consider the circumstances and situations of the place before you start the easy job of comparing. Typically in such situations no comparison is apples to apples.

Pakistanis have screwed things up just as every other nation state has at one point or another. We will go through our growing pains to get to where we think is the right setup for us. Until then ups and downs will continue.

 

[Always Neutral]

Dear Batman,

Whether you believe who I am is of no consequences. If it makes you happy please believe I am from Mars.

AN, Would you be kind enough to tell us why should we believe that you are English!
I remember few days ago Queen invited Saudi King for defence related deals, next German chancelor and than next French.

Please read my post to Blain which clearly states that it is never a problem to deal with a shariah state like Saudi or do business with them. So whats your point ?

No English, German or French press or public had any problems with that, than why you, only one so called English care so much about Pakistan's politics of power.

Please google and see what the press in Uk had to say about the Saudi Kings visit. It was most embarrassing to our Govt. Any way to save you the problem here are the links.

Saudi King visits UK amid protests. | Video | Reuters.com
Saudi King visits UK amid protests.

Saudi king's royal meet draws fire - CNN.com
Saudi king's royal meet draws fire

Care to tell me what point are you trying to make ?

Some western countries forbid to wear head scarf but allow to wear turban!
Is this democracy and justice?

Which Country ? Not UK so whats your point again ? In France no religious symbol like scarf or turban is allowed in govts schools so what are you saying ???

Stop going in circles we have proved many times that in India people don't have the courage to speak against dictatorship of Hindus where minorities don't have releigous and ecnomic freedom. Generally minorities in India are poor, care to think why? Of course, In your opinion they are inferior humans because they are not brahmans. Some times women are burnt alive when there husband dies and some times they go to special house, wearing white dress for whole life. Is this democracy?

So basically if India is backward you are happy to remain as backward as them. Congratulations.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

Dear Blain,

Germany was a dictatorship if there is a good example of one before and during WWII. Italy was in the same boat. Forget press, what parts of governance and public life were not disrupted in these countries? Then look at the age of the countries and their experimentation with various forms of governance prior to WWII and then active US support in maintaining their democratic credentials in connection with the Marshal Plan post WWII.

Thats why I said after WWII the sametime Pakistan was created. Has there been a Hitler in Germany after that or for that matter of fact in Italy ? Yes there have been many terrorist attacks and corrupt PM's there just like Pakistan.

India and Pakistan can also not be compared as apples and apples. The Indians were involved in politics, governance much before the partition. Yes both countries started off with their independence at the same time, however the composition of Pakistan was as such that we ended up with a very vast and powerful feudal base. Pakistani public was not as educated as the Indian population and these sort of issues also caused the West and East Pakistan to look at things at a different frequency.

Did not Gen M come from Delhi and Mr Advani from Lahore just like millions of muslims and hindoos during partition ?

So there were very many issues from the get go that retarded Pakistan's political maturity and much of it was of our own making.

Haven't all the countries (India specifically excluded) mentioned have had illiterate populations and corrupt PM's ? Has the armies staged a coup, press been muzzled or the CJ's been sacked ? even today the judges and courts are most hated in UK for not being severe enough on child molestors and murderers or illegal immigrants ?

Abe Lincoln usurped powers to take care of business in the land of freedom (US of A). So you have to consider the circumstances and situations of the place before you start the easy job of comparing. Typically in such situations no comparison is apples to apples.

So you mean to state that Pakistan is facing civil war and may be divided into two countries like USA was during the civil war ?

Pakistanis have screwed things up just as every other nation state has at one point or another. We will go through our growing pains to get to where we think is the right setup for us. Until then ups and downs will continue.

So why not persist with democracy and the rule of law ? Anyway if Mrs BB is so bad why have you forgiven Gen M for designing the NRO which let her enter Pakistan ?

Regards

 

[Flintlock]

Stop going in circles we have proved many times that in India people don't have the courage to speak against dictatorship of Hindus where minorities don't have releigous and ecnomic freedom.

Really? They why was Dr. Ambedkar allowed to draft the Indian constitution?
Why are dalits given massive reservations in colleges and govt. jobs?
Why are there so many development programs for lower castes?
Why are the majority of members of RSS (By your own admisstion a hindu fascist organization) lower castes?
Why is Mayawati, a woman and a lower caste, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh? (which is considered the heartland of traditional caste-based hindu society)

Generally minorities in India are poor, care to think why?
Of course, In your opinion they are inferior humans because they are not brahmans.

I doubt that is the opinion of anyone on this forum. Perhaps it is your own opinion.

Some times women are burnt alive when there husband dies and some times they go to special house, wearing white dress for whole life.
Is this democracy?

Don't point out a social problem and link it to democracy. Its a hollow argument.