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

[Musalman]

At least you got toilet and safety for women unlike some Supa Powa.

You don't need to bring Indians in everything.

 

[X-ray Papa]

Safety for women ? Ehhhhhhhhh

This is south asia after all, neither perfect or worse.

 

[jamahir]

@jamahir Now this will be some thread for you.

Thanks for tag. I will ask readers to go through this thread as to first understand what is democracy and what is not.

 

[Indos]

Stable democracy isn't easy , it took a dictator to turn South Korea what it's today so honestly the same could be done in Pakistan or Bangladesh all you need is a man or women with actual vision to make the country developed and idc if they steal money in the process

Most of current Korean GDP is made during its democratic system while its earliest period development was the contribution of its dictatorship.

The main reason of the fast development of Korean chaebols is the gov preference and protection on those Chaebols, including imposing high tarrif on foreign products during its earliest period.

While Bangladesh and Pakistan give huge freedom on Chinese goods to come despite its main domestic industries arent yet strong enough.

 

[Invicta]

One thing the OP forgets is the historical data that is available, if you were to get to a Monarchy who would you put on the throne? I had the pleasure of meeting with a Nawab, considering I have been living in UK all my life and know how monarchy approaches public engagements etc, this nawab was A-hole of first degree.

The mindset of treating people like slaves is what the nawab was all about.
Absolute power corrupts and hence a presidential system is not ideal either. just look at USA. Look at how the country is still divided because a clown was elected (yes he was elected according to their constitution) however the cracks exists and they might never repair.

Consider this against constitutional monarchy or Pakistan's current system the PM is elected while the President is appointed by election from the electoral college, which means he is extremely likely to be a neutral figure. That is paramount in todays polarising politics and environment.

There is one thing the UK can unite behind in a crisis situation and that is the crown, for Pakistan it should be the President, as sovereign head of state the title should command and be given the respect it deserves.

The issue in Pakistan is that the the three institutions namely the parliament headed by the PM, the President and the Supreme Court have over stepped their boundaries and tried to influence their vested interested as a power grab. If and it's a big IF... all these were working within their limits as designed the system would work.

The perfect analogy is that you can buy a Tesla, however if you as a driver is still hell bent on driving it erratically you will crash. No manner of software will protect you. Unfortunately for Pakistan the biggest boon has been these families who control the politics of Pakistan. If you can get rid of them and let the normal evolution of system take place the country will exploit its system.

That being said even if you were to find an alternative system how will you influence the current ruling party to implement it? No one when ruling, will implement a system that forces them to give up their governing power.

If you mean there to be a revolution, then also remember that revolutions are bloody just look at the French revolution or the Russian revolution. Also a revolution might not bring the desired outcome you wish for.

However a very nice thought provoking thread - compared to the normal rag tag that goes on this forum.

 

[peagle]

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.

I did not get a notification for this, saw it by chance, just now.

Pakistan has that mindset for the reasons I mentioned, you have not countered my reasons which means you must accept them, because they are factual. Those reasons matter.

I think you are stuck in that Pakistani habit of judging Pakistan separately from the rest of the world, applying assumed truths, that is extremely unfair, surely a fair judgement involves a comparison with others because right or wrong can only be judged accordingly to how everyone else behaves.

With that in mind, I find reasons for your doubts lacking, you have not presented a valid argument that negates the existence or acceptance of democracy within Pakistan or Pakistani society. The little you have mentioned exists in most other countries, in the developed nations and the developing nations. Democracy is not a state of being where you reach nirvana having attained it, democracy is a process that's always in flux, as in everything else in life. That needs to be understood.

Provide valid arguments for the points you are raising, and I will try to counter them with examples, if am unable to do so, I shall agree we should throw democracy into the dustbin of history and make @Indus Pakistan our king.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

How does Pakistan have that mindset? Their is no sense of civic duty and everyone is corrupt and looking out for themselves.

This is very true. But this all boils down to education. A new generation needs to be taught and cultivated the idea of civic duty. I have no idea what they teach in mosques or what sermons are given. But how about -

no tipping
keeping your neighbourhoods clean
drive with respect
pay your taxes
whatever you do - do it right.
etc

I'm saying we should establish a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can even be an elective monarchy.

Dressing something differantly does not change it.

• King Zardari
• Sultan Zardari
• Caliph Zardari
• PM Nawaz
• 
  
• King Nawaz
• Sultan Nawaz
• Caliph Nawaz
• PM Nawaz

The result would be same. However looking at the Pakistani system and political history my conclusion is it is imperative that the chief executive [call the office what you want] MUST have pre-determinded time to rule the country. Meaning the system should give the elected person 100% security to rule for 5 years. That term should be locked in. The moment the election throws a winner then he/she is beyond any power to remove until next elections.

This is where past coups since the constitution came into force have destroyed Pakistan. Bhutto would have been weeded out by time. Maybe a fixed 5 year presidential term is best way forward. How can a PM run a country when your worried your attention is on a new threat every weekend?

I can see this by PM Imran Khan;s tenure. It appears the subject of politics in Pakistan is when and how the government will topple rather than education, health, jobs, infrastructure etc.

Pakistani politics is now about how to topple the government and for those in power how to avoid being toppled.

hence a presidential system is not ideal either.

It is. Pakistan is a fractured, conflicted, mob of a country. It needs a strong presidential system with five year openings for public to take account of the ruler with 2 term ten year cap. Do your thing. Then at max 10 year cycle fcukin fade into history.

In Pakistan we get few faces being rehashed for 40 years. Each get a few months of wobbly rule and then tumble to be replaced by the other face who also then tumbles after few months. Decades go by with this game of music chairs. In the short installments these faces get they make merry with public finances then blame the other. Then when the army steps in they all gang up and point fingers at the army.

 

[Azadkashmir]

hail kings nawaz, zardari, bajwa

we need meritocracy and by law they cant have bank accounts abroad, assets, or partnership.
all their expenses, savings etc should be public and real time.
I think they should be paid in vouchers, that only work in pakistan.
The next bas trds are big tyccon chors that should be audited.

 

[Invicta]

It is. Pakistan is a fractured, conflicted, mob of a country. It needs a strong presidential system with five year openings for public to take account of the ruler with 2 term ten year cap. Do your thing. Then at max 10 year cycle fcukin fade into history.

In Pakistan we get few faces being rehashed for 40 years. Each get a few months of wobbly rule and then tumble to be replaced by the other face who also then tumbles after few months. Decades go by with this game of music chairs. In the short installments these faces get they make merry with public finances then blame the other. Then when the army steps in they all gang up and point fingers at the army.

Great as an Idea but will never happen, I believe 2 terms as PM was also a rule but changed at some point - correct me if I am wrong.
A president by having such power will be able to change laws such as fixed term or term limits to suit his own agenda. Unless you propose another body that creates checks and balances so that Presidential power can be challenged. However, that would bring us back to square one.

 

[lonelysheppard]

democracy is a luxury that you cant enjoy while living in a jhugi .......build a halfway decent structure before you bring democracy into it .

 

[Indus Pakistan]

A president by having such power will be able to change laws such as fixed term or term limits to suit his own agenda. Unless you propose another body that creates checks and balances so that Presidential power can be challenged. However, that would bring us back to square one.

No, you can't have another body. That itself would be open to manipulation and would be used to make the President hang on with his finger nails for 5 years of his term which is not exactly conductive to stable rule.

If the a two five year term with 10 years was enshrined in the constitution and widely known I can't see any ruler being able to extend his rule beyond that. The Pakistani ecosystem militates against rule by one man beyond 10 years - even that is tall order. If you look at history even military dictators ran out of fuel in 10 years.

I am more concerned with giving a solid 5 year terms to the winner even if that happens to be Maryam, Zardari etc because they would gewt rinsed out.

 

[Invicta]

No, you can't have another body. That itself would be open to manipulation and would be used to make the President hang on with his finger nails for 5 years of his term which is not exactly conductive to stable rule.

If the a two five year term with 10 years was enshrined in the constitution and widely known I can't see any ruler being able to extend his rule beyond that. The Pakistani ecosystem militates against rule by one man beyond 10 years - even that is tall order. If you look at history even military dictators ran out of fuel in 10 years.

I am more concerned with giving a solid 5 year terms to the winner even if that happens to be Maryam, Zardari etc because they would gewt rinsed out.

You're braver than me to appoint a President for up to two 5 year terms without checks and balances - that too someone likely to be from Sharif or Zardari clan.
How do you see this change being brought to action. IK is not going to do it, any party in power will not do it. So who and how will this happen?

 

[SpaceMan18]

Most of current Korean GDP is made during its democratic system while its earliest period development was the contribution of its dictatorship.

The main reason of the fast development of Korean chaebols is the gov preference and protection on those Chaebols, including imposing high tarrif on foreign products during its earliest period.

While Bangladesh and Pakistan give huge freedom on Chinese goods to come despite its main domestic industries arent yet strong enough.

So we should tax the Chinese more ?

 

[Indos]

So we should tax the Chinese more ?

Absolutely, no FTA with them at least until next 15 years. My recommendation. Focus on targeting US, EU, and middle east market first

 

[El Sidd]

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.

Egypt tried it.

Now people don't let them stay buried.

Pharoahs were monarch drawing divine right to kingship.

The monarchs of the land died away with the Harrapans. Immigrant barbarians brought as slave soldiers now rule the land as shared booty.