Singh says not clear who controls Pakistan army

[oceanx]

Sir, in our case its not just corruption, its way more then that. I used the word oligarchs, these oligarchs want to become kings, emperors, dictators, whatever u name it, absolute power.

And frankly the solution in my case is a mini or large revolution removing all of them forever. As these oligarchs can't be removed by mere demonstrations, other solution other then revolution would be an educated & conscious masses who can make a change in the political scenario and bring people who have conscious and think about Pakistan instead of themselves, which will take decades i believe.

Quite an honest and unflinching answer there Taimi. We know from history that countless individuals before you have pondered this question. And likely many after you will, too.

When does the "benefit" from a "revolution" outweigh its cost? Does the "benefit" ever outweigh the cost? For whom and by whom is this decided?

Then even after many (presumably) perish in a revolution, do things improve at all? "Plus ça change"...

Or the Fabian approach taking "decades" might have been preferable?

There are really no easy answers, although I personally favour a "Fabian", gradual approach to most things.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Where is the think tank to answer the question of who controls the Pakistani Army?

We've taimikhan who provides a stock answer straight from a textbook before wandering off into coup d'etat'sville with all the convenient rationales that accompany a militarist neo-fascist perspective.

Is that true? The army is accountable to the civilian government at the convenience of the army? Seems to be Taimikhan's reply. I'm waiting to read some responsible and insightful perspectives that don't whitewash an ignoble legacy and provide some hope that, corrupt and inept or not, this government WILL be seen through its tenure and PAKISTANIS will do a better job of identifying and electing their next set of civilian leaders.

Clearly Pakistanis did so with Zardari's election. Nobody seems to contest the legitimacy of that vote unlike Karzai's recent debacle. If so, why the clamouring and gnashing of teeth? Isn't it recognized that elections represent the self-correcting mechanism to institute policy change through new administrations?

This isn't "one man, one vote, one time" again to be replaced by another military strong-man, is it?

We don't have a presidential system like Afghanistan, and Zardari was not elected by the people of Pakistan, heck he wasn't even a member of the Parliament, he was a Senator elected by BB party members just because he was her husband. Better to know first before .....................................

 

[TaimiKhan]

Where is the think tank to answer the question of who controls the Pakistani Army?

We've taimikhan who provides a stock answer straight from a textbook before wandering off into coup d'etat'sville with all the convenient rationales that accompany a militarist neo-fascist perspective.

Is that true? The army is accountable to the civilian government at the convenience of the army? Seems to be Taimikhan's reply. I'm waiting to read some responsible and insightful perspectives that don't whitewash an ignoble legacy and provide some hope that, corrupt and inept or not, this government WILL be seen through its tenure and PAKISTANIS will do a better job of identifying and electing their next set of civilian leaders.

Clearly Pakistanis did so with Zardari's election. Nobody seems to contest the legitimacy of that vote unlike Karzai's recent debacle. If so, why the clamouring and gnashing of teeth? Isn't it recognized that elections represent the self-correcting mechanism to institute policy change through new administrations?

This isn't "one man, one vote, one time" again to be replaced by another military strong-man, is it?

Look who is talking

 

[S-2]

"Look who is talking"

We've never had a military coup in my nation. Nor have I ever suggested it would be in our interest. Indeed LOOK who is talking. You are clearly comfortable with such a militarist perspective. I am not.

As a former serving officer of my nation, I swore to defend and uphold the CONSTITUTION of the United States Of America, regardless of the presiding elected government. You seem to have a "flavor of the day" approach to governance.

 

[S-2]

"We don't have a presidential system like Afghanistan, and Zardari was not elected by the people of Pakistan, heck he wasn't even a member of the Parliament, he was a Senator elected by BB party members just because he was her husband. Better to know first before"

Zardari Wins Pakistan Election-Reuters Sept. 6, 2008

"Members of the two-chamber parliament and four provincial assemblies voted on a replacement for former army chief Pervez Musharraf, who resigned last month nine years after taking power in a coup.

Zardari, who had been widely expected to win, secured 480 out of 702 electoral college votes, according to unofficial Election Commission results."

You are incorrect that you don't have a president but correct that you've a parliamentary democracy. It was through that mechanism that Zardari was legally elected and the process confirmed by the laws of your land and not just by BB PPP members. All your parliamentarians had the opportunity to vote and their votes counted for and against.

So his ELECTION was affirmed by the prevailing laws of your land, was it not? Therefore his succession to Musharraf was legitimate, is it not?

 

[SandsofTime]

So his ELECTION was affirmed by the prevailing laws of your land, was it not? Therefore his succession to Musharraf was legitimate, is it not?

Likes of Zardari are able to work the system to their advantage to become the president. The election of the president is only indirect in that publicly elected parliamentarians elects the president. For this reason the president was not supposed to be as powerful as he is right now since he has no direct votes from the public. Zardari's popularity is at an all time low and he would have a difficult time were he to try and get elected on one of the parliament seats (he could probably do this from his support bastions), yet he is able to enjoy full powers. This is the irony of the situation.

 

[ARSENAL6]

Allah (swt) controls the army
Like everythimg else

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

I guess this is what is termed as pot calling the kettle black.

An absurd accusation from a man who himself has as much power as........... a 9 V Battery.

He is a puppet of Gandhi family

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

I wish 1971 Constitution less all amendment be in Pakistan and people will have real power

 

[ARSENAL6]

"Look who is talking"

We've never had a military coup in my nation. Nor have I ever suggested it would be in our interest. Indeed LOOK who is talking. You are clearly comfortable with such a militarist perspective. I am .

Thats because most of America is brainwashed by the "America can never do wrong !" thing, to be control by the govt Just like the Soviets did on their people. S-2 may swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION of the United States Of America, regardless of the presiding elected government. Which even means Hitler -like tyrant or if the people do wake up and go against the Govt. the Govt would have no problem deploying US army hit squads to kill civillians. LIke they did during the protest of Vietnem back in the 70's.
ANother Tiananmen Square made in the US of A in the USA

It is healthy to have the mitary to check on the govt and put corruption at bay if the power has been stolen from the people be it brainwashing or mass killings by thier leaders.


Uncle Sam has sercertly replaced Jesus Christ (Pbuh)

So his ELECTION was affirmed by the prevailing laws of your land, was it not? Therefore his succession to Musharraf was legitimate, is it not?

this is great example of someone who has a huge lack of understanding of demcocracy.
AS stated before by another poster and it is well known across the world how corrupt Zadaari is . his popularity was an all time low How did he came into power ?

 

[S-2]

The point is simple-Zardari was legally elected by the processes you have in place and occasionally practice between periodic coups. If you don't have a coup soon, then their will be new elections to the national assembly, I presume, called by his prime minister at a time most favorable (or least unfavorable as the case may be) to their party.

I presume all assemblymen/women run at that time against their oppos and the party with the greatest strength based upon the election appoints a Prime Minister while the new nat'l assembly elects your new president.

Is that correct?

 

[ARSENAL6]

The point is simple-Zardari was legally elected by the processes you have in place and occasionally practice between periodic coups. If you don't have a coup soon, then their will be new elections to the national assembly, I presume, called by his prime minister at a time most favorable (or least unfavorable as the case may be) to their party.

I presume all assemblymen/women run at that time against their oppos and the party with the greatest strength based upon the election appoints a Prime Minister while the new nat'l assembly elects your new president.

Is that correct?

S-2 is twisting the Subject.
S-2 refuses to undestand Zaadaris motivation
Zaardari was never chosen by the People of Pakistan
It does not make sene from a person who has killed Pakstanis and looted thier money.

 

[SMC]

Ahsan_R says Singh needs to stop having a bonner everytime Pakistan is mentioned or everytime he thinks about Pakistan.

 

[RobbieS]

Well I guess Pakistanis today dont really know what they want. Its a Hobson's choice for them. Democratic traditions were never strong in Pakistan and the Military ones, too strong.

I guess the political crises that Pakistan has witnessed can be attributed more to the military rather than the rich land owners/oligarchs.

If the army would have laid off the power the first time it was called in by its political rulers, things would have turned out differently. Answering the call of the rulers is one thing, but staying there and capturing power for yourself for long durations is another.

As for the rich feudal lords like Nawaz and Zardari, thats where democracy helps. The army grabbing power and the subsequent exploitation gave them reason to rally support. But without the army's help that support wont have lasted long.

We don't need to look far for an example. Indian democracy, however flawed it might be never allowed a feudal lord to call the shots for a long time which in effect nullified the need for army intervention.

Its actually a fact that many of the rajas and land-lords (Karan Singh, Scindias) themselves contested elections but so did ordinary workers and mass leaders like George Fernandes and Mamata Bannerjee.

 

[SMC]

I don't buy the theory that the coups helped the thugs rally support. Pakistanis have had a history of electing leaders on ethnic lines. People should additionally know that despite the coups, there is no reason for these thugs to come back in power. Illiteracy and lack of education is the problem.