Why democracy doesn't work in Pakistan and other developing countries and why we should implement a monarchy

[CatSultan]

Democracy doesn't work in Pakistan and a lot of other "developing countries" and we should abandon it for these reasons.

1. Democracy works best in a nation state. A nation state is where the whole country is made of one ethnicity or one ethnic group. Although you could argue that Pakistan is a nation state because all the people in Pakistan are related genetically, the reality is many people only identify with their "sub-ethnicity". When you have a parliament with mixed ethnicity members, they all want to gain more autonomy and independence and we can see many political parties divided by ethnicity rather than actual political ideology. Pakistan has to rely on religion to keep people together and Islam is the only thing keeping this country from falling apart. The Ottoman Empire had to abandon their first attempt at creating a constitutional monarchy because they had too many ethnicities.
2. Tribal mentality. A good portion of the population of Pakistan is not "educated". Most of the members on this forum have gone through some sort of western education so we have a different worldview than the village/tribal people of Pakistan. Although you could argue that there are more educated people in Pakistan than there are uneducated ones. Uneducated people reproduce more so they will always be a large portion of the population. One of the prerequisites for a functioning democracy is a high level of individualism among the population. Tribal people do not see themselves as individuals, they see themselves as part of their tribe/ethnicity. Therefore, it is easy to manipulate a lot of people's votes by just bribing or threatening the tribal chieftains or Zamindar land owners.
3. People in Pakistan want a strong central figure to look up to. It is easy to cheat the government when it is just a bunch of corrupt politicians arguing and yelling. But People would think twice if the government was represented by one person. This has been proven by studies done in the Scandinavian and Arab kingdoms.
4. Corruption. There will always be corruption in a democracy. Europe and America regulate this corruption and call it "Lobbying". They allow it because if they don't, people will be doing illegally and be much worse. Also their systems of democracy are much more centralized than Pakistan so they can actually get stuff done. However, corruption is so rampant in Pakistan that if we legalize it, nobody will care because we can't enforce the law because of this corruption.

So with all these problems, what is the alternative? Nobody wants a dictatorship. Instead, we should implement a semi-constitutional monarchy like Jordan has. Why a monarchy? Because a monarch is inherently uncorrupt able, his interests align with that of the state. He will be able to keep a check on corruption and make sure the parliament is giving what is good for the people and not just what they want. Some of the best countries in terms of stability, economic growth and happiness are monarchies. Just look at the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland. He will also provide a strong military figure that people can look up to and trust. Even if you are not a fan of military rule, you have to admit some of the most stable times in Pakistan was under leaders like General Zia ul Haq.

"A monarch? But isn't that backwards and undemocratic?"

This is what we call a genetic fallacy. Just because something is old doesn't make it bad and just because something is new doesn't make it good. Anyways, some of the top countries on the democracy index are monarchies. A monarch is not a dictator that can do whatever he wants. He has to follow the law and in a constitution monarchy, he can be deposed with a 2/3rd majority vote and/or a fatwa from the Grand Mufti or other top religious figurehead.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I agree, but we wouldn't work under a monarch or dictator either. Our nature is that if you give a few too much, they'll abuse it to hell and leave the rest of society to sink.

However, at a broader level, we as a civilization didn't give any thought into what political system would actually work for us. We just copied and pasted from our most recent overlord.

As a result, we end up with collective bipolar disorder by trying to reconcile what our religion and culture says on one hand, and how democratic institutions and norms work on the other hand. There's always a clash, and bad actors (religious and secular alike) exploit it to create division and instability.

Without going into super specific details, I do know that Pakistanis can appreciate the concept of 'right and wrong' more so than nitty-gritty technicalities (a feature of democracy and dictatorships).

So, no matter who the leader is -- be it democratically elected or a dictator -- if they do something wrong according to a common reference point (agreed upon by Pakistani society), we should be able to remove them without any problems. If you institute that one line of thought, the rest (our political system, etc) will emerge naturally and will work for us.

 

[H!TchHiker]

Monarch .....new truck ki batti....

 

[CatSultan]

I agree, but we wouldn't work under a monarch or dictator either. Our nature is that if you give a few too much, they'll abuse it to hell and leave the rest of society to sink.

However, at a broader level, we as a civilization didn't give any thought into what political system would actually work for us. We just copied and pasted from our most recent overlord.

As a result, we end up with collective bipolar disorder by trying to reconcile what our religion and culture says on one hand, and how democratic institutions and norms work on the other hand. There's always a clash, and bad actors (religious and secular alike) exploit it to create division and instability.

Without going into super specific details, I do know that Pakistanis can appreciate the concept of 'right and wrong' more so than nitty-gritty technicalities (a feature of democracy and dictatorships).

So, no matter who the leader is -- be it democratically elected or a dictator -- if they do something wrong according to a common reference point (agreed upon by Pakistani society), we should be able to remove them without any problems. If you institute that one line of thought, the rest (our political system, etc) will emerge naturally and will work for us.

A monarch cannot leave society to sink because his interest lines up with the nations interest.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

A monarch cannot leave society to sink because his interest lines up with the nations interest.

Depends bro... Some monarchs care so little about their nation that they're happy being condo land-lords in the UK. They're in it for the sake of the wealth and benefits, not the legacy, name or 'bigger thinking' a text-book monarch may have.

It depends on who the individual is. If it's someone who built themselves up on their own (without foreign help or support), and won wars, conquered land, etc, then yes, those monarchs would care (about a strong state).

However, if it's an actor who miraculously got to the top, then they're suspect and I wouldn't expect them to do much.

 

[peagle]

Democracy doesn't work in Pakistan and a lot of other "developing countries" and we should abandon it for these reasons.

1. Democracy works best in a nation state. A nation state is where the whole country is made of one ethnicity or one ethnic group. Although you could argue that Pakistan is a nation state because all the people in Pakistan are related genetically, the reality is many people only identify with their "sub-ethnicity". When you have a parliament with mixed ethnicity members, they all want to gain more autonomy and independence and we can see many political parties divided by ethnicity rather than actual political ideology. Pakistan has to rely on religion to keep people together and Islam is the only thing keeping this country from falling apart. The Ottoman Empire had to abandon their first attempt at creating a constitutional monarchy because they had too many ethnicities.
2. Tribal mentality. A good portion of the population of Pakistan is not "educated". Most of the members on this forum have gone through some sort of western education so we have a different worldview than the village/tribal people of Pakistan. Although you could argue that there are more educated people in Pakistan than there are uneducated ones. Uneducated people reproduce more so they will always be a large portion of the population. One of the prerequisites for a functioning democracy is a high level of individualism among the population. Tribal people do not see themselves as individuals, they see themselves as part of their tribe/ethnicity. Therefore, it is easy to manipulate a lot of people's votes by just bribing or threatening the tribal chieftains or Zamindar land owners.
3. People in Pakistan want a strong central figure to look up to. It is easy to cheat the government when it is just a bunch of corrupt politicians arguing and yelling. But People would think twice if the government was represented by one person. This has been proven by studies done in the Scandinavian and Arab kingdoms.
4. Corruption. There will always be corruption in a democracy. Europe and America regulate this corruption and call it "Lobbying". They allow it because if they don't, people will be doing illegally and be much worse. Also their systems of democracy are much more centralized than Pakistan so they can actually get stuff done. However, corruption is so rampant in Pakistan that if we legalize it, nobody will care because we can't enforce the law because of this corruption.

So with all these problems, what is the alternative? Nobody wants a dictatorship. Instead, we should implement a semi-constitutional monarchy like Jordan has. Why a monarchy? Because a monarch is inherently uncorrupt able, his interests align with that of the state. He will be able to keep a check on corruption and make sure the parliament is giving what is good for the people and not just what they want. Some of the best countries in terms of stability, economic growth and happiness are monarchies. Just look at the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland. He will also provide a strong military figure that people can look up to and trust. Even if you are not a fan of military rule, you have to admit some of the most stable times in Pakistan was under leaders like General Zia ul Haq.

"A monarch? But isn't that backwards and undemocratic?"

This is what we call a genetic fallacy. Just because something is old doesn't make it bad and just because something is new doesn't make it good. Anyways, some of the top countries on the democracy index are monarchies. A monarch is not a dictator that can do whatever he wants. He has to follow the law and in a constitution monarchy, he can be deposed with a 2/3rd majority vote and/or a fatwa from the Grand Mufti or other top religious figurehead.

You make interesting conclusions, but somehow they are divorced from reality.

Pakistan is one of the most democratic societies on earth.
AT the very basic level, the Jirga system and the Panchayat system has democracy inbuilt within the social fabric of Pakistani society.

Whenever there is military takeover, the first action taken by the new ruler is to get judicial authorisation for his rule (whether it is fair or not is a another argument), the fact he does that, matters. It shows the inbuilt respect for rule of law and the need for legitimacy for his rule, other then the power of the gun.
To my knowledge, no other military takeover results in the need for such judicial approval.

Then very quickly, the dictator tries to gain political legitimacy, not by killing everyone, but by holding elections and trying to bring various political actors on his side. In other countries it does not quiet work that way, they establish their own party or have extremely well managed elections, after killing everyone.
Please don't forget it was Junejo after the party-less elections who as prime minister still stood up to Zia, that independent thinking is inbuilt, which can only come from the nature of the society at large.

At most Pakistani nation accepts a dictator for around 8-9 years before they have to go, and even then a parliamentary approval takes place to deal with the previous dictatorship, providing a legal basis.

Whether those steps are justified or not is not relevant, but the fact such steps do take place for sake of legitimacy and rule of law matters, it points towards an inbuilt deposition for a democratic society. Pakistan is inherently a democratic society.

Because of the upheaval of the first decade after independence, there are many reasons behind that but that's part of another discussion, because of those years, democracy in a modern sense did not have time and space to take root.

Democracy is more then just a constitution and a set of rules, it is a mind-set of the people, of the society, Pakistan has that mind-set.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Make me the king and I will keep you safe from democracy.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Democracy doesn't work in Pakistan because we are mizaajan TCer

A monarch cannot leave society to sink because his interest lines up with the nations interest.

Until he puts his reckless son for the same job just to keep the glory within the familly.

 

[nang2]

Democracy requires a strong and clean legal system that is capable of protecting minorities. Otherwise, it quickly descends down to a game that is not much different from "might is right".

 

[Goenitz]

Then very quickly, the dictator tries to gain political legitimacy, not by killing everyone, but by holding elections and trying to bring various political actors on his side. In other countries it does not quiet work that way, they establish their own party or have extremely well managed elections, after killing everyone.

Yes,, pure martial law.. as no blood was spilled during that.. so people welcome change..
so not a dictatorship in true sense.. for that matter, our democracy has some dictator mentality..

 

[Capt. Karnage]

A monarch cannot leave society to sink because his interest lines up with the nations interest.

A monarch is exactly what pakistan needs. Zaid Hamid is the most suitable candidate for that position.

 

[peagle]

Yes,, pure martial law.. as no blood was spilled during that.. so people welcome change..
so not a dictatorship in true sense.. for that matter, our democracy has some dictator mentality..

I suppose every democracy has a dictatorship element, because it is part of being human, look at America, de Gaulle's France and even present day France, and Thatcher's Britain.

The essence of Pakistani society is democratic, that's important and it matters.

 

[CatSultan]

A monarch is exactly what pakistan needs. Zaid Hamid is the most suitable candidate for that position.

bruh. He's a bit loco in the coco

You make interesting conclusions, but somehow they are divorced from reality.

Pakistan is one of the most democratic societies on earth.
AT the very basic level, the Jirga system and the Panchayat system has democracy inbuilt within the social fabric of Pakistani society.

Whenever there is military takeover, the first action taken by the new ruler is to get judicial authorisation for his rule (whether it is fair or not is a another argument), the fact he does that, matters. It shows the inbuilt respect for rule of law and the need for legitimacy for his rule, other then the power of the gun.
To my knowledge, no other military takeover results in the need for such judicial approval.

Then very quickly, the dictator tries to gain political legitimacy, not by killing everyone, but by holding elections and trying to bring various political actors on his side. In other countries it does not quiet work that way, they establish their own party or have extremely well managed elections, after killing everyone.
Please don't forget it was Junejo after the party-less elections who as prime minister still stood up to Zia, that independent thinking is inbuilt, which can only come from the nature of the society at large.

At most Pakistani nation accepts a dictator for around 8-9 years before they have to go, and even then a parliamentary approval takes place to deal with the previous dictatorship, providing a legal basis.

Whether those steps are justified or not is not relevant, but the fact such steps do take place for sake of legitimacy and rule of law matters, it points towards an inbuilt deposition for a democratic society. Pakistan is inherently a democratic society.

Because of the upheaval of the first decade after independence, there are many reasons behind that but that's part of another discussion, because of those years, democracy in a modern sense did not have time and space to take root.

Democracy is more then just a constitution and a set of rules, it is a mind-set of the people, of the society, Pakistan has that mind-set.

How does Pakistan have that mindset? Their is no sense of civic duty and everyone is corrupt and looking out for themselves. I am not saying to get rid of democracy. I'm saying we should establish a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can even be an elective monarchy.

 

[ghazi52]

ن لیگ اور پیپلزپارٹی کے دور میں سینیٹ الیکشن ایسے ھوا کرتے تھے

یاد دھانی ضروری ھوتی ھے

 

[CatSultan]

ن لیگ اور پیپلزپارٹی کے دور میں سینیٹ الیکشن ایسے ھوا کرتے تھے

یاد دھانی ضروری ھوتی ھے



View attachment 727275

a ballot box?

Depends bro... Some monarchs care so little about their nation that they're happy being condo land-lords in the UK. They're in it for the sake of the wealth and benefits, not the legacy, name or 'bigger thinking' a text-book monarch may have.

It depends on who the individual is. If it's someone who built themselves up on their own (without foreign help or support), and won wars, conquered land, etc, then yes, those monarchs would care (about a strong state).

However, if it's an actor who miraculously got to the top, then they're suspect and I wouldn't expect them to do much.

If they do go live in condo houses in the UK someone else will take his place and he will be deposed.