Pakistan’s Strange Democracy

[Optimus]

A benevolent dictator elected through a true democratic process who cares for his subjects is the need of the hour - Maybe too many isms in it

 

[Speaker]

I agree in bits with almost all points suggested here. Democracy is not necessarily the best answer for economic or social indicators. But there is the soft side to existence which has to do with freedom of the mind, freedom of religion, freedom of speech which is all summarized under "Happiness Indicator". In those terms, democracy (or Monarchy as in the case of Bhutan) are really desirable.

Dictatorship or military rule all but kills the happiness quotient but is very good for other indicators. The important thing is that the one-man or one-party rule has to be well-meaning as in China and not some frustrated guy like Mugabe. There are some discussions that when the Chinese society reaches a certain maturity level, the government will (be forced to) consider democracy as the way to go forward. If that were to happen, that will be the best example of a government system anywhere. I think heavily competitive societies like those in Asia will benefit from this - having strict governments during times of transition and gradually ease into a democracy with time. Now that is also a function of having sensible leaders and not someone intoxicated with power, again like Mugabe. This may be the answer for Pakistan, but they need a visionary leader to do this.

In India's case, as pointed out, the extreme diversity cannot be handled by one leader alone. Any oppression will spark talks of autonomy or secession. Which is why, despite the drawbacks, we have to have our faith in democracy.

 

[pak-yes]

Frankly democracy is the system which only works when you have educated masses.

Otherwise it's mess.

 

[deckingraj]

Frankly democracy is the system which only works when you have educated masses.

Otherwise it's mess.

I disagree....Any system which is not implemented properly is a mess...As far as corruption is concerned its in every system be it Democracy be it Socialism...However if we go by History books than Socialism hasn't worked well but for China...and even we talk to Chinese scholars you will get an inclination they are a success because they have adopted policies which were a Big No for socialist world...Let me give you another example

India has been a democracy since its independence in 1947. Apart from a blot of emergency brought in my Indira Gandhi we have done reasonably well...However we were at the verge of bankruptcy in 1991 and reached where we are only after moving away from policies driven from Socialist ideology...You might not agree but if you look at our stats around poverty and illetracy from 1947-1991 and compare it with 1991-2009 you might get shocked...In my opinion the biggest advantage that democracy has over is the power to bring in a change. Unfortunately this biggest power has been misused as well and probably that's what you pointed out...Still india was always a democracy...However the transformation from a devoloping economy plagued by bankruptcy to a second fastest growing economy happen only when we let go policies inspited by Socialist ideology...Same thing China did though a decade before us and see where they are now...

Please don't think that i am suggesting China is doomed becuase their system is faulty and ours is better...The present system is working well for them and they should stick to it...However democracy is the way to go and pointed out by someone that once all the glitches are over China may move towards democracy...

 

[RobbieS]

I kind of disagree....The way i percieve China is an exception and their economy went on upward directions once they brought in revolutionary changes as compared to a typical socialist mindset...Look at any other communist country in the past and present and you will see their growth rates are/have been depressing as compared with western world...The thing is when it comes to democracy you can have a system that keeps a check however when it comes to dictatorship your fortunes more or less depends on that one man...

Capitalist or socialist are economic systems whereas Democracy or single-party rule are political systems. I think we should evaluate these systems independent of each other. That fact is that China was able to introduce revolutionary changes and reap the benefits of it. Now they are ahead of a democratic country like India. Was our democracy able to give us the same benefits as their autocracy? Rajiv Gandhi had about a 80% majority in the Lok Sabha after the '85 elections. He still wasn't able to bring about any changes. Had he taken effective steps we wouldn't have faced the credit crisis of 91.

My point is that concepts like liberty and suffrage are all great concepts but they pale in comparison to the basic needs of a poor hungry human - Roti, Kapda aur Makan. The fact remains that if you ask a slum dweller if he's ready to exchange his right to vote for good economic means, he will gladly give up his voting rights. Its only those whose stomachs are filled that like to talk about these lofty concepts. For the downtrodden, they don't even care.

 

[deckingraj]

Capitalist or socialist are economic systems whereas Democracy or single-party rule are political systems. I think we should evaluate these systems independent of each other.

Make sense...Though they are intermingled...Anyways lets give it a shot...

That fact is that China was able to introduce revolutionary changes and reap the benefits of it. Now they are ahead of a democratic country like India. Was our democracy able to give us the same benefits as their autocracy? Rajiv Gandhi had about a 80% majority in the Lok Sabha after the '85 elections. He still wasn't able to bring about any changes. Had he taken effective steps we wouldn't have faced the credit crisis of 91.

Here you go wrong...You just said that you want to treat political systems separate from economic systems.. Unfortunately they are mingled.... One party rule is the essence of Socialism..Anyways the example that you are citing can you please care to explain how democracy stopped Rajiv Gandhi from taking any concrete steps even though he had 80% majority?? The problem was not the system but the person who lacked spine to take difficult decision...I hope you get my point....

My point is that concepts like liberty and suffrage are all great concepts but they pale in comparison to the basic needs of a poor hungry human - Roti, Kapda aur Makan. The fact remains that if you ask a slum dweller if he's ready to exchange his right to vote for good economic means, he will gladly give up his voting rights. Its only those whose stomachs are filled that like to talk about these lofty concepts. For the downtrodden, they don't even care.

But isn't that true for anything...Why only political system... A poor will be ready to give up almost everything to feed his family....if i pose the same question to a poor in China he/she would be more than willing to shift to democracy for similar reasons...

Again China is succesful than India does not mean that Autocracy is better than Democracy...because if that would be the case then almost all the autocratic economies are going downgrade.... China is more succesful because they opened up their markets(cue from Capatalist world) earlier than India...

As i said before in an autocratic world your fortune depends on that one man-one party and you have no power to bring in change...When it comes to democracy you have that very essential extra power...This is where democracy score agasint autocracy in theory...Now when it comes to implementation history has showed us how autocracy has failed over democracy... As said before i by no mean say that CHina should abort autocracy and move to democracy but there are talks in China that they eventually will move suggest how potent and important democratic set up is...

 

[NWO]

Communism does not work. Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. You say China is communist, but they have been doing free-market reform since 1978. They call it modified socialism, but its they are pretty much moving towards a free-market. When North Vietnam took over South Vietnam, the people were starving and so they had to introduce free-market reform in the 1980's. Today, their economy is expanding rapidly. Just because its called socialism doesn't mean anything. They are pretty much a free-market economy, or moving towards one.

Communism doesn't work because whatever you do, the government takes it and redistributes it other people who might just be lazy. Hence, everybody becomes lazy. Free-market gets people to compete with each other and hence they strive to produce the best quality at the lowest cost to the consumer.

By the way, a lynching mob is pure democracy. You don't won't democracy. What you want is a republic. In a republic, the majority rules but the minority is protected, usually with some type of bill of rights. That's why Pakistan is called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

 

[Speaker]

Communism does not work. Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. You say China is communist, but they have been doing free-market reform since 1978. They call it modified socialism, but its they are pretty much moving towards a free-market. When North Vietnam took over South Vietnam, the people were starving and so they had to introduce free-market reform in the 1980's. Today, their economy is expanding rapidly. Just because its called socialism doesn't mean anything. They are pretty much a free-market economy, or moving towards one.

Communism doesn't work because whatever you do, the government takes it and redistributes it other people who might just be lazy. Hence, everybody becomes lazy. Free-market gets people to compete with each other and hence they strive to produce the best quality at the lowest cost to the consumer.

By the way, a lynching mob is pure democracy. You don't won't democracy. What you want is a republic. In a republic, the majority rules but the minority is protected, usually with some type of bill of rights. That's why Pakistan is called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. Republic is where the figurative leaders (President, Governors) are elected by the (representatives of) people. It is an option different from Monarchy. Democracy is where executive leaders (Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers) are elected by the people. India, Pakistan and few other countries are examples of this. For that matter, China's name is People's Republic of China - so there is not much to infer from that.

I am not sure about China's free market reform. They are pioneers in common-sense engineering but their economics is till looked at suspiciously. They try to export to every country but a true free market is one where foreign sellers are treated fairly. America has routinely accused China of protectionist measures and for currency malpractices. But this is not related to this discussion. The Chinese political system is definitely communist, so is their social system. The rich cannot get richer, and wealth is re-distributed by the government at all levels. Have you wondered why India has more billionaires compared to China even though they are thrice the size of our economy? But economically, they are as enterprising as you can get in the world. That need not necessarily mean they are capitalists, but their progress has been amazing.

And all this talk of India/Pakistan being socialists is misleading. America, for all its disrepute of money-minded capitalism, takes care of its people better than either of us- Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Homeless Shelters, Food stamps and the likes.

 

[JohnyD]

Simply put, Pakistan does not have a democratic constitution....it is a democratically elected government monitored/controlled by the uniformed people with an option to kick the democratic government out any time and place their own people on both the chairs...Civilian as well as Uniformed...