Pakistan’s Territorial Integrity: Lessons from American Democracy

Bolta Aina,

Interior Sindh votes overwhelmingly PPP and PML (both national parties)- Karachi votes MQM and at times Jamaat-e-Islami...

Where are the Sindhi nationalists? Most real Sindhi nationalists want the constitution of 1973 implemented in full measure.


Dullah Bhatti,

Legally speaking ...constitution of 1973 was in force for all years since 1973 except 1977-1985 and 1999-2002 ....

1985 it was heavily amended and in 2003 it was considerably amended (as in the elected legislatures ratified the amendments by the Martial Law regimes.

Faisaluno...

All real Pakistanis care about the constitution- especially those from lower middle and middle class backgrounds... you are right that most upper class Pakistanis don`t give a damn...

Heck- on TV I heard this dialogue between Talat Hussain and a talib(student) from Jamia Haqqania ... and Talat Hussain asked him ``What do you want`` And he said- look we want the constitution of 1973- yeh hamari mushtarak qadar hai.

I hate Mullahs but I respect what he said...

The great thing about the 1973`s constitution is its immense structural flexibility- depending on how you use it- you can be a decentralised state or you can be heavily centralised- you can be a modern democratic relatively secular state or you can become theocratically Islamic, you can even move from Westminster style parliamentary democracy to a French style republic...

So it is a level playing field- but there is ONE choice it doesn`t give. Arbitrary military dictators to take over the country and play havoc with its people.

rozaiba,

while in your mind you might think of yourself as the second coming of aflatoon, i am afraid that world has yet to accord you that status. therefore, you will have to provide us with sources, facts and figures to back up your assertions about iran and korea. otherwise, your statments will be treated as false which is perhaps why you dont provide sources in the first place. its also possible given your intelect which is that of an employee for a najam sethi owned newspaper, the need to provide sources never crossed your mind. and given your lies about pakistan which i have debunked in my earler posts, its also possible that the concept of using reputable sources to form an opinion is an alien concept for you.

just to make make things clear, i am looking for you to back the following claims:

i. korea had a preferntial trade agreement with the u.s and that level of korean military expenditure was much lower than normal.

kindly provide some information on the aforementioned trade agreement. the follwing two links have no mention of such a trade arrangement or abnormally low levels of korean military expenditure. second source in fact says just the opposite:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

``...In the early 1960s, the government of Park Chung Hee instituted sweeping economic policy changes emphasizing exports and labor-intensive light industries, leading to rapid debt-financed industrial expansion. The government carried out a currency reform, strengthened financial institutions, and introduced flexible economic planning. In the 1970s Korea began directing fiscal and financial policies toward promoting heavy and chemical industries, as well as consumer electronics and automobiles. Manufacturing continued to grow rapidly in the 1980s and early 1990s....``

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cha.korea

...Park Chung Hee`s reaction was to reduce the level of reliance on the U.S. armed support by expanding capability to produce munitions, which required returning to ISI to build heavy and chemical industries (HCI). The government intervened heavily in the financial markets, directing banks to provide low interest loans to chaebols -- conglomerates of businesses owned by a single family -- selected for the task of developing different sectors of HCI. Successfully expanding the capital-intensive industries more rapidly than the rest of the economy, the HCI drive generated multiple symptoms of distortion, including rapidly slowing growth, worsening inflation and accumulation of non-performing loans.

ii. on iran, i would like to see sources which indicate that iranian revolution occured because of economic inequality rather than forced secularisation by the shah - something which wont happen in pak because mush has insured that mma has a share of power. also fyi, following is from a bbc report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538427.stm

``...The appointment of Mr Sharif-Emami, a Shia Muslim, by the Shah just over two months ago was designed to put an end to the religious violence currently sweeping across the country.

...The unrest is partly a response to the programme of secularisation being implemented under the Shah who took over from his father as Iran`s ruler in 1941...``

there are actually more lies in your your post. i will only debunk them after i get response to my querries in this post. good luck with your search and you might find the follwing link useful:

www.google.com

let me know if you want tips on how to use it.

manto,

cowasjee will disgaree with your assertion that 1973 constitution was being enforced from 1973-1977. also i have seen a couple of surveys by mainstream media organisation in which the awam ranks their main items of concern. lack of enforcement 1973 constitution is not listed on that. i will post the links to links to that survey later. also can you please post results of survey which shows that constitution is the main item of concern for the awam. btw given lieteracy levels in pak, i doubt most people would understand the constitution in the first place. can you please explain how most pakistanis who are not even matric pass understand a document as complex as the 1973 constitution. thanks

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020407.htm

And it must never be forgotten that on August 14, 1973, the date on which Democrat Zulfikar Ali Bhutto proudly promulgated the Constitution that is still with us, that within four hours of its promulgation, the people of Pakistan were deprived of all their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights through a gazette notification issued by the promulgator himself, the same Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Fundamental rights having been rendered non-justiciable, he had all his political opponents arrested. They were held in various jails until released by Zia four years later.

...These rules were suspended by Bhutto for the passage of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendment Bills. The First Amendment Bill was introduced in the House on April 15, 1974. The standing committee presented its report the next day and within a week it was passed leaving no time for debate. The Third Amendment Bill was introduced on February 11, 1975, the required report was presented and the Bill passed the next day.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution passed on September 21, 1974 deliberately infringed upon the rights of an entire community - the Ahmadis - rights that are recognized by the world at large and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The community was shorn of its majority rights and declared a minority, after having existed as a part of the majority for 27 years since the birth of Pakistan in 1947. By the stroke of a pen, it was declared that an Ahmadi ``is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and law.``

#82 by Mantolives on January 10, 2006 3:18am PT

Stop dreaming of a time when you had the old constitution, when you were treated by the paki state as a muslim and when a women didn`t require 4 adult muslim males to prove rape...

That`s sooo last century...

#44 by masadi on January 8, 2006 10:06pm PT

{{{Really, then how come the suicide rates for white males peak at old ages in USA? When worth in a society is based on value in the work place, ageism, is a much bigger issue than a more traditional society like Pakistan. So #40 what you state is nonsense.}}

masadi
First of all , you have absolutely NO right to call my post NONSENSE. Look at your Paki mentality, started abusing my ideology nonsense and your`s with NO reality full of all the sense. Who taught you such manners, to attack people in such a derogaorty manner. If, you`re unable to take the pressure or stress of healthy discussions, you should not take part in any discussions, or, at least frist learn, how to handle any discussion with logic. Thanks

Second, Pakistan has never been any traditional society. Where are the traditions? I wish , I could see all the best traditions, which we imagine in our minds, called delusions. If, Pakistan would have been a traditional society, believe me, it would have been much better, than what it is today. It is just a chaotic and confused full of anarchy state with NO traditions left. That is the reason, it is # 1 CORRUPT country in the world.

Age has been any problem in America. Why? b/c Govt. and their traditions don`t make age an issue, they take the best care of their old age people. That is the reason, average age is higher in USA than in Pakistan. Majority of older people live up to their nineties. This is the best example of their good care system. If, they wouldn`t have cared for them, they would have let them die in miseries. Just like Paki chaotic society. In America, theri whole care system revolves around old age people. I have seen majority of them are happier, independent and less scared of death and less depressed than their older counterparts in Pakistan. Elder mental and physical abuse is much much hioger in Pakistan, which goes unreported, b/c Paki society hides every dirt under the carpet.

American society is open to accept any dirt and then to improve it for future. That is the reason America is three centuries ahead of Pakistan. So, there is absolutely NO question of comparing Pakistan with America. It is just like comparing Sun`s light with moon`s light.

Faisaluno...

First of all Cowasjee has the right to his views... I respect the man as he has integrity and character but there are many things I disagree with...

But let us for the purpose of discussion accept all his allegations against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto...

The amendments that Bhutto brought along followed a legal and constitutional process. He had the majority to do what he did... If he was a dictatorial democrat, he was still bound by the electoral process... there is no equivalence with a military dictator arbitrarily operating as the head of the state.

Pakistani constitution does not allow for :-

1- A president in the uniform- no matter how many times the assembly votes with simple majority- the law allowing the president in uniform is ultra vires to the Constitution.

2- A serviceman as an elected president ...Any citizen of Pakistan has to be out of the service of the republic for 2 years before he is qualified enough to be an elected official- be it the president of the republic or a legislator.

3- A referendum to be used for the purposes of presidential election.


What we have is a Military oligarch with bad advice from a brilliant sophist i.e. Mr Peerzada who has sullied the good name of the man he served as a personal secretary to for a few months.

Faisal,

Though I do not particularly enjoy arguing with art majors who consider themselves to be experts on economics, I feel you still have hope.

Since you need lessons in Econ 101, let me begin by saying: private investment is the key to real economic growth.

“Under the 1954 U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty, the United States agreed to help the Republic of Korea defend itself against external aggression. Since that time in support of this commitment, the United States has maintained military personnel in Korea, including the Army’s Second Infantry Division and several Air Force tactical squadrons. To coordinate operations between these units and the 676,000-strong Korean armed forces, a Combined Forces Command (CFC) was established in 1978. The head of the CFC also serves as Commander of the United Nations Command (UNC) and U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).”

Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

Couple this with the fact that there are 37,000 US troops present, who in their sane mind would attack South Korea? That throughout the 20 year period of Park’s rule, SK only had to spend about 15% of it’s budget on acquiring defense equipment further goes to show that there was available capital for economic development. Park’s other significant achievement was the strong emphasis on domestic savings – a program he really pushed for. This proved to be a buffer as SK amassed a huge debt.

Finally for what you were looking for – South Korea being blessed by America:

“The saving grace was that South Korea was blessed with an economic guarantor of last resort, the United States, with which it had a special relationship based on military security. One of the great cushions of the Korean economy was the Cold War, since any serious economic crisis would also raise security concerns, or even transform economic crises into crises of security. The United States always stood ready to help out in the event of trouble, even as it slapped the Korean wrist now and then for maintaining market barriers and not liberalizing enough. So, at any time before 1989, Seoul could expect Washington and Tokyo to step in and help it out bilaterally, with the best example being the crisis of 1979-1980, which was probably the worst financial crisis in recent South Korean history.

During the economic debacle of 1979-1980, the United States acted swiftly to stabilize Korea, sending signals to the international financial community that—notwithstanding the assassination of Park Chung Hee and the Kwangju rebellion—Korea was a sound investment for more loans. The United States also exerted pressure on Japan to “share burdens” in bailing out Korea, and the ensuing Reagan-Suzuki agreement stipulated in effect that the maintenance of peace on the Korean peninsula was important for the security of Japan, which meant that Japan would have to ante up. After much negotiating over the final bill, Japan extended to South Korea about $4 billion in government and EXIM bank loans, amounting to nearly 13 percent of Korea’s net external debt, more than five percent of its GNP, and almost a fifth of 1983’s total investments. (A comparable figure today—i.e., five percent of GNP—would be approximately $25 billion.)”

Source: http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp93.html

Even as recent as 2003, while there are 637,000 SK cars sold in US, SK is able to get away by making sure only 4400 US cars are sold in Korea again reflecting how even after US sponsorship of the Korean economic miracle ended twenty years ago, the Koreans made good use of easy US market access.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30566.pdf

So next time you krap on compare SK with Pakistan, be sure to give thought to the fundamentals. Has the US provided Pakistan with security guarantees? Has the US provided an unlimited loan supply? Does Pakistan have a high domestic savings rate?

The answer to all the fundamental economic questions are no.

Pakistan certainly has performed well on several economic indicators the past three-four years as Shaukat Aziz is a good accountant and has done a fairly decent job. However, no sane person would compare what Park was able to do with what Musharaf is doing. It is unfair for Musharaf to be compared to Park as Park had everything going for him. Musharaf’s Pakistan gets peanuts.

Again, full market access, insurance against any number of bad loans, and defense guarantees are what helped South Korea be the miracle that it was. All these facts made LOTS of capital available for Korea – and allowed Korea to take risks and collaborate with the Chaebols and develop heavy industrial units.

However, I do not expect fauji-lovers to learn any lessons. They want the Korean miracle without the Korean vision, leadership, capital nor American defense guarantees.

Faisal, let me know if you are still stupid.

Faisal,

You conveniently misread the reason for my stating the Iranian example. I apologize.

The pre-revolution Iran example was meant to show how DESPITE such high growth rates, the people of Iran did not see it a justification for dictatorial rule.

And I had underestimated the growth rates of Iran in the 70’s. Iran’s growth rate in the 70’s were phenomenal:

“Looking back to the past ,we may note that during the Fourth Plan (1968-73) Iran`s GNP rose in real terms at an average annual rate of 12 per cent, and gross domestic investment averaged an increase of over 15 per cent. In 1973 and 1974 GNP increased even more spectacularly, by 34 per cent and 42 per cent, but these were exceptional rises resulting from very large upward adjustments in oil prices that were unlikely ever to be repeated on such a scale. In 1975 GNP grew by 23.8 per cent.

Throughout the 1960`s this growth was accompanied by what now seems exceptional price stability. For most of this period inflation was extremely low, but towards the end of the decade it rose to 3.5 per cent a year. Then in 1972 the rate went up to 6.3 per cent.The following year to over 11 per cent. By 1975 price rises, partly due to ``imported`` inflation and partly to excessive liquidity, had become so intolerable that urgent action was required and strict price control measures succeeded in lowering somehow the prices of most consumer goods to acceptable levels.

Planning became well-entrenched principle of Iran`s development. The First National Development Plan was launched as early as 1948. The Fifth Plan, covering the period March, 1973, to March, 1978, had a strong emphasis on social welfare programmes, particularly in the field of education and health. The Government`s very large revenues meant that no sector needed I suffer from a shortage of funds. While rapid, balanced and sustained economic growth was a major objective, it was not to be achieved at the cost of high inflation, inequitable distribution of wealth or damage to the environment or the nation`s cultural heritage. In other words, growth for growth`s sake was not the objective.
During 1974 the need to revise the original Fifth Plan, because of substantially increased oil revenues, became apparent. The revised Fifth Plan projected total Government revenues during the Plan period at about $122 billion, with the oil sector providing about 80 per cent of this. During 1975 lower world demand and the failure of the international oil consortium that purchases the bulk of Iran`s oil exports to honour its commitments resulted in a shortfall of about $3 billion in actual oil revenues. Although Iran`s balance of payments and reserves were still healthy and substantial the effect of this was for Iran to postpone certain development projects until the Sixth Plan, to cut back partially on its generous foreign aid programme, and to return to the international capital markets for a small part of its requirements for development funds. But these moves were nothing more but a temporary change of pace in the overall tempo of the country`s development. In 1979 Iran had more than $16 billion in foreign reserve currency. Part of these assets are now frozen.”

Source: http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/eco2.html

So you see, your naïve rants JUSTIFYING Musharaf’s rule are not only stupid, they have no basis.

If America gave Pakistan full market access, provided it loan guarantees, defense guarantees, only then would I see any reason to consider not rejecting this government. In the absence of genuine American blessings (current blessings are a comparative farce) the Constitution and internal solidity of Pakistan becomes of primary significance. However, even if Hazrat America blessed us with anything we asked, a democratic government would STILL be the only preferable option as democratic governments can negotiate far better deals as they do not look to Hazrat America for legitimacy. Pakistan deserves to extract maximum out of its relationships. Anything less is incompetence. Enough of these peanuts!

manto,

i. its your opinion that 1973 constitution is necessary for pak`s progress. i dont agree with it. and neither does the supreme court of pakistan and nor do some of the most powerful pakistani politicians such as sheikh rashid who was jailed by bb for two years and chaudry shujat. furthermore mma and mqm along with 2/3rds of the parliment gave assent to the 17th amendment which legitimized mush`s presidency.

ii i disgaree with your claim that pakistani junta is clamoring for a return to 1973 constitution. if pakistanis want the 1973 constitution, they can do the following:

1. overthrow the govt like eastern europeans did in the early 90s

2. provide overwhelming support to a party which call for the removal of all amendment. template here is bengali support to mujib`s part in pak`s first election

neither (1) nor (2) are likely to occur in the near future. if you have evidence which suggests otherwise, i would like to see it.


iii. one of the main jobs of constitution is to protect minority rights. 1973 constitution was a clear failure in this respect because second amendment came about under bhutto. i therefore shed no tear for its passing.

iv. situation in baluchistan and nwfp were much worse under zab. therefore using the current military operation as a justification for 73 constitution holds now water.

v. the following countries had authoritarian/military rule for an extended period. all of them were significantly better off. these countries include:

spain, portugal, korea, thailand, taiwan

On constitutional changes.

Fauji-lovers love to hoot n holler at the highly dictatorial tendencies of leaders like Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and how they were altering the constitution.

They forget that the constitution is not an absolute holy document. The constitution has defined the process on how changes can be made. Supporting a constitution means that there will be laws enacted that are absolutely unacceptable to individuals.

However the constitution contains mechanisms for us horrified individuals to reject those laws by the same means they were enacted.

By denying us the mechanisms so that we can reject bad laws is a far bigger crime than the enactment of bad laws. This is the central point which is alien to fauji-lovers.

Dear Faisaluno...

Some points by way of rebuttal...


``Junta`` is not the same as Indian ``Janata``... Junta is pronounced ``Hunta``.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is a creature of the constitution. Outside it there is no authority for the SCP. If the SCP doesn`t believe that constitution is necessary- then we know why Pakistan`s judiciary is in such shambles... but I know for a fact that no SC Justice would ever agree with this point of view...

Your number notwithstanding... your response was amazingly ignorant ... and while I respect your right to disagree... I must say that one only needs to read your posts to understand why we are where we are- so far away from Jinnah`s Pakistan.

I tell you- as the son of an Ahmadi- that while it was absolutely unfortunate - the second amendment and religiously wrong- I would rather live in a constitutional Pakistan than unconstitutional one... Why hasn`t Musharraf reversed the second amendment since he doesn`t give a damn about the constitution.


I`ll see your answer in a few days... but thanks for your time.

Eid Mubarik.

rozaiba:

you are so clueless that you don’t even understand your own posts. either that or you are being deliberately deceitful which is very uncool and definitely not funny.

i. you wrote in your post #78 that uncle sam gave “korean products unlimited market access”. i asked you to provide evidence of a treaty outlining such an arrangement. no where in any of your sources is a mention of such a treaty. and no, korean car exports to u.s. relative to u.s. car exports to korea is not an indication of preferential market access and you are a bigger fool than i thought if you are implying this. korea essentially exported no cars to the u.s. until the mid 80s and korean car exports to the u.s began in earnest in early 90’s by which time korea was a middle income country. also fyi, u.s. car exports to japan are negligible as well.

ii. you implied in your post#78 that korea had below normal defense expenditure. yet you write in your post#88 that korea spent 15% of its budget on defense. are you implying that 15% is below normal. i can also give you the names of plenty of under developed countries that spent less than that on defense. can you please explain why these countries are under developed despite their governments spending less on defense than korea.

iii. uncle sam had more troops in philippines than in korea. in fact philippines for a pretty long time was a colony of the u.s. if defensive support of u.s. is necessary for development, can you please explain why korea developed while philippines is a third world backwater like pakistan?

iv. uncle sam bailed out mexico in mid 90’s and uncle sam has preferential trade arrangement than korea. can you please explain why mexican economy has continued to under perform relative to korea?

v. if uncle sam’s role was so essential for korean economic development, can you please explain three mainstream sources i have given don’t highlight this fact?

there is actually more but i will wait until i get point by point rebuttal. btw, i also mentioned other countries which developed under military dictatorship including chile, spain portugal and thailand. care to shed some light on that?

rozaiba:

you are so clueless that you don’t even understand your own posts. either that or you are being deliberately deceitful which is very uncool and definitely not funny.

i. you wrote in your post #78 that uncle sam gave “korean products unlimited market access”. i asked you to provide evidence of a treaty outlining such an arrangement. no where in any of your sources is a mention of such a treaty. and no, korean car exports to u.s. relative to u.s. car exports to korea is not an indication of preferential market access and you are a bigger fool than i thought if you are implying this. korea essentially exported no cars to the u.s. until the mid 80s and korean car exports to the u.s began in earnest in early 90’s by which time korea was a middle income country. also fyi, u.s. car exports to japan are negligible as well.

ii. you implied in your post#78 that korea had below normal defense expenditure. yet you write in your post#88 that korea spent 15% of its budget on defense. are you implying that 15% is below normal. i can also give you the names of plenty of under developed countries that spent less than that on defense. can you please explain why these countries are under developed despite their governments spending less on defense than korea.

iii. uncle sam had more troops in philippines than in korea. in fact philippines for a pretty long time was a colony of the u.s. if defensive support of u.s. is necessary for development, can you please explain why korea developed while philippines is a third world backwater like pakistan?

iv. uncle sam bailed out mexico in mid 90’s and uncle sam has preferential trade arrangement with mexico something it does not have with korea. can you please explain why mexican economy has continued to under perform relative to korea?

v. if uncle sam’s role was so essential for korean economic development, can you please explain three mainstream sources i have given don’t highlight this fact?

there is actually more but i will wait until i get point by point rebuttal. btw, i also mentioned other countries which developed under military dictatorship including chile, spain portugal and thailand. care to shed some light on that?

Mantolives #92 Dear Faisaluno...
Some points by way of rebuttal...
``Junta`` is not the same as Indian ``Janata``... Junta is pronounced ``Hunta``. ``}

Yasser,
Now you tell me. All this time I thought that BJP stood for Bharitya Junta (that`s with an ``H`` sound as in GhoonDa) Party. I thought that the Junta consisted of Messrs. Vajpayee, Advani, and Bharati (after whom the gang is named).

I think that the founder of this Junta party was Juanita Bharati from either Jaipur or Jodhpur where it gets very hot in June and July. Let`s see if faisal can talk Mexican. :)

manto, your post #92 reeks on religious emotionalism which is rather strange cause you claim to be a champion of rational analysis. and for your claim that my post #92 is ``amazingly ignorant``, that claim will be easier for me to accept once you provide a point by point rebuttal to my post #90. and sure mush did not overturn the second amendment. but neither did bb or ns. mush however did over turn the separate electorate law. so in this he is one-up on democrats.