Elections every five years a tragedy: PM Imran Khan

[Jungibaaz]

Hahaha. Having elections every five years should be the maximum, this type of condescending anti-demos speech is typical of pathetic Pakistani leaders.

Iskander Mirza in an attempt to justify his illegal martial law said that the new system was thus justified:

"more suited to the genius of the Pakistan nation", as he believed democracy was unsuited to Pakistan "with its 15% literacy rate"

This resentment of the Pakistani public was repeated again by Ayub Khan:

"He introduced various measures to supposedly cleanse the system of corrupt politicians, and was of the opinion that parliamentary democracy would not suit Pakistan because of its high level of illiteracy. Hence what would work in Pakistan according to him was a limited form of democracy, which came to be known as Basic Democracy."

Here's Zia's respect of the Pakistani civillians and voters on display:

"In announcing the coup, Zia promised "free and fair elections" within 90 days, but these were repeatedly postponed on the excuse of accountability and it was not until 1985 that ("party-less") general elections were held."

"He frequently stated that "western style democracy was not suited to the needs of Pakistan.".

Musharraf was no different, promising free and fair elections, removing his opponents, and rigging a referendum to win "by a whopping 97.5%", truly banana republic-esque! Even civilian leaders have trampled over the constitution and disrespected the people votes, including the opposition and PDM.

I'm truly sick of pathetic Pakistani leaders trying to evade democratic scrutiny by claiming that the system doesn't work because xyz reason, or implying the people are too stupid to govern themselves or make decisions every five years.

Also, this 'long-term planning' thing is a bs excuse. Plenty of countries manage long term planning with even four year transitions. It's our weak institutions with no institutional memory, no stability leading to no competence that's the problem.

This country and its people were eligible enough to carve out a new nation decades ago, but they're too stupid to be trusted to manage a democratic transition every five years?? Give me a break.

 

[ziaulislam]

Remember PMLN was crying for Charter of Finance, even after elections in his first speech Shehbaz Sharif proposed this and Imran Khan countered this which red face "I WILL NOT GIVE AN NRO". Which long term planning are you referring?? PMLN presented vision-2010 in 1999 and presented another Vision-2025 in 2015, Imran Khan and opposition termed it Khilafat and Bari, no suport was lend by Imran Khan that time.

Now he just want another term and no planning is envisaged.

Why do think eveyone just screw up their last 2 years
I mean PMLN was just fine during their first 3 years..sure they didnt start a dam or anything but macroeconomics were stable

 

[313ghazi]

So what does he propose? How does making it 10 years make it any better than 5 years? What about if in a 10 or 20 year term the government is performing terribly?

 

[Mohsin A]

I've always stated, Democracy is a curse for countries like Pakistan. Could you imagine if China was a Democracy? They'd still be working away in the rice fields.
What's needed is 1 dedicated long term team with a vision of Pakistan first!

 

[Jungibaaz]

So what does he propose? How does making it 10 years make it any better than 5 years? What about if in a 10 or 20 year term the government is performing terribly?

I say let him have an extension COAS Bajwa style, that is the crux of this whining afterall. It's not like he'd be saying something like this in 2017 when he was in opposition?

The long term planning spiel is a crock of crap.

 

[RealNapster]

6 years is ideal. This way a new government will not only get a year to formulate 5 year policy but will also be able to see its end results in its own government. Hence, it will be easy to judge them based on results of their 5 year policy.

 

[Patriot forever]

I say let him have an extension COAS Bajwa style, that is the crux of this whining afterall. It's not like he'd be saying something like this in 2017 when he was in opposition?

The long term planning spiel is a crock of crap.

Actually from a pure economic point of view Pakistan is still here because of the stabilization that happened during Dictators.

Still today Ayub Khan legacies are the only things that is keeping the power grid going.

 

[Khan vilatey]

Prime Minister Imran Khan Thursday said no nation could move forward without long-term planning and it was tragic that governments in Pakistan could not make long-term planning due to the general election every five years.

Addressing a function here in connection with documentary-drama (Paani ke Pankh), he termed the 10 years of PPP and PML-N governments from 2008 through 2018 the decade of darkness, marred by massive corruption, political expediency and inefficiency.

“When criminals become country heads, then no country can develop. So, one has to have faith in oneself. There are talented Pakistanis in every field outside Pakistan. The country’s system has to be fixed,” he said.

“It takes a little time; people should not worry that the change has not come yet. It takes time to change the mindset. It’s tragic that in our country elections are held every five years due to which we do not have a long-term plan,” he continued.
He said dams were built with a long-term plan and cited China as a country that is becoming the world's fastest growing economic power and superpower because of long-term planning.

“When we visited China, they told us what they were going to do in the next 10 to 20 years. No nation can move forward unless it has a long-term plan and thinks ahead. Unfortunately, we have a period of five years. We try to accomplish everything in five years, spend billions of rupees on advertisements and then fight elections on it,” he pointed out.

Imran believed that this handicap had done a lot of damage to Pakistan. “We have made decisions in a short period of time due to which we generate the most expensive electricity in the entire subcontinent. Whether we buy electricity or not, the agreements are such that in 2013 we had to pay Rs180 billion a month to the power producers as compulsory payment. When our government came, it was Rs500 billion,” he noted.

Elections every five years a tragedy: Imran

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Imran Khan Thursday said no nation could move forward without long-term planning and it was tragic that governments in Pakistan could not make long-term planning due to the...

www.thenews.com.pk

View attachment 711650

we did 11 years each of FM Ayub and Generals zia and Musharraf. It is extremely sad that a politically elected prime minister is afraid of elections. If his policies are pro Pakistan, if he feels his long term policies will hurt Pakistani’s than he can come on tv and explain his problems. He can tell the nation that we will need to tighten our belt. He should then go after all the fat cats to ensure the hard times are shared by the rich and poor alike. This would mean making his friends Pay.
If he does it genuinely and evenly the Pakistani people will elect him again.

k

 

[Patriot forever]

Hahaha. Having elections every five years should be the maximum, this type of condescending anti-demos speech is typical of pathetic Pakistani leaders.

Iskander Mirza in an attempt to justify his illegal martial law said that the new system was thus justified:


This resentment of the Pakistani public was repeated again by Ayub Khan:


Here's Zia's respect of the Pakistani civillians and voters on display:


Musharraf was no different, promising free and fair elections, removing his opponents, and rigging a referendum to win "by a whopping 97.5%", truly banana republic-esque! Even civilian leaders have trampled over the constitution and disrespected the people votes, including the opposition and PDM.

I'm truly sick of pathetic Pakistani leaders trying to evade democratic scrutiny by claiming that the system doesn't work because xyz reason, or implying the people are too stupid to govern themselves or make decisions every five years.

Also, this 'long-term planning' thing is a bs excuse. Plenty of countries manage long term planning with even four year transitions. It's our weak institutions with no institutional memory, no stability leading to no competence that's the problem.

This country and its people were eligible enough to carve out a new nation decades ago, but they're too stupid to be trusted to manage a democratic transition every five years?? Give me a break.

Erdogan, Mahatir, Sheikh Zaid, China, Hasina are the prime examples. One should understand the inherent difference in the psychology of our people and the whites.

One must be extremely delusional if they actually believe the pseudo liberal ( the patriotic dissent against the state) version of democracy. Even the parties themselves are not democratic.

 

[syedtalhamaududi]

So what does he propose? How does making it 10 years make it any better than 5 years? What about if in a 10 or 20 year term the government is performing terribly?

I think PTI under the stewardship of IK is transforming the country. He is a visionary leader who must be allowed to rule until he dies. Just look at KPK and the progress over 7 years. It has over taken the rest of Pakistan in every metric and measure.
In Punjab, Assman Buzdar is repeating the experience of PTI in KPk and his type of governance is being modelled and used in several countries.
Since 2018 nationally, the mismanagement of all previous administration has come to an end and at long last a credible, informed, knowledgeable and clean government is rescuing the country.
Surely this utopia must never end, we are truly blessed.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Actually from a pure economic point of view Pakistan is still here because of the stabilization that happened during Dictators.

Still today Ayub Khan legacies are the only things that is keeping the power grid going.

Dictators also cosied up to the US during their tenures. It's not through better planning or governance that they achieved higher growth levels. Problem with them is that they destroy the system's ability to self-correct, develop institutional strength, a history and a memory. Every time dictators come, they wipe the slate clean, and every time they leave, we have to back to square one and start working out a newish constitution with poorly managed civilian control. In solid democracies, even minority governments can make the core parts of the state function well if the bureaucracy and institutions are well developed and have decades of processes and systems in place to go about their day to day business.

IMO the only path to long term stability is democracy. And we can forget about trying to run a dictatorship in the modern era. Musharraf was the last who pulled it off. Any modern day attempt would have to reckon with a much less forgiving world.

An element of luck and timing is there too in the case of Musharraf for example. Even during Musharraf era US aid for example was worth 9% of the budget, today it's some tiny fraction of that, way less than 1%. And if he had just stuck around a few years more till 2009-2011, he would have presided himself over the financial crisis and economic slowdown the PPP were blamed for (partially fairly, but mostly out of their control). He left at the perfect time, just before the global financial crisis hit emerging markets, before relations with the US began to sour, and before the financial crisis and energy crises that matured in his tenure fell like a ton of bricks on the new government. Same thing as happened with IK in his transition.

Erdogan, Mahatir, Sheikh Zaid, China, Hasina are the prime examples. One should understand the inherent difference in the psychology of our people and the whites.

One must be extremely delusional if they actually believe the pseudo liberal ( the patriotic dissent against the state) version of democracy. Even the parties themselves are not democratic.

Would you describe Jinnah as a pseudo liberal and having white mentality?

6 years is ideal. This way a new government will not only get a year to formulate 5 year policy but will also be able to see its end results in its own government. Hence, it will be easy to judge them based on results of their 5 year policy.

4,5,6 years, it's all fine. As long as we're consistent and not hypocrites about it. There's no way Immy would be singing this tune back in 2017 for example when he was in opposition. We should decide a system and stick with it for the sake of stability and internal credibility.

 

[313ghazi]

Dictators also cosied up to the US during their tenures. It's not through better planning or governance that they achieved higher growth levels. Problem with them is that they destroy the system's ability to self-correct, develop institutional strength, a history and a memory. Every time dictators come, they wipe the slate clean, and every time they leave, we have to back to square one and start working out a newish constitution with poorly managed civilian control. In solid democracies, even minority governments can make the core parts of the state function well if the bureaucracy and institutions are well developed and have decades of processes and systems in place to go about their day to day business.

IMO the only path to long term stability is democracy. And we can forget about trying to run a dictatorship in the modern era. Musharraf was the last who pulled it off. Any modern day attempt would have to reckon with a much less forgiving world.

An element of luck and timing is there too in the case of Musharraf for example. Even during Musharraf era US aid for example was worth 9% of the budget, today it's some tiny fraction of that, way less than 1%. And if he had just stuck around a few years more till 2009-2011, he would have presided himself over the financial crisis and economic slowdown the PPP were blamed for (partially fairly, but mostly out of their control). He left at the perfect time, just before the global financial crisis hit emerging markets, before relations with the US began to sour, and before the financial crisis and energy crises that matured in his tenure fell like a ton of bricks on the new government. Same thing as happened with IK in his transition.

Would you describe Jinnah as a pseudo liberal and having white mentality?


4,5,6 years, it's all fine. As long as we're consistent and not hypocrites about it. There's no way Immy would be singing this tune back in 2017 for example when he was in opposition. We should decide a system and stick with it for the sake of stability and internal credibility.

Sisi says hello.

I say let him have an extension COAS Bajwa style, that is the crux of this whining afterall. It's not like he'd be saying something like this in 2017 when he was in opposition?

The long term planning spiel is a crock of crap.

6 years is ideal. This way a new government will not only get a year to formulate 5 year policy but will also be able to see its end results in its own government. Hence, it will be easy to judge them based on results of their 5 year policy.

What do you guys think about this?

1. Elections every 10 years.
2. Government formed.
3. 5 year plan with tangiable goals sets in the SMART format.
4. Action plan is ratified by parliament.
5. Review at the end of 5 years. If success rate is below 66% the opposition have the right to call for an election, otherwise 10 year term is completed with a new 5 year plan which is reviewed at the end of the term, with mandatory election.

 

[Patriot forever]

Dictators also cosied up to the US during their tenures. It's not through better planning or governance that they achieved higher growth levels. Problem with them is that they destroy the system's ability to self-correct, develop institutional strength, a history and a memory. Every time dictators come, they wipe the slate clean, and every time they leave, we have to back to square one and start working out a newish constitution with poorly managed civilian control. In solid democracies, even minority governments can make the core parts of the state function well if the bureaucracy and institutions are well developed and have decades of processes and systems in place to go about their day to day business.

IMO the only path to long term stability is democracy. And we can forget about trying to run a dictatorship in the modern era. Musharraf was the last who pulled it off. Any modern day attempt would have to reckon with a much less forgiving world.

An element of luck and timing is there too in the case of Musharraf for example. Even during Musharraf era US aid for example was worth 9% of the budget, today it's some tiny fraction of that, way less than 1%. And if he had just stuck around a few years more till 2009-2011, he would have presided himself over the financial crisis and economic slowdown the PPP were blamed for (partially fairly, but mostly out of their control). He left at the perfect time, just before the global financial crisis hit emerging markets, before relations with the US began to sour, and before the financial crisis and energy crises that matured in his tenure fell like a ton of bricks on the new government. Same thing as happened with IK in his transition.

Would you describe Jinnah as a pseudo liberal and having white mentality?


4,5,6 years, it's all fine. As long as we're consistent and not hypocrites about it. There's no way Immy would be singing this tune back in 2017 for example when he was in opposition. We should decide a system and stick with it for the sake of stability and internal credibility.

Sir with all due respect you never understood my point.

The reason why Dictators have to step in is because of our political setup. They had no other choice as it concerned the very survival of state.
The things we do not understand is there is no democracy to begin with, there are no green shoots of democracy that dictators trample upon. These family enterprises are monarchies, they are the biggest dictators that have destroyed our state institutions to the core through nepotism and favouritism (the very opposite of democracy) Their only aim is to consolidate their power for their generations. Democracy is just a way they take to take over the state, it's a mafia where politics is business for them.

Unless we change the very foundations of democracy in our country there is no hope for Pakistan. Just an endless loop of destruction followed by state correcting it's course for it's very survival. If you go back to the circumstances which warranted the state to step in you will find your answer where the flaw lies.

To bring a true democracy the weeds have to taken out along with roots for a healthy tree to flourish.

Sisi says hello.



What do you guys think about this?

1. Elections every 10 years.
2. Government formed.
3. 5 year plan with tangiable goals sets in the SMART format.
4. Action plan is ratified by parliament.
5. Review at the end of 5 years. If success rate is below 66% the opposition have the right to call for an election, otherwise 10 year term is completed with a new 5 year plan which is reviewed at the end of the term, with mandatory election.

Exactly a presidential system. With limit of one term for a single candidate and his entire family. Every term each party has to bring in a completely new face.

 

[saiyan0321]

Hahaha. Having elections every five years should be the maximum, this type of condescending anti-demos speech is typical of pathetic Pakistani leaders.

Iskander Mirza in an attempt to justify his illegal martial law said that the new system was thus justified:


This resentment of the Pakistani public was repeated again by Ayub Khan:


Here's Zia's respect of the Pakistani civillians and voters on display:


Musharraf was no different, promising free and fair elections, removing his opponents, and rigging a referendum to win "by a whopping 97.5%", truly banana republic-esque! Even civilian leaders have trampled over the constitution and disrespected the people votes, including the opposition and PDM.

I'm truly sick of pathetic Pakistani leaders trying to evade democratic scrutiny by claiming that the system doesn't work because xyz reason, or implying the people are too stupid to govern themselves or make decisions every five years.

Also, this 'long-term planning' thing is a bs excuse. Plenty of countries manage long term planning with even four year transitions. It's our weak institutions with no institutional memory, no stability leading to no competence that's the problem.

This country and its people were eligible enough to carve out a new nation decades ago, but they're too stupid to be trusted to manage a democratic transition every five years?? Give me a break.

A more funnier question would be that what if we had this 15 year long PM tenure and nawaz or zardari got elected or maryaam? Would they still support such a long tenure or is the constitution to contain a specific sub-article stating that it can only be used by favourite prime minister's only?


It is the thirst and hunger for power. Liaqat Ali, one of the major members of the party that literally placed the creation and fornation of this country to a vote and election, openly held that democracy was not desirable in Pakistan since a country with 15 percent literacy rate cannot be expected to be a democracy. The same illiterate people that consciously chose for Pakistan in an election that everyone knew would make or break Pakistan but it didn't stop him from delaying the constitutional process of the country. Ghulam Muhammad and islander Mirza and ayub khan simply followed that thinking and this was especially brought into more complication considering the political awareness of east Pakistan and the multiple movements and the results of the 1953 provincial election.

Nawaz sharif also made this excuse in 2011-2012 I think that five years are not enough to bring change and government should be more long lasting.

In the end it is futile. The 5 year parliamentary system has been enshrined in our constitution and can't be amended unless we are talking martial law, which they won't do at all..

6 years is ideal. This way a new government will not only get a year to formulate 5 year policy but will also be able to see its end results in its own government. Hence, it will be easy to judge them based on results of their 5 year policy.

The constitution does have a provision which can delay the election for a year based on an emergency.

Or he can hold the election and win based on no other viable option and have the independents get a few phone calls

 

[Patriot forever]

A more funnier question would be that what if we had this 15 year long PM tenure and nawaz or zardari got elected or maryaam? Would they still support such a long tenure or is the constitution to contain a specific sub-article stating that it can only be used by favourite prime minister's only?


It is the thirst and hunger for power. Liaqat Ali, one of the major members of the party that literally placed the creation and fornation of this country to a vote and election, openly held that democracy was not desirable in Pakistan since a country with 15 percent literacy rate cannot be expected to be a democracy. The same illiterate people that consciously chose for Pakistan in an election that everyone knew would make or break Pakistan but it didn't stop him from delaying the constitutional process of the country. Ghulam Muhammad and islander Mirza and ayub khan simply followed that thinking and this was especially brought into more complication considering the political awareness of east Pakistan and the multiple movements and the results of the 1953 provincial election.

Nawaz sharif also made this excuse in 2011-2012 I think that five years are not enough to bring change and government should be more long lasting.

In the end it is futile. The 5 year parliamentary system has been enshrined in our constitution and can't be amended unless we are talking martial law, which they won't do at all..


The constitution does have a provision which can delay the election for a year based on an emergency.

Or he can hold the election and win based on no other viable option and have the independents get a few phone calls

BTW bro the essence of his speech is not what we are discussing.

What he is pointing out is the inherent flaw where every political government tries to wow it's support base at the expense of the state. What he is actually referring to is a strong memory in the institutions and their autonomy irrespective of who comes in power. There should be a mechanism of institutional autonomy so they can take a stand against actions that are not in the interest of the state.

For example state bank autonomy so no one can manipulate dollar. Nepra autonomy so no one can sign expensive deals. Commerce division autonomy, autonomy in institutions under planning division so they can carry on a set plan of progression. Complete de politicization of bureaucracy to curb the way of nepotism and favouritism, by limiting the authority in posting, promotions based on political affiliation. This is how previously family enterprises flourished by compromising state institutions and made them family centric instead of loyal to state.

@Jungibaaz