What's new

Why aren't there any Liberal Parties in Pakistan?

All the ideas I listed were actually first introduced in the western society by thinkers and philosophers who considered themselves liberals. If you want to make funny jokes and forget history, be my guest. And please don't compare conservatives in US and Canada to conservatives in Pakistan. Most modern political systems in the west are based on liberal ideals, so yes including the republican party.

well then you should have listed the qualities the liberal and the conservatives should have in Pakistan before starting a useless thread for the sake of starting the thread, as per your standards our liberals dont fulfill your western standard of liberalism. You cannot compare a christian priest to a hardcore mullah but you want to compare our modest liberals with democrats. you are telling us PPP ANP and MQM are not liberals as defined by western philosopher, why cant we have our own interpretation of liberalism. In todays Pakistan Shia sunni living in harmony is liberal, once thats achieved then we will move a little further.
 
. . .
Imran Khan is now known as Mullah Khan
.

He's yet to carry out a massacre...killing thousands, becoming a hero instead and then becoming the prime minister.

Who made Pakistan- Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1973?

Allah did.

Its our country, we can do whatevertheF we want. If you like it or don't, either way, you'd have to suck it up and seal that parrot beak of yours.
 
.
As espoused by John Locke. The freedom to choose religion, to every humans right to political and social freedom, the right of property etc. I didn't know understanding liberalism was that difficult.

Fine, I choose a political and social viewpoint that does not let me accept the existence of a race of people. It is my liberal right to do so is it not?

In addition. Locke also profited from slave trade.. should I do the same?
 
.
Sigh, you are deluding yourself if you think most of American population is liberal. They are more conservative and religious then most muslim countries. I am not arguing against Islam you idiot, I was merely pointing out there are no political parties who actually conform to liberal ideas. Your rant against West is pointless, and correlating it to mean liberal means pro violence is as deluded as the rest of your post.

I beg to differ because your posts confirm that you're deluded and confused.

You simply defined a "liberal" on two terms being they're anti-violence and for the rule of law (conditions you used to eliminate the PPP, MQM and ANP as being "liberal" parties) and stated almost all democratic countries have both left and right parties but Pakistan doesn't.

From your statement one can only conclude you were talking about nations like the US, second largest "democracy" on the planet, with parties such as the Democrats (liberal) and Republicans (conservatives) but as I demonstrated with the Gallup poll both Democrat and Republican supporters almost unanimously supported the use of violence in Afghanistan and didn't support the rule of law since the invasion violated their own constitution that required Bush to go to congress to vote before sending troops. Unfortunately, now you're making up excuses like stating the American population isn't liberal which I can only guess means there are no "liberal" parties in the US either.

If not the US then what countries and what parties are you referring to? You provide absolutely no examples for anything you've said.

You don't think Pakistan has "liberal" parties because the two criteria you define a "liberal" party by not only contradict themselves depending on the circumstances but are too limiting since no "liberal" party anywhere could or would abide by a policy of anti-violence.

In relation to your two conditions about who is/isn't a "liberal" questions that beg to be asked are:

1. What about violence in the defence of freedom of ones people and homeland? Does the "liberal" sit around all day scratching his balls while his people are killed/raped and lands occupied?

2. What if your countries laws require you commit acts of violence (ex. conscription into the army during wartime)? Do you obey the law or not and either way are you still a "liberal" by your definition?

3. What about a situation where the government passes laws that sanction the persecution of a minority and demands all citizens with knowledge of their whereabouts report and/or hand them over to the authorities? Are you still a "liberal" if you follow the law even if it means certain death for the person you reported/handed over considering you wouldn't have committed a violent act yourself?

As I stated before good and evil, right and wrong are subjective values that vary across time and between civilizations so what defines a "liberal" in one place won't define a "liberal" elsewhere the same goes for a "conservative".

The large majority of Pakistani's already recognize that Islam is the perfect system of governance. What the people want isn't "liberalism" or any other type of "-ism" they want a legal system and parties that correspond to the laws of our creator as dictated in the Quran (unchanged and unchanging for all time) and exemplified by the actions of the prophet pbuh within shaih hadith regardless of whether they conform to the varying "liberal" or "conservative" values elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
.
@Pakistani Exile

Interesting question OP, without getting embroiled in the semantics of what true liberalism stands for (which is a debate for some other time) i will just resort to the listing of a few factors for the lack of Leftist leadership in Pakistan.

The Socialist Party was one of the earliest Leftist parties of Pakistan but it didn't endear itself too much to the public by opposing the idea of Pakistan. Shortly after the death of Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan seized power (ahead of more deserving individuals) and began peddling the idea of Islamic Socialism in order to consolidate his premiership which was under scrutiny from various circles. He realized that you can sell any idea in the land of the pure by adding the "Islamic" adage to it. This contributed to the stunted growth of the party.

The Communist party did manage to gain power in East Pakistan where it formed a coalition government with the Awami League and gained some influence in the West however it was short lived as violent scuffles (involving their activists and the police) resulted not only in the dismissal of it's democratically elected government but also an outright ban on the party itself. This was followed by brutal purges by you know who, at least one thousand were arrested, including the party's Leader Hassan Nasir(a Pakistani patriot)who was later tortured and killed in custody.
Basically, the left was neutered long before it could play any role in Pakistani politics. It's decline began the day when unworthy leadership seized power and officially died the day the first martial law was imposed. What succeeded it was a bastardized form of secularism under the most incapable and self serving leadership of Ayub Khan which has contributed immensely to the hole Pakistanis have dug themselves into.

Whether the left can be revived in Pakistan is another question but i am doubtful of the possibility of that ever happening. i remember when i was growing up in the nineties i heard members of my community label the communists as Atheists (read Kafirs). Point being that the society has been polarized beyond measure and most people conflate the idea of Secularism with that of godlessness. it has become very easy to malign the left for most of the problems faced by the inhabitants of the fort of Islam, the irony being, they hate something they have never experienced.

Were the left allowed to nurture and flourish, Pakistan would've seen land reforms long ago which could have brought about the liberation of millions of workers who and employed as potential slave labor even to this day.
 
Last edited:
.
Before someone points out PPP or ANP or even MQM, I'd say these parties are self described liberal parties, their actions do not conform to any strand of Liberalism. In almost all democratic countries, we usually have a major conservative party and a major liberal-left-leaning Party, what's strange about Pakistan is that we have a conservative party then even more conservative, this trend continually moves further right to reactionary extremists.

So my question is, where are the Liberals of Pakistan? Are they non existent? Before some Zaid Hamid follower jumps the gun and slates Liberals for supporting Drone strikes or the war against terrorism, then I would like to point out that a true liberal is anti violence and believes in the supremacy of the law.

Is it because the word Liberal has been so slandered by the right wing in Pakistan that none dare associate themselves with it? (except the upper class of self described boardroom liberals) Or most Pakistanis are just totally ignorant of Liberalism?

Pakistani Political Parties do not define themselves , they prefer to align their agendas with the tide of time , when they need to be hardliners all parties shift to hardline stance, and when they see benefit in being lenient they pretend to be open minded.

Exception to rule is PTI who have a mandate , nationalistic mandate with secularism which is against the norm in Pakistani Politics
 
.
Why is the age bar different.. liberal according to you is live and let live. Who are they to determine adulthood if they are liberal?

1)It's a range. One country takes the upper end , other country takes the lower end.

2)This age bar is not fixed by any Mullah but it is fixed on the sound ground of Child psychology and science. A child dislikes eating certain foods but it is the duty of the parents to make him/her eat that thing upto a certain age till he/she understands the need of that food. So is the case with the State based on scientific temper, not on whimsical grounds.
 
. .
1)It's a range. One country takes the upper end , other country takes the lower end.

2)This age bar is not fixed by any Mullah but it is fixed on the sound ground of Child psychology and science. A child dislikes eating certain foods but it is the duty of the parents to make him/her eat that thing upto a certain age till he/she understands the need of that food. So is the case with the State based on scientific temper, not on whimsical grounds.

This age is not fixed by mullah, but it is fixed by someone right? Who will decide about child's psychology?
 
. .
.

He's yet to carry out a massacre...killing thousands, becoming a hero instead and then becoming the prime minister.



Allah did.

Its our country, we can do whatevertheF we want. If you like it or don't, either way, you'd have to suck it up and seal that parrot beak of yours.

Brilliant response sir...
 
.
Psychologists who have scientifically analysed child's psychology. Courts then set the age bars according to their advice.

How can we assume that scientific analysis are always perfect specially when they change their statements thousands of time? (which is fair as it counts as research and also a rule of science)
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom