My dinner with Pervez

[ahmeddsid]

Wow, i didnt know that! That is really a rip off for Pakistan its taxpayers! Holding by-elections at the nations expense for frankly no reason!

I actually dont know whether this happens in India or not! Would some one please share if he/she knows? Can a man contest from 2 different constituencies simulaneously in one election in India?
I know that they can contest from 2 constituencies if they are contesting both the State Elections and the Assembly elections ie contest 1 constituency each for State and General Assembly(because ToI raised a little noise about it, but nothing happened). But can this be done for just State elections or for just Assembly elections?


I do know that even in India, any citizen of India can contest from any constituency, not just the one where he has his primary residence. And this i think is right. You cant force people to contest from only one spot, if at all. But contesting from multiple constituencies can and should be barred.

In India we can contest from 2 constituencies in a single election. For Eg Lalu Prasad contested from 2 seats in the last Lok sabha election, he won both, but he Relinquished one of the seats, as u can only hold one. Most politicos in India do this out of insecurity or to prove that they are powerful enuff to contest anywhere. Sonia Gandhi has also done like this. She has contested in Karnataka and then in UP. Correct me if I am wrong!

 

[Zovc]

How come this guy did not point out the fact that Musharraf eats with his "left" hand.

 

[Jihad]

How come this guy did not point out the fact that Musharraf eats with his "left" hand.

Jeez, don't be hating on Musharraf that much.

 

[Energon]

S-2 and others,

People don't realize that democracy will never prosper in pakistan. The pakistani election system is a sham. It is a total fraud. Here is why----.


In the united states----a member of congress or a member of senate can only seek to be elected from one constituency----ie---he / she fight for election from only one place only----that is the place where he has declared his / hers primary residence and shown it on his tax documents.

In pakistani elections---a member of parliament can seek to be elected from 20, 30, or 200 hundred different constituencies at the same time if he can afford to. If he looses in 19 constituencies and wins from one---guess what--- he is elected----now if he wins from multiple constituencies----then he has a right to chose his primary location and forego the rest.

Now here is a tragic part----the runner up in that case does not get to take the winers place by default---there is supposedly another run off election held at govt's expense.

It is a sham all over. I am surprised that our enlightened media has never talked about this issue.

I don't think anyone can contest the fact that the Pakistani electoral system is inadequate, however that doesn't automatically mean that democracy can never prosper in Pakistan. It does however strongly indicate that the current defunct system which obviously reflects/perpetuates the archaic and pathological feudal system needs to be amended in order to make public offices more accessible to citizens with lesser economic clout. It will never be comprehensively equatable by any means, but at least a step in the positive direction.

Innumerable changes have been made to Pakistan's constitution to accommodate civilian autocrats and military dictators which to me indicates that the system is pliable but it just hasn't been employed in a desirable manner (desirable being some version of democracy which represents the interests of more people than under a dictatorship).

The bottom line is that if there is enough social will, Pakistan's governmental system can be changed. It may be slow and will certainly never be perfect, but at least it will put the country on some sort of an upward direction while maintaining stability which at the end of the day is the practical gold standard objective for any developing nation.

 

[zombie]

S-2 and others,

People don't realize that democracy will never prosper in pakistan. The pakistani election system is a sham. It is a total fraud. Here is why----.


In the united states----a member of congress or a member of senate can only seek to be elected from one constituency----ie---he / she fight for election from only one place only----that is the place where he has declared his / hers primary residence and shown it on his tax documents.

In pakistani elections---a member of parliament can seek to be elected from 20, 30, or 200 hundred different constituencies at the same time if he can afford to. If he looses in 19 constituencies and wins from one---guess what--- he is elected----now if he wins from multiple constituencies----then he has a right to chose his primary location and forego the rest.

Now here is a tragic part----the runner up in that case does not get to take the winers place by default---there is supposedly another run off election held at govt's expense.

It is a sham all over. I am surprised that our enlightened media has never talked about this issue.

true and this problem exists in India too and a lot of other problems that is not there in the US system.

e.g. in US bush could at max have only two terms. In India/Pakistan it might have been him for a long long time and then his incompetent children(not considering his own comptence) continuing for ever or maybe a puppet(e.g. manmohan, rabri, gilani)


in india/pakistan obama would have never never never won over a hillary.

There wouldnt be a Obama created in the first place. He would either not come up,have to be a puppet, spend his time doing road blocks/morcha or just become too old before he sits in a chair.

 

[BATMAN]

Systems evolve and that takes time and sometimes decades.

I believe you are referring to the system of governance!
First of all it has been 60 years since Pakistan has been made and I have witnessed that Pakistan is deteriorating with passage of time instead of evolving as you proposed.
I trust many olderly people will agree with that we have declined in everything ranging from social values, mutual respect, law and order etc.
We are living in 21st century not in 17th century. We should adopt some developed system

The problem is the constant interference from the Army.

Army is the only best thing we have and all army rules have always took us forward and all civilian rules have taken us back to darkness.
Army has always saved Pakistan from becoming a dynasty and returned us the right of self determination.
It is our civil rulers who have desperately tried to spoil the last functional institution of Pakistan.
BTW, who told Sharif to appoint an army cheif while earlier is still serving! just because Musharraf said no on some issue!
Who told Bhutto to tell army officers to polish his shoes? Bhutto's cabinet ministers used to kidnapp Generals of Pakistan army?
It is army who have always gave us the best managers.
Here I would like to quote my personal experience. I have worked with many managers graduated from all around the world but once I have briefly worked with a young forced retired army captian engineer and he was the best any company could wish to have.
A perfect team player and leader in time of crisis.

Let the country sort its own system out.

No we have to learn from other nations and should not be hesitant to seek foreign consultancy to learn the art of leadership or copy any recognized system of governance.
I think our concept of leadership is lost and we need to study the definition of the word.
I have tried to explain many times that experimentation of politicians have made the system so heavy and clumsy that we need to get rid of duplicate authorities.
For example repetition of ministries at state and province level. Than we have MPA system and Nazim system, next we have district govt.
We need to dissolve our provincial govt. and half of our problems will be solved. I gave this one example to show that we know very well what rocks and what not but politicians will keep flaws in the system as it serve them better.
Another example, if we preserve our land record on hard disk than it will take away more than half burden of our civil courts but again if common man is not in trouble than politicians loose their 'chaudrahat'.

 

[zhero]

I believe that both the Indian and Pakistani electoral systems derive largely from the British/Westminster model. In India, it seems to be (largely) working. As with many democracies, sometimes things don't always pan out right, but that's the way it goes.

I believe (and hope) that in the near future Pakistan is able to have successive democratic governments. Now that the role of the army is legitimized even in civil governments (NSC?), I hope we will see some capable leaders.

 

[BATMAN]

I believe that both the Indian and Pakistani electoral systems derive largely from the British/Westminster model. In India, it seems to be (largely) working. As with many democracies, sometimes things don't always pan out right, but that's the way it goes.

I believe (and hope) that in the near future Pakistan is able to have successive democratic governments. Now that the role of the army is legitimized even in civil governments (NSC?), I hope we will see some capable leaders.

It is well known that Pakistan's legislature assembly derived from British westminister model. Only difference is that in Pakistan minorities have two votes.
In Britan it seemed to be working because they did not formed more similar bodies where as we have local bodies govt., provincial govt, citiy districts govt. and now we have seen judiciary as a new form of govt.
More over neither foreign nation have any interst to destabalize UK and india.
Where as due to geographical situation of Pakistan is being is destabalized by foreign hand.
To have successive govt. we need to have a start with democracy and if civil govt. can deliver good governance than no one will welcome army coup.
labeling one self as democracy is not democracy.
indian democracy is only cosmetic and has been discussed in other threads.

 

[belarusian]

south korea and greece are two countries which transitioned from miltary dictatorship to democracy, from having all of the problems you have to none of the problems you have.

they were able to produce statesmen (roh tae woo karamanlis)

south korea had the american system (direct presidential elections and a bicameral legislature) and was unable to hold a real democratic election until 1987.

it's not the system it's the principle.

islam and sharia might be fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

democracy means that in order to wield power you are formally accountable to people who disagree with you.

quote

rebellion against rulers is disallowed till they commit a flagrant act of disbelief and stop abiding by the duties of Islam, particularly Salat

The Just Ruler

 

[SSGPA1]

islam and sharia might be fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
The Just Ruler

If Islamic law is interpreted and applied then it is true democracy ... for example, if one can loose a hand for stealing according to the Islamic law but at the same time, the second Caliph of Islam Hazrat Omar Farooq (ra) stopped that punishment during the time of a draught.

According to Islamic law, people are suppose to vote directly or through their representatives. An example is the election of first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakar (ra)

I would appreciate if you could please learn about Islam before making such comments.

 

[fatman17]

Musharraf, in Phila., sees South Asia challenges

By Mari A. Schaefer

The former president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, addressed a crowd at an event hosted by the World Affairs Council last night at the Franklin Institute and called South Asia "one of the most volatile regions in the world today."

While protesters against his regime gathered outside to make their views known - some left behind shoes - Musharraf dodged a question of why he suspended his country's constitution, saying he would "rather skip this."

He said what he did was "with all legal governance."

During his speech, Musharraf said Afghanistan, Pakistan and India were "the focal point in the world today."

The region, he said, faces three large challenges: terrorism and extremism; the acrimonious relationship between India and Pakistan; and poverty and underdevelopment.

Pakistan faces "all facets of extremism" including al-Qaeda and the Taliban, he said, and such groups must be stopped from spreading in the society.

"This is a battle for hearts and minds," he said.

Musharraf noted that India and Pakistan, both nuclear states, have fought three wars since 1947.

"We have so much to lose if there is a confrontation, so much to gain if there is peace," said Musharraf, who in August resigned as president under pressure for declaring a state of emergency in November 2007 and suspending the constitution.


Advice for Obama
Musharraf, who came to power in 1999 in a bloodless coup, became America's chief ally in the region after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

Critics have said the United States stuck with Musharraf too long and developed few other relationships to rely on in Pakistan.

Musharraf said public opinion in Pakistan had turned against the United States because of its involvement in the region since 1979.

After his speech, Musharraf took written questions from the audience.

When asked what advice he would give President Obama, Musharraf said he would suggest addressing the root causes of the problems in the region and "force" India and Pakistan to resolve their political disputes.


'He's a violator'
Outside, small groups of protesters gathered in front of the entrance.
"As lawyers we have an ethical and professional responsibility to confront violations of law no matter where they occur," said Ryan Hancock, of the Pakistan Justice Coalition.

Musharraf "was anything but a person who respected the rule of law and democracy," Hancock said.

Iqbal Munawar, a lawyer from New York, said Musharraf "mistreated and humiliated" judges in Pakistan's courts when he imprisoned 60 of them.

"Nobody in the civilized world would do that," he said.

Shahid Comrade, of the Pakistan-USA Freedom Forum, said of the former president: "He is a violator of human rights in Pakistan."

Understandably, last night's session, which was sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, a private, nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that brings noted speakers to the city to address nation and international issues, required a large dose of security.

Contact staff writer Mari A. Schaefer at 610-892-9149 or mschaefer@phillynews.com.

 

[belarusian]

Heres a better quote. Hopefully this illustrates my argument :

Commentary: To affront and degrade the ruler means to disobey him and to by-pass his orders. This impairs his power, honour and dignity. Believers have been told to obey and support rulers for the sake of national interest and welfare, understanding that they desist from committing an overt disbelief and maintain congregation Salat and other duties of religion. The political system of Islam is totally incompatible with western democracy. The concept of government party and the opposition is alien to Islam. All belong to one Ummah with only one goal and pursue the same aims and objects of Islamic guidelines!

Obligation of Obedience to the Ruler in what is Lawful and Prohibition of Obeying them in what is Unlawful

democracy is a greek word that means rule by the people. it has nothing to do with religion. it has no religious sanction. in fact democratic process includes a right to be atheist. in order for the people to rule the people have to be free to choose their own religion or lacktherof. Does that make sense?