Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

PPPP is a strange mix of feudal elites and progressives. I strongly think it is time for people like Aitezaz Ahsan and Raza Rabbani to leave and form, or join, another party. A "Justice Party" or revamped Tehrike-Insaf would be a good thing to have.

Vikramadityaji,

( I strongly think it is time for people like Aitezaz Ahsan and Raza Rabbani to leave and form, or join, another party. )

They will forefeit their deposits without the PPP's votebank.

Regards

Khalid,

Cry no more. In the pak political landscape, there is no room for a non-islamic party.

Zardari is only a symbol of the terminal decline of the PPP. It has to vanish and eventually there can only be pakistan muslim party, and pakistan army party.

Finally, there are no "people" that a PPP can represent in pakistan, they are all either muslims or army men who have no regard for the isalmic values, look at mushy, which true muslim will keep a dog as pet, and I understand that he drinks on Shivas.

#1 & #2,

Viqarm & Majumdar,

yes you guys are right.

#3,

Jay,

Hope you are wrong, though my head tells me to agree with you.

Thw WILL delivered by Zardari is FAKE. When ever a person of BB stature writes a WILL or any other V.Imp docs. they have to notarize it to show the legitimacy, and she could have done that easily in UK or Dubai before she came back to pakistan from self exile.

Was BB so stupid that she would write a WILL and gave it to Zardari (uncofirmed news that they were divorced long time ago)Would she not tell about the WILL to anybody in the party? Would she like to give the leadership to the person, because of whom her government was thrown twice.

The truth is that BB didnot even write any WILL or letter before she came to Pakistan.

There are speculations that Zardari used to beat BB as well, and may be he forced her to write this WILL.

BB was cunningly killed by Zardari, as she was guarded by the buddies of Zardari in jail and thats why he didnot allow the post mortem.

Why do people imagine that BB should not bequest the PPP leadership to her son. There is no democratic process within quite a few political parties all over the world and neither is such requisite or necessary in such cases. A political party is only a vehicle by which an interest group realises parliamentary representation. Its internal practices are irrelevant to the will of the electorate that elect it.

Personally I think that no democratic government should ever come to power in Pakistan. Its a sure route to the whole country going down the toilet and these "muslims" turning 60 years of effort into a disaster like Afghanistan.

#5,

I can't make such a claim that this will is fake without any proof, though I do tend to agree with it.

#6,

Care to explain what do mean by your second paragraph, and the reason why?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

of meccans, ansars and omar the terrible

benazir was only trying to follow in the footsteps of the prophet (pbuh and his camel) who left behind a fine mess over which muslims contine to spill blood to this day ....... zardari is trying to play omar's role while poor amin fahim sulks in the corner like ali ibi abi talib ......... aitezaz ahsan does not count - he is an ansar ..........

.... so, please stop bitchin about it - the ppp is following a great tradition

#7 and #8

The reasons why; Its quite simple and objective, democracy doesn't work. It never has and it never will.. even in the countries that advocate it.

No Pakistani democracy has ever worked and historically the Pakistani economy has only ever preformed under martial law. A civilian government right now is the worst thing that could happen to Pakistan. The whole country would disintegrate and it would be a viable basis for the West to intervene.

It never fails to surprise me however how myopic the Pakistani public are and how susceptible they are to propaganda.

Consider where Pakistan would be right now had there been a sitting civilian govt prior to 9/11.

Re: # 10

leadenwinter,

"Consider where Pakistan would be right now had there been a sitting civilian govt prior to 9/11. "

...... a civilian government would have done the same thing , but with much better results ....... they might have taken a couple of days to get a vote through the parliament, but it would have given the decision proper legitimacy .......

.....inspite of what i might say now and then to light a fire under tahmed's tail, i sincerely believe that, in the long run, a loori langri democracy is better than a dictatorship .......(i hope tahmed didn't read that)

#10 ..

:) You seem to be very optimistic.. Pakistani civilian governments tend to consist of creatures like Zardari, Wattu, Sherpao, Lalika, Khar, the Sharif brothers and of course my personal favourite Rafiq Tarrar :) just to name a few of the luminaries which the Pakistani electorate in their infinite wisdom selected to represent them.

In reality .. if a civilian government had been in power prior to 9/11.. a martial law would eventually be declared following a state of emergency on some basis like threats from Afghanistan etc etc.. simply because civilian leadership is totally illiterate for the most part or too greedy to see past their own noses.

However for the sake of argument if a civilian government were to have exclusively managed Pakistan post 9/11.. the Americans would simply have bombed the country to nothing.

re: Leadenwinter

Till civilian government are allowed in Pakistan and really allowed to govern without limitations, we can not and should not pass judgements on them.

Remember - a bad but a free government is always better than an oppressive, but efficient government.

On the other hand, the military has ruled Pakistan for a better part of its history and what does it have to show for itself?

As to 9/11, I rather prefer to have the choice to die than be told that I must die. But you will not understand that because you do not understand what freedom of choice means.

Ciao

I would like to make a minor correction to the Feroz post below " bad but a free government is always better than an oppressive, but efficient government."

" a inefficient but a people's government is always better than an oppressive, though efficient government. "

Bad and good are relative terms, we need to ask bad for whom and in what time frame

Feroz seems to be coming around, maybe the events and circumstances in the country changed him for the better as they did the BB in the end

#13 #14

Is this because the Americans tell us so ??

I can't seem to see any other basis to this alleged claim of the intrinsic "betterness" of peoples' governments..

#15 Leadenwinter writes "Is this because the Americans tell us so ??

I can't seem to see any other basis to this alleged claim of the intrinsic "betterness" of peoples' governments"

That would be the very last reason why I would support a people's government. The US elite are hypocrites what exists in the US is democracy in name only, when people are transformed by the elite is when they love their enslavement and slowly but surely this has been happening in the US, the few benefits you see that describe a civil society today, labor laws, living wages, etc are the result of the struggle of people forcing their governments to incorporate them to lessen the tyranny, it is precisely based on such a model that a people's government is way better for the people in the long run than any other form that represents a minority whose interests are fulfilled at the expense of the interests of the very vast majority...otherwise they wouldn't be that privilaged minority...