Revolution - A bloody revolution of justice is needed.
Something easier and less violent would be to start a grassroots level political movement that supports/puts up candidates that offer ideas for effective police reforms - training, autonomy from politicians etc.
The problem is that while most people rant and rave about 'injustice and corruption' no one actually wants to put the hard work in change the system and work at a grass roots level to educate people about how their choices come election time make a difference, and instead cling to this myopic vision of 'revolution will change the country'.
Yes a 'revolution' can change the country, but a 'revolution' does not necessarily have to be violent, with mobs burning public property and overthrowing the State at the behest of rabble rousers. A revolution to change the status quo can be one that uses the existing system and works from within to fix it.
But when I talk to Pakistanis about fixing the system from within, a whole series of excuses is trotted out to explain why they don't work at a grassroots level in their communities to bring about change.
The same canard of 'revolution' is piggybacked on 'implement Shariah' demands. How will shariah change things? Who will implement it?
The same people we have now? That would mean nothing will change, but probably get worse, as Shariah gives these people even more authority to clamp down on freedom under the guise of 'faith'.
Everyone sings praises of this Utopian society that 'Shariah' will bring about, but no one has any clue on how such a system will actually work and give ordinary people a better voice in how their affairs are managed by government, and no one has any clue on how the officials running the Shariah system will be held accountable.
In fact, most who advocate Shariah argue against elections and democracy, and have no satisfactory explanation of how 'wise and capable leaders' will rise to run the country. Will these 'wise and capable leaders' just sprout from the ground and magically make their way to leadership positions?
These people in favor of Shariah and against elections and democracy are essentially arguing in favor of religious dictatorship, where these religious leaders running the system will not be held accountable by the people through elections, and will essentially hold themselves accountable - like letting a thief go to a thieves council to determine whether he committed theft.
So instead of nonsensical claims of 'implement Shariah to change things', think about how a Shariah system will actually work and what kinds of mechanisms, in a Shariah system, can make those in government more accountable for their actions and more accountable to the citizens of the State and give the citizens a voice in how their government runs.
That last part is crucial, because any political system and government is implemented to work for the betterment of citizens and society, not for the propagation of some ideology, and without citizens and society having a voice in government, how can government know what citizens and society want done?
