Criticism should be constructive and not selective. When the so called establishment was helping these parties to win, it was all ok but when they did not help, they became the bad guy?
In a democracy. Criticism can be selective, non-constructive, politically motivated, etc. The only thing it can't be is illegal; libel, incitement to violence, both of these depend on strict legal definitions that vary by country.
Also, I've already said in the past, that whenever the establishment has helped these parties win, they were wrong. And it was just as undemocratic then. The 1990 election is one prime example.
Sure I agree your statement made no sense at all in its original form. Just the presence or absence of criticism doesn’t imply authority. You can be ruled by a just ruler or an unjust. A just ruler would allow and even encourage criticism as seen and ensured in western democracies, where as an unjust one would supress even a mild disagreememt - such as Khashogi case involving a “brotherly” nation.
Some of my conversations with you always devolve into me dispelling straw and you’ve made, and you distancing yourself from any extreme examples I give, whether or not it is originally in defence of any said extremity in the OP, I think we're required to do this again.
Let me just say a few things for clarification, I'm not here to convince yourself or anyone else to not support the government, or agree with the criticism of the army. OR to provide proof of army interference. That's a fool's errand at this point in time. These things will reveal themselves to you slowly but only after some time. As for evidence, I'm not FIA or some other agency that has been tasked by courts to collect evidence or submit an inquiry report. That is where evidence is collected, compiled, analysed, and then published. Until we have that, none of the allegations against the army have any evidential basis whatsoever, they are mere conjecture.
So I am not going down that path at all. However, I am here to say that in response to the OP in particular, legitimate criticism of the army should not be shut down. Even illegitimate criticism, as long as it is not illegal cannot be shut down. And for the interior minister to be making statements like this while the opposition accuse their government of being an army puppet is rather unfortunate for a self-described democracy. This is the basis of my replies in this thread. I'm not here to convince anyone to support PDM etc.
Anyway, back to your actual quote:
Sure I agree your statement made no sense at all in its original form. Just the presence or absence of criticism doesn’t imply authority. You can be ruled by a just ruler or an unjust. A just ruler would allow and even encourage criticism as seen and ensured in western democracies, where as an unjust one would supress even a mild disagreememt - such as Khashogi case involving a “brotherly” nation.
That is not a exactly what my statement was implying, it’s not about the presence or absence of criticism per se. It’s about whether criticism is allowed. And you can nit pick all you want, the point is that in a society with a draconian authority, said authority often does not allow fair criticism. Whether they’re a despotic dictator, a cadre of generals, a theocracy, or fascistic ideologues. If you and I were in Nazi Germany, that prohibition of criticism would apply to the Nazi state and state ideology, if you and I were in Saudi, it would apply to the royals and the Crown prince. In Pakistan, at least partially, it applies to the army. Sheikh Rasheed himself is giving us a fine display of that.
Never said you shouldn’t criticize an Institution - but to drag it in politics to bring about regime changes and pressure/plead them in public/secret to influence judiciary is treasonous.
Lol, why don’t you just make a list of what you consider fair criticism and what you consider treasonous? Are we a democracy or a bloody joke? Politicising the army is treasonous? How is that treason as defined by the law and the constitution?
Again, let’s have an explanation please. Your words and judgement aren’t worth a charge of treason unless they’re backed by a similar reading of the law. Treason is a serious charge, and it has a legal definition.
Also, politicisation happens when an apolitical entity is dragged into politics. You may see it that way. I contend that the army is already in politics, we’re merely talking about the elephant in the room. I certainly don't see it as treasonous.
And in addition the mandate of the public needs to be respected- more people voted for PTI and their democratic mandate needs to be provided the lawful time to implement their agenda.
I agree, democratic mandate should be respected. However, the opposition are claiming that the election was rigged and engineered in their favour, hence that mandate itself is under scrutiny. Even if I leave that aside, which I will leave that aside, as I honestly don’t want that mandate to be changed...
The mandate given to PTI was only that of the largest party, not of an outright majority. The opposition claims and I agree with them, that the army sealed the deal by making their lackeys in PMLQ and MQM and others, align with the minority PTI to confer on them their majority. If public pressure can be made to act on undemocratic forces such as the army/establishment gaming the system, forcing them to pull back their pawns from supporting PTI. Which, PMLQ and MQM would gladly do, they would gladly abandon the government, they are only there because the establishment has ordered them. Then the government can be weakened or destabilised
without violating the constitution and without violation the PTI’s mandate.
Is it still an attempt to topple a government? Sure, but it is legal and constitutional? Yes.
It would be almost the same anywhere in the world. If an election results in hung parliament and a weak coalition can be strung together to form a majority, the opposition has every right to lobby the coalition partners to abandon the government. This does not lead to the government falling directly, however, it leaves the government weak and unable to pass laws, it creates deadlocks in parliament, and it can lead to votes of no confidence.
If the establishment were to be convinced to leave their support of IK, all it would take is about 2 weeks, PTI's coalition partners would jump ship, some PTI members might also lack composure. And then the rest of the process could follow.
The problem with PDM is that their demands and their methods of getting these demands are unlawful and undemocratic: Army cannot influence in anyway to depose a govt and not respecting mandate of people is also undemocratic, court conviction can only be overturned by lawful arguments and proofs in courts and not by getting into power by hook or crook and then attempting to undermine all laws and norms.
You’re misreading their methods, their intentions you’re correct on. But they want the army to back off, not do anything in politics at all. See above quote for what they actually wants
Strictly by law there is nothing that prohibits you from slanderous slogans like “Dal Khor Army” “Punjabistanis” or running campaigns against the COAS that he is a Qadiani etc.
I mean to say incitement against Army is not against the law at all. You can go to soldiers deployed LOC and tell them they are cowards who are going to lose to Indian army. Its perfectly legal.
You’re strawmanning here, within the bounds of decency and civility (not talking about whether it's within the bounds of the law), people should not insult their own army. And I never claimed so at all.
And nobody is asking soldiers to disobey orders to lay down arms against India. They have specifically said that when their commanding officers order them to do something against the law and constitution, then they should refuse. And that all officers, including corp commanders and the chief himself should remember their oath is not the army, not to the flag, not to the government, it is to the constitution, and that oath further states that they will strictly desist from any political activity whatever.
To say anything else about this statement is to strawman.
Your statement in isolation is also perfectly fine as well - but you are still preaching it for a reason though.
Not only is it fine in isolation, it’s fine in all readings. As I have explicitly stated, when it should be okay to refuse orders; when the law and constitution are violated.
This is merely a call to uphold basic professional, ethical, and legal standards. Even in my job, if a senior or my boss asks me to do something unethical or illegal, I have been trained to refuse them.
Now please show us where has Armed forces stepped out from constitution in support of the civil govt with proofs. And I mean state the laws that were broken while supporting the civil govt as well as the proofs. We always used to hear of no support from Armed forces for civil govt but now its the opposite LoL - too much support. Anyway lets compile them here and then hire a lawyer to file a petition in Pakistan Supreme Court.
I'd refer you to the second paragraph of my first quote of your post. Also, proofs are not produced like this, they are collected and compiled by investigating authorities. Especially if it’s a conspiracy, rather than the obvious case of a coup followed by subsequent dictatorship. Proofs will take time. I have none at this time. All of the opposition rhetoric is merely conjecture and allegations at this stage, you can take it or leave it.
Anyway I like the qouted paragraph and here is my version with some changes:
"Party members, paid social media touts, and all subservient mid leadership, should all remember their allegiance to state of Pakistan and its constitution as citizens, and should therefore act to uphold the constitution, and should not violate the law which also governs them. If their party leadership asks them to violate their oath or break the law, they should not comply, they should refuse."
I agree, completely. Nobody is arguing otherwise. I’m not against upholding the constitution, those are excusing the army when it does it are. This isn't a gotcha at all, I completely agree.
PMLN is actively being run by convicted criminals which is against the constitution and the spirit of ECP laws.
Then by all means, do as you said, get them banned through legal means if it’s possible. I mean, they're run by criminals, you claim their rhetoric is treasonous, and others here are claiming Indian interference and bidding. That's a pretty damning record.
This clearly proves that PDM as movement has nothing to do with establishment of rule of law or ensuring democracy.
Disagree, that’s a complete mischaracterisation, and making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s like when Imran gave dharna, people said that he’a not in favour of democracy, only wants anarchy blah blah, while citing some issues in the dharna and misdemeanors. I didn't take it seriously then, I don't take it seriously now.
All I said is that we need to bring democratic reforms by keeping our own sensitivities in mind. Due to our threats and geopolitical situation we have been a security state. So not saying that the time is not right - as the time has never been right for Pakistan - but the method of it needs to be tuned. Its time we strengthen civil institutions first by leading as example, establish rule of law, strengthen other institutions (bureaucracy, police, FIA, FBR etc) and then push our authority further.
This would be nice if it were so easy, but you are saying that they are already subservient and civilians are already supreme, if that were the case I'd agree with your suggestions. But I contend that it is not the case, they are supreme and run things behind the scenes. As for strengthening civil institutions, that can come after proper establishment of democracy and constitution. Not while elections are engineered, journalists are kidnapped by boys, and generals run governments and rule prime ministers. Not while "overzealous" Rangers and ISI boys can kidnapping serving IG and additional IG, and force them to do their bidding. Not only is all of this a violation of the oaths of these armed forces members, it's all very shitty and illegal, and every instance of it, big or small, vindicates those of my viewpoint.
Pakistan Army and its role in Pakistani politics has been thoroughly criticized and debated in public.
For their role in history? Sure, that's debatable, but at least partially true. For their current role? No I disagree, that only began with PDM.
Let me give you an example of an actual holy cow: How Malik riaz managed to silence the media about their handling of specific family dispute- until for a few brave souls in social media their was total silence.
Agree.
Well Sheikh Rasheed can only do what is required under the law. He still does not have the audacity that Shahbaz sharif had, under whose watch people were massacred in public by Punjab police in model town. Or the thousands that have been murdered by PPP gangsters in Karachi in the past decade.
On the other hand the PDM lot has a history of openly attacking, threatening and bribing all institutions including the judiciary of Pakistan.
Constitution should be upheld and all people should follow it, but it’s funny when the people who are jailed, convicted, conspired against are made out to be the tyrants. Their authority sounds supreme, yet in practice is clearly limited.
Agree they have never done any of these things - in UK.
I don’t understand one thing - how can we get out of this vicious cycle of establishment and anti establishment crap. Honestly it serves the public nothing. I get it in the past Armed forces have done terrible things and propped dictators, but does that mean we forgo all normals that are required in society for Armed forces to perform their duties properly? Does that mean we close our courts and let anyone launder money as they want it, do not create laws to curb money laundering and stay under FATF black list?
If you want this bickering to end, you have to deal with the issues at hand. We are talking from two very separate places. You think the establishment’s time is already over and that now we have had established civilian supremacy. Whereas I am saying that have not ever had it, and even today the establishment is above the law, they conduct political engineering behind the scenes because they are that powerful.
There has been democratic rules of PPP and then PMLN - they enjoyed all the perks of power but have always come out complaining about authority in the end - this is just hypocritical BS that carries no weigh at all. To say we won’t let Armed forces function properly or not stay within norms just because this and this happened in past is detrimental to our own nations interest. And on top of it, the end objective is not establishment of any rule of law at all - as that means most of PDM behind bars due to corruption- it is only to scrap the cases in courts. What PPP and PMLN desire is that the Armed forces to stop providing protection to state institutions (prosecutors, judges, witnesses etc) so they can use threats and bribes to resolve all cases like they have always done in the past. Under PM IK leadership all institutions have a legal mandate to follow the constitution and uphold the rule of law - that is what PDM wants to dislodge. As the continuation of PTI rule and this accountability policy will mean an end to dynasty based politics due to the lawful conclusion of these corruption cases.
Both, the PPP and PMLN contend that they never truly had all the authority. Establishment would intervene and prevent them from running things their way. In both governments, the elected PM was removed, both of them claim it was an establishment plot to overthrow them, even if it eventually came through other places like the courts. OBL was a prime example of the army being above the law, only a few generals knew and the rest of the country was caught with its pants down. Instead of being held accountable for that national embarrassment, the PPP government later in 2011 seriously feared that their government would be toppled.
Well the current PM along with all ministries clearly state the opposite- but sure Ex PM Nawaz is such a good well wisher for PM IK that he is fighting to establish his authority- truly commendable.
Of course he clearly states the opposite. He;'s their puppet, he wouldn't openly accept this fact. He absolutely has to rage, distract, detract against it. As for establishing authority, you're right, but there's a catch you've missed, it's not about establishing the authority of the PM per se, it's about establishing civilian supremacy. This will indirectly establish his power, but will also leave him without the support on which he has relied. So his office will be stronger, but he will be the leader of a minority, formerly a puppet; think PM Junejo at his weakest point.
Again - what authority? Sindh has been ruled by PPP for decades now- they have billions of dollars of budget. Their performance and dis performance is on them. I see role of Rangers in Karachi as per the directives of SC and Federal govt, due to the incompetence of PPP for past decade - strange thing is despite such a silly sad failure in all aspects of governance PPP managed to gain even more seats in Sindh then even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto could. But heaven forbid we question the state of democracy in interior Sindh.
Same is true for PMLN in Punjab and now PTI. I don’t see Army involved in any domains except certain foreign policy, security matters; CPEC involvement is a bit concerning though. They do have a much dominant role in erstwhile areas like Baluchistan and FATA. Other than that everything is under the respective political parties.
It takes some nuance to understand the way the new hybrid system works. When we're talking about 'the establishment' and the current system. We are not talking only about the army or about outright dictatorship. The establishment has within it, serving and retired generals, industrialists and land owners, and businessmen, judges, civil servants, and media organisations. And the system is a lot more complex, it's hybrid, and has civilians leading it throughout. Any influence that is exerted is done behind closed doors.
Wrong - the Army needs to play its part as defined lawfully under the constitution and follow all lawful orders of the civilian executive. What PDM is asking army to do is let them destabilize the country so the govt. can be overthrown - thats what backing off means here. The request from PDM is contrary to constitution and democratic norms - Armed forces should follow lawful orders and ensure peace and stability.
And their call of neutrality are hypocritical again, as they themselves were exposed of having secret meetings with COAS and ISI chief only recently, extended the same COAS tenure who they accuse of causing their demise.
If they desire change it should be under constitution and with a democratic mandate ie. they need to win in elections lawfully and not through workings of closed door negotiations with establishment. And plus the current mandate of the public needs to be respected- more people voted for PTI than any other party and the legitimacy of PTI mandate has been accepted by most neutral intl observers. The PDM chief needs to retract statements like “will continue to topple PTI govt even if it won the next mid term election”.
Agree to disagree here. The answer to this has been hashed out above already. Your reading of both the system in Pakistan and the PDM movement are diametrically opposed to mine. We'll wait and see who is vindicated in the coming years and decades from now. That's all I can offer at this stage.
