Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics
Hasan Davar July 19, 2002
#96 Posted by hobbyty on July 25, 2002 1:54:57 am
Sadna
In other words the owners are not the landless peasants - by definition - right??
The state has no right to it`s own property?
In other words the owners are not the landless peasants - by definition - right??
The state has no right to it`s own property?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#95 Posted by temporal on July 24, 2002 3:36:59 pm
Wish there was a format here on Chowk where one can post a comment or news item and then a discussion or chat can ensue. Since there isn’t one, this being the most relevant current board, wish to bring to your attention this from today’s papers. I do apologise for interrupting a fine discussion on educational merits and the ever ongoing discussions on religion and morality. Or we can take it to the speaker`s corner?
...t
________________________________________________
Girls & gold save four from gallows
MIANWALI, July 23: Four murder convicts managed to save themselves from the gallows after agreeing to pay Rs8 million and eight girls of their family as ``compensation`` to the aggrieved party.
The deal was struck at Abbakhel, 12 kilometres from here, on Tuesday in a mammoth gathering of religious scholars, notables of the district, politicians, and the public.
Sardar Khan, Muhammad Akram Khan, Muhammad Ashraf Khan and Asmatullah Khan were awarded death sentence in a double-murder by the district and sessions judge, Mianwali, in 1988.
After the rejection of their appeals by the superior courts and the president, the convicts and their relatives sought the help of influential people. They approached the Nawab of Kalabagh who yielded considerable influence on the aggrieved camp. The latter demanded Rs12 million in compensation and 20 young girls as per the local tradition called Vani.
But, with the efforts of Malik Asad Khan of Kalabagh, Obaidullah Khan Shadikhel, former MNA, Malik Taj Muhammad Kund, former MPA, Amirabdullah Khan Punnkhel, Mazhar Qayyum of Piplan, Qazi Zafar Hussain, and Sajada Nasheen of Chakrala, the aggrieved party brought down its demand to Rs8 million and eight unmarried young girls. One of the girls, who is 18, will be married to an 80-year- old man.
#94 Posted by sadna on July 24, 2002 11:34:36 am
hobbyt #93
``No concern about who actually own the deed to the property, that is to who is the lawful, legal owner - what about their ``right`` to justice?``
If you read the piece carefully, you will notice that the crux of the issue is that the lawful legal owner of the land is the state.
``No concern about who actually own the deed to the property, that is to who is the lawful, legal owner - what about their ``right`` to justice?``
If you read the piece carefully, you will notice that the crux of the issue is that the lawful legal owner of the land is the state.
#93 Posted by Romair on July 24, 2002 11:18:12 am
This is a tough call. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has strongly supported the Bachelors condition. Burki seems to support the spirit behind it, but opposes the condition.
I would not support this law in USA, or even in India. Because in those countries, the political system is developed and non-feudal enough, to an extent that poor folk and Dalits can win seats also. I think I would have to support the condition of Bachelors in Pakistan however. At least for the time being.
The best way to tell who is actually being effected by this decision is to see who has been sidelined. In the Indian Assemblies, a lot of poor folk would have been sidelined. However, in Pakistan, about a 100 NA members and Senate members do not have a BA qualification. I can make a bet that none of them are peasants or poor. If this qualification was to actually sideline the poor and uneducated of Pakistan, most of the effected MNAs would have been poor. Yet none are.
The reason is simple. One needs one of two qualifications to be an electable politician in Pakistan, i.e. a hell of a lot of money, or be a feudal or both. If one is not the heridatory feudal, it costs between 50 lakhs and 150 lakh rupees to run for an NA seat. If a person does not even have enough money to get an education, how the hell is he going to run for an MNA seat (with or without a Bachelors degree).
98% of Pakistan`s population hasn`t been sidelined by this law. That 98% was sidelined already. Infact 99.9% was sidelined. The game in Pakistani politics belongs to the remaining .1%. And this law has put restrictions on that group, thereby opening up politics to the remaining 1.9% (who have degrees, but are not feudals or multi-millionaires).
As an example, some of my distant relatives have successfully won Provincial Assembly seat(s). They are mini-feudals, and have all the qualities found in feudals, i.e. they have not completed high school. They live off the work of peasants in their village fields, while they themselves live in luxury houses in the cities (this is the one quality that every feudal has, even those with Harvard degrees). They have never had a job, since their land money is more than enough to live on. They have married multiple times, etc. And these guys aren`t even big time feudals.
A lot of my other relatives, live in the same area. They are doctors, professors, war heroes, computer scientists, successful businessmen, etc. They have degrees galore, from all over the world. Yet they have absolutely no chance in politics of defeating the mini-feudal relatives.
So what to talk to the 98% without Bachelors degrees, even those with Bachelors degrees don`t have a shot.
What this law will do (hopefully) is that it will kick out the mini-feudal cousins, and allow the doctor and scientist cousins to get elected. The later group will then hopefully do something for the remaining 98%.
The only parties that can successfully even think of nominating and electing poor folk are MQM, and the religious parties. Since the religious parties don`t get any votes, MQM is the only party that can nominate a rickshaw walla, and see him win (the MQM has other faults like anti-Punjabi racism and general militarism, but they are right now the only urban middle class powerful party in Pakistan). All the feudals and their parties, are too busy exploiting abducting and/or gang-raping the poor uneducated folk in their feudal lands; much less nominating them for seats. That is also why none of the poor folk, without Bachelors degrees, are complaining about this law (they know they can`t get into the assemblies, even if they get a Ph.D; even Imran Khan has trouble getting elected, what to talk of an unknown guy with a BA). They would be lucky if they found a job with a BA.
So this law is only going to effect the rich uneducated MNAs and MPAs without degrees. They are out now. Which is a good thing.
Maybe instead of crying about this law, these MNAs should make the effort to take the BA exam. Which is what Abida Hussein just did. The sad part is that somehow or other, Abida Hussein actually was the minsiter of Science and Tech, and the minister of Education for Pakistan, at one time, with only a high school diploma. And then people ask, why Pakistan has poor universities........
I would not support this law in USA, or even in India. Because in those countries, the political system is developed and non-feudal enough, to an extent that poor folk and Dalits can win seats also. I think I would have to support the condition of Bachelors in Pakistan however. At least for the time being.
The best way to tell who is actually being effected by this decision is to see who has been sidelined. In the Indian Assemblies, a lot of poor folk would have been sidelined. However, in Pakistan, about a 100 NA members and Senate members do not have a BA qualification. I can make a bet that none of them are peasants or poor. If this qualification was to actually sideline the poor and uneducated of Pakistan, most of the effected MNAs would have been poor. Yet none are.
The reason is simple. One needs one of two qualifications to be an electable politician in Pakistan, i.e. a hell of a lot of money, or be a feudal or both. If one is not the heridatory feudal, it costs between 50 lakhs and 150 lakh rupees to run for an NA seat. If a person does not even have enough money to get an education, how the hell is he going to run for an MNA seat (with or without a Bachelors degree).
98% of Pakistan`s population hasn`t been sidelined by this law. That 98% was sidelined already. Infact 99.9% was sidelined. The game in Pakistani politics belongs to the remaining .1%. And this law has put restrictions on that group, thereby opening up politics to the remaining 1.9% (who have degrees, but are not feudals or multi-millionaires).
As an example, some of my distant relatives have successfully won Provincial Assembly seat(s). They are mini-feudals, and have all the qualities found in feudals, i.e. they have not completed high school. They live off the work of peasants in their village fields, while they themselves live in luxury houses in the cities (this is the one quality that every feudal has, even those with Harvard degrees). They have never had a job, since their land money is more than enough to live on. They have married multiple times, etc. And these guys aren`t even big time feudals.
A lot of my other relatives, live in the same area. They are doctors, professors, war heroes, computer scientists, successful businessmen, etc. They have degrees galore, from all over the world. Yet they have absolutely no chance in politics of defeating the mini-feudal relatives.
So what to talk to the 98% without Bachelors degrees, even those with Bachelors degrees don`t have a shot.
What this law will do (hopefully) is that it will kick out the mini-feudal cousins, and allow the doctor and scientist cousins to get elected. The later group will then hopefully do something for the remaining 98%.
The only parties that can successfully even think of nominating and electing poor folk are MQM, and the religious parties. Since the religious parties don`t get any votes, MQM is the only party that can nominate a rickshaw walla, and see him win (the MQM has other faults like anti-Punjabi racism and general militarism, but they are right now the only urban middle class powerful party in Pakistan). All the feudals and their parties, are too busy exploiting abducting and/or gang-raping the poor uneducated folk in their feudal lands; much less nominating them for seats. That is also why none of the poor folk, without Bachelors degrees, are complaining about this law (they know they can`t get into the assemblies, even if they get a Ph.D; even Imran Khan has trouble getting elected, what to talk of an unknown guy with a BA). They would be lucky if they found a job with a BA.
So this law is only going to effect the rich uneducated MNAs and MPAs without degrees. They are out now. Which is a good thing.
Maybe instead of crying about this law, these MNAs should make the effort to take the BA exam. Which is what Abida Hussein just did. The sad part is that somehow or other, Abida Hussein actually was the minsiter of Science and Tech, and the minister of Education for Pakistan, at one time, with only a high school diploma. And then people ask, why Pakistan has poor universities........
#92 Posted by tahmed321 on July 24, 2002 11:18:12 am
krashid #86 Now that your computer is back in good health, would you consider contacting Bilal Ahmed`s son to find out about his health?
#91 Posted by hobbyty on July 24, 2002 11:18:12 am
Chowkies
In my Post #61, I present the proposition that majorities do not obey laws that a civilized individual generally does. That majorities are uncivilized. As civilized individuals, we do not make a claim on the property of others, if one lives in a rented home, one cannot legitimately make the claim that they own the property by virtue of living on or in it - this is obvious. Yet majorities understand no such rules - In her post #55, Sadna quotes from an article in a Pakistan newspaper,
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2002-daily/23-07-2002/oped/o1.htm
``And so thappas defend almost one million tenants and their only real asset -- their land.... ``
Notice the one million persons referred to above, are referred to by the author of the article as ``TENANTS`` (as opposed to land or property owners) - Does the word ``Tenant`` mean the same thing as owner of the property?? Next, notice that in the same sentence, the author cites the TENANCY of these landless peasants, as ``their only real asset.`` Choori and Sina Zouri - this, only a majority will dare, because they ``feel,`` ``believe,`` that their will is the same as justice! - No concern about who actually own the deed to the property, that is to who is the lawful, legal owner - what about their ``right`` to justice? It is for this reason that we must always refer to ``general principles/rules`` when considering particulars -
My favorite portion is of course, the author of the article`s advice to us, ``These tenants may not be able to directly challenge the military`s assault on democracy, but do espouse the kinds of democratic norms that we should promote.``
You understood correctly! Theft is a ``democratic norm`` and further that ``we should promote`` it. Such a distorted underistandng of ``Democracy`` is precisely what imperils it. Democracy must be the sovereignty of LAW.
Do not misunderstand, the argument is not that the landless peasants have it good, because it is obvious they don`t have it good, they have pretty bad. The argument is that we must very cautious, indeed we must reject the notion that the will of the majority is the same as justice.
One of the major problems that has developed with the word, ``Democracy`` is its appropriation by communists; Witness ``democratic peoples work group`` and equally other ridiculous creations of communists. Our understanding of the word ``democratic`` is such that we tend to equate it with egalitarianism - an ideal, no communist can tolerate. Is there a ``democratic`` way to manufacture goods? Is there a ``democratic`` way to build a house? Will the individual tasks in these ``democratic`` functions be egalitarian? Can they ever be? We must be vigilant and not allow communists to misuse the words ``democracy`` and ``democratic``.
In my Post #61, I present the proposition that majorities do not obey laws that a civilized individual generally does. That majorities are uncivilized. As civilized individuals, we do not make a claim on the property of others, if one lives in a rented home, one cannot legitimately make the claim that they own the property by virtue of living on or in it - this is obvious. Yet majorities understand no such rules - In her post #55, Sadna quotes from an article in a Pakistan newspaper,
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2002-daily/23-07-2002/oped/o1.htm
``And so thappas defend almost one million tenants and their only real asset -- their land.... ``
Notice the one million persons referred to above, are referred to by the author of the article as ``TENANTS`` (as opposed to land or property owners) - Does the word ``Tenant`` mean the same thing as owner of the property?? Next, notice that in the same sentence, the author cites the TENANCY of these landless peasants, as ``their only real asset.`` Choori and Sina Zouri - this, only a majority will dare, because they ``feel,`` ``believe,`` that their will is the same as justice! - No concern about who actually own the deed to the property, that is to who is the lawful, legal owner - what about their ``right`` to justice? It is for this reason that we must always refer to ``general principles/rules`` when considering particulars -
My favorite portion is of course, the author of the article`s advice to us, ``These tenants may not be able to directly challenge the military`s assault on democracy, but do espouse the kinds of democratic norms that we should promote.``
You understood correctly! Theft is a ``democratic norm`` and further that ``we should promote`` it. Such a distorted underistandng of ``Democracy`` is precisely what imperils it. Democracy must be the sovereignty of LAW.
Do not misunderstand, the argument is not that the landless peasants have it good, because it is obvious they don`t have it good, they have pretty bad. The argument is that we must very cautious, indeed we must reject the notion that the will of the majority is the same as justice.
One of the major problems that has developed with the word, ``Democracy`` is its appropriation by communists; Witness ``democratic peoples work group`` and equally other ridiculous creations of communists. Our understanding of the word ``democratic`` is such that we tend to equate it with egalitarianism - an ideal, no communist can tolerate. Is there a ``democratic`` way to manufacture goods? Is there a ``democratic`` way to build a house? Will the individual tasks in these ``democratic`` functions be egalitarian? Can they ever be? We must be vigilant and not allow communists to misuse the words ``democracy`` and ``democratic``.
#90 Posted by shankar on July 24, 2002 11:18:12 am
Romair,
Yes us poor, lay, ``unexpert`` people dont know
sh!t from shinola about civics..
{{The NSC is likely to function as a watchdog on the civilian-led administration, acting only when the prime minister has crossed a clearly demarcated threshold}}
That; my dear fellow...is done by the Supreme Court of a nation..if the SUPREME COURT of Pakistan can be manipulated by the ever dominant ``saviours of the nation``, the military,...why could`nt the NSC be so manipulated?!
Twisting the arm of the Supreme Court is the highest form of TREASON in any other country, except Pakistan.
Nixon was made to resign NOT because of Watergate (that was still under investigation & the verdict wasnt in). It was when Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor & thus caused a Constitutional CRISIS, that he lost respect in the eyes of Republicans & Democrats, alike. In a true DEMOCRACY...NOBODY..not even the most powerful person of the country has the right to DEFY the Supreme Court...
Even in the very imperfect democracy of India; the Supreme Court ruled against Indira Gandhi. She defied the Court & imposed Emergency Rule. Then when she got confident & put her actions to a general national election (it was like a referendum), the Indian public booted her & her cronies OUT...even the illiterate masses!!! To her credit, she gave up power peacefully (unlike the gods of Pakistani leadership).
They gave the opposition (Janata party) the opportunity to rule. Alas, the Janata Party, in 20-20 hindsight, demonstrated that their only commonality was being ``anti-Indira``..otherwise they were a bunch of idiots. So, in the next election, those same illiterate masses booted them out & re-instated Indira!
Y`see, when someone says ``democracy is not SUITED to the genious of the Pakistani people``, its a SLAP IN THE FACE for the people of Pakistan. It means theyre too stupid & unworthy of choosing their own leaders.
So yes, Indian democracy is sometimes a farce...you wont see Indians DENYING that fact. But Indians do GENUINELY feel that they have a say over who runs their country.
If 3 million Indian Kashmiri muslims dont like the Indian military, the remaining 997 million do RESPECT it...primarily because they have stayed out of politics & not fcuked with their rights. Thats REAL respect!
Compare that with your ``world famous`` military! They DEMAND respect from Pakistanis from the barrel of the gun. Why do you think that the referendum was such an embarrassment?! It wasnt the RESULTS that was an embarrassment; it was the way ordinary Pakistanis RESPONDED to it...without ANY enthusiasm! Basically, the Pakistani people gave Mushy a message ``why go through this farce?..you will do what YOU want, anyways! so stop insulting our intelligence!!``
When will you soldier boys realise that TRUE respect is EARNED..not DEMANDED or ENFORCED?!! Even on Chowk...just see how many Pakistanis resent & curse their military...compare that to how Indian posters view the Indian military..
Go ahead, spin this any way you want..it wont change that OBVIOUS fact!!
Yes us poor, lay, ``unexpert`` people dont know
sh!t from shinola about civics..
{{The NSC is likely to function as a watchdog on the civilian-led administration, acting only when the prime minister has crossed a clearly demarcated threshold}}
That; my dear fellow...is done by the Supreme Court of a nation..if the SUPREME COURT of Pakistan can be manipulated by the ever dominant ``saviours of the nation``, the military,...why could`nt the NSC be so manipulated?!
Twisting the arm of the Supreme Court is the highest form of TREASON in any other country, except Pakistan.
Nixon was made to resign NOT because of Watergate (that was still under investigation & the verdict wasnt in). It was when Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor & thus caused a Constitutional CRISIS, that he lost respect in the eyes of Republicans & Democrats, alike. In a true DEMOCRACY...NOBODY..not even the most powerful person of the country has the right to DEFY the Supreme Court...
Even in the very imperfect democracy of India; the Supreme Court ruled against Indira Gandhi. She defied the Court & imposed Emergency Rule. Then when she got confident & put her actions to a general national election (it was like a referendum), the Indian public booted her & her cronies OUT...even the illiterate masses!!! To her credit, she gave up power peacefully (unlike the gods of Pakistani leadership).
They gave the opposition (Janata party) the opportunity to rule. Alas, the Janata Party, in 20-20 hindsight, demonstrated that their only commonality was being ``anti-Indira``..otherwise they were a bunch of idiots. So, in the next election, those same illiterate masses booted them out & re-instated Indira!
Y`see, when someone says ``democracy is not SUITED to the genious of the Pakistani people``, its a SLAP IN THE FACE for the people of Pakistan. It means theyre too stupid & unworthy of choosing their own leaders.
So yes, Indian democracy is sometimes a farce...you wont see Indians DENYING that fact. But Indians do GENUINELY feel that they have a say over who runs their country.
If 3 million Indian Kashmiri muslims dont like the Indian military, the remaining 997 million do RESPECT it...primarily because they have stayed out of politics & not fcuked with their rights. Thats REAL respect!
Compare that with your ``world famous`` military! They DEMAND respect from Pakistanis from the barrel of the gun. Why do you think that the referendum was such an embarrassment?! It wasnt the RESULTS that was an embarrassment; it was the way ordinary Pakistanis RESPONDED to it...without ANY enthusiasm! Basically, the Pakistani people gave Mushy a message ``why go through this farce?..you will do what YOU want, anyways! so stop insulting our intelligence!!``
When will you soldier boys realise that TRUE respect is EARNED..not DEMANDED or ENFORCED?!! Even on Chowk...just see how many Pakistanis resent & curse their military...compare that to how Indian posters view the Indian military..
Go ahead, spin this any way you want..it wont change that OBVIOUS fact!!
#89 Posted by shankar on July 24, 2002 11:18:12 am
nasah,
{{Musharraf`s thinks that with his `nuclear umbrella` he does not need his army to defend the borders anymore -- and now that he doesn`t have to worry about the borders -- he can OCCUPY his own country and use his army to administer the occupied territories.}}
Correction...if you read Musy`s latest interview to the world, he thinks his military can take care of India in a CONVENTIONAL war..he believes thats the main reason India didnt attack Pakistan....Indians, after all , are cowards..
doesn`t matter that the reality is that the Indian military has won every war against their ``world famous`` military...Pakistanis have a ``world famous`` ability to spin the truth to look like winners all the time!..
{{Musharraf`s thinks that with his `nuclear umbrella` he does not need his army to defend the borders anymore -- and now that he doesn`t have to worry about the borders -- he can OCCUPY his own country and use his army to administer the occupied territories.}}
Correction...if you read Musy`s latest interview to the world, he thinks his military can take care of India in a CONVENTIONAL war..he believes thats the main reason India didnt attack Pakistan....Indians, after all , are cowards..
doesn`t matter that the reality is that the Indian military has won every war against their ``world famous`` military...Pakistanis have a ``world famous`` ability to spin the truth to look like winners all the time!..
#88 Posted by shankar on July 24, 2002 11:18:12 am
hobbyty,
you said to nasah
{{Neither the point of view I present nor the English language suffer from any inadequacy that you are familiar with. If it did you would be able to counter both with the force of argument and reason.}}
For your information, its not just me that gets dizzy & confused when I read your posts. Nowadays..after reading 1-2 lines I scroll past your rambling...either you have a schizophrenic thought disorder or your mind operates in a different dimension...
in order to counter your points, one has to first understand just what the fcuk you are saying! Seems to me, I`m not the only one who has that problem..
..to those Chowkies who actually UNDERSTAND what the heck you are saying..i say bravo...i`m so envious that your minds can so easily move from one dimension to another..
you said to nasah
{{Neither the point of view I present nor the English language suffer from any inadequacy that you are familiar with. If it did you would be able to counter both with the force of argument and reason.}}
For your information, its not just me that gets dizzy & confused when I read your posts. Nowadays..after reading 1-2 lines I scroll past your rambling...either you have a schizophrenic thought disorder or your mind operates in a different dimension...
in order to counter your points, one has to first understand just what the fcuk you are saying! Seems to me, I`m not the only one who has that problem..
..to those Chowkies who actually UNDERSTAND what the heck you are saying..i say bravo...i`m so envious that your minds can so easily move from one dimension to another..
#87 Posted by ferozk on July 24, 2002 10:39:55 am
Re: nash (sp?)
Wow! You need to relax and take it easy! That post of mine, for which poor Fuzair was blamed, was sarcastic. It seems that sarcasm on Chowk is a lost virtue these days. The statistics, which I quoted were taken from the Pakistani press, which got them from the Pakistani politicans. The Pakistani press is an emotional creature and all political debates in Pakistan are, more or less, emotional in nature; when you disagree, you end up in the morgue! LOL
Whether the number of degree holders in Pakistan is 2 percent or what the Encarta suggests, how does it help the common person?
The present bureaucracy in Pakistan is highly educated, but what is their track record?
The system is so askewed that it needs a revivial and not a ``band aid`` approach to stem the rot, which has set in our society.
In my elitest opinion, the problem in Pakistan is that the educated class is not willing to trust the so called ``genius of the Pakistani people`` - their common sense - and thinks that it owns the monopoly on what is good for them and wants to do all their thinking for them, without realizing and admiting its own fallibility in the matter.
In this, I am in a hundred percent agreement with Tahmad321 when he suggests that, for once, an elected assembly should be allowed to finish its elected period without being dismissed by the military. Democracy in Pakistan will not evolve until we, as a nation, are allowed to make our share of mistakes and learn from them.
As to my statement of ``taxation without representation``, I stand by that statement. Pakistanis are heavily taxed - directly and indirectly. We pay the taxes, but what do we get in return?
All those taxes paid to the government and still we lack clean drinking water, well maintained roads, law and order etc....
Re: Tahmad321
Yaar, I honestly feel that you have a heartfelt wish for the betterment of the average person in Pakistan and for their escape from the cage of misery, which exists around their hopes and dreams in Pakistan.
I know that you care for this nation and have high hopes for it and for that I salute you and I really admire your faith, which nourishes your belief in a better future for this land.
My friend, I wish I could share your sentiments, but the reality of my existence, on the front lines of dispair, and in the trenches of cynism is differently colored than the view from, which you observe the landscape of our nation. I hope and pray that you will be proven right and I will end being proven wrong. Remember, I am a populist by choice and my heart aches, when I see the reality around me and yes; I am a prisoner of my reality and even though I try to escape, I will always know that I will be a prisoner till the day I escape, when ever that day arrives.
If my comments barb you, just remember that they are the comments of someone ``shell shocked`` and comments of someome jaded by hearing the promises and seeing what became of those promises. So just relax and consider this point of view: I cloak my self in cynical observations, because cynism is the only refuge, where I can find a safe harbor for my thoughts in this sea of gloom that surrounds me.
Re: PM
PM, giving you the benefit of doubt, will the educated people really help the governing of Pakistan?
Will an educational qualification for an elected office help the country?
I think that problem will not be solved by educated people in assemblies, but by instilling a degree of tolerance and forebearance in our political discourse. For that we need a political culture, which desists from the evils you mentioned in your post.
We need to change ourselves before we change the system, which is malfuctioning, and then we can discuss the virtues of education. Remember, ``you can take a person out of the gutter, but you cannot take the gutter out of the person!``
Will the education really help the matters if the intent remains the same?
Ciao
Wow! You need to relax and take it easy! That post of mine, for which poor Fuzair was blamed, was sarcastic. It seems that sarcasm on Chowk is a lost virtue these days. The statistics, which I quoted were taken from the Pakistani press, which got them from the Pakistani politicans. The Pakistani press is an emotional creature and all political debates in Pakistan are, more or less, emotional in nature; when you disagree, you end up in the morgue! LOL
Whether the number of degree holders in Pakistan is 2 percent or what the Encarta suggests, how does it help the common person?
The present bureaucracy in Pakistan is highly educated, but what is their track record?
The system is so askewed that it needs a revivial and not a ``band aid`` approach to stem the rot, which has set in our society.
In my elitest opinion, the problem in Pakistan is that the educated class is not willing to trust the so called ``genius of the Pakistani people`` - their common sense - and thinks that it owns the monopoly on what is good for them and wants to do all their thinking for them, without realizing and admiting its own fallibility in the matter.
In this, I am in a hundred percent agreement with Tahmad321 when he suggests that, for once, an elected assembly should be allowed to finish its elected period without being dismissed by the military. Democracy in Pakistan will not evolve until we, as a nation, are allowed to make our share of mistakes and learn from them.
As to my statement of ``taxation without representation``, I stand by that statement. Pakistanis are heavily taxed - directly and indirectly. We pay the taxes, but what do we get in return?
All those taxes paid to the government and still we lack clean drinking water, well maintained roads, law and order etc....
Re: Tahmad321
Yaar, I honestly feel that you have a heartfelt wish for the betterment of the average person in Pakistan and for their escape from the cage of misery, which exists around their hopes and dreams in Pakistan.
I know that you care for this nation and have high hopes for it and for that I salute you and I really admire your faith, which nourishes your belief in a better future for this land.
My friend, I wish I could share your sentiments, but the reality of my existence, on the front lines of dispair, and in the trenches of cynism is differently colored than the view from, which you observe the landscape of our nation. I hope and pray that you will be proven right and I will end being proven wrong. Remember, I am a populist by choice and my heart aches, when I see the reality around me and yes; I am a prisoner of my reality and even though I try to escape, I will always know that I will be a prisoner till the day I escape, when ever that day arrives.
If my comments barb you, just remember that they are the comments of someone ``shell shocked`` and comments of someome jaded by hearing the promises and seeing what became of those promises. So just relax and consider this point of view: I cloak my self in cynical observations, because cynism is the only refuge, where I can find a safe harbor for my thoughts in this sea of gloom that surrounds me.
Re: PM
PM, giving you the benefit of doubt, will the educated people really help the governing of Pakistan?
Will an educational qualification for an elected office help the country?
I think that problem will not be solved by educated people in assemblies, but by instilling a degree of tolerance and forebearance in our political discourse. For that we need a political culture, which desists from the evils you mentioned in your post.
We need to change ourselves before we change the system, which is malfuctioning, and then we can discuss the virtues of education. Remember, ``you can take a person out of the gutter, but you cannot take the gutter out of the person!``
Will the education really help the matters if the intent remains the same?
Ciao
#86 Posted by nasah on July 24, 2002 5:17:52 am
Dear krashid:
You may be exactly right when you say -- ``There is no need for elections in my thinking`` – yes, why go through this very expensive charade when ultimately every aspect of Pakistan`s civilian life will be controlled by ONE man through layers after layers of army controls down to the village level?
Musharraf`s thinks that with his `nuclear umbrella` he does not need his army to defend the borders anymore -- and now that he doesn`t have to worry about the borders -- he can OCCUPY his own country and use his army to administer the occupied territories.
The brilliant Kargil strategist thinks that he has not only checkmated India -- he has checkmated his own civilian country.
So you`re right -- why go for an election -- just declare Pakistan as an army administered territory -- and tell the West -- love it or leave it.
You may be exactly right when you say -- ``There is no need for elections in my thinking`` – yes, why go through this very expensive charade when ultimately every aspect of Pakistan`s civilian life will be controlled by ONE man through layers after layers of army controls down to the village level?
Musharraf`s thinks that with his `nuclear umbrella` he does not need his army to defend the borders anymore -- and now that he doesn`t have to worry about the borders -- he can OCCUPY his own country and use his army to administer the occupied territories.
The brilliant Kargil strategist thinks that he has not only checkmated India -- he has checkmated his own civilian country.
So you`re right -- why go for an election -- just declare Pakistan as an army administered territory -- and tell the West -- love it or leave it.
#85 Posted by Romair on July 24, 2002 5:17:52 am
Shahid Javed Burki has been writing in the Tuesday`s edition of Dawn, for over a year. He is a Rhodes Scholar, an ex-VP of the World Bank, an ex-Pakistani Finance Minister and now runs (ran) an emerging market fund, in the USA, with Moeen Qureshi. I believe he has a Ph.D. in economics, or some related field also.
I have followed his articles very closely, and they make a lot of sense. Unlike many Pakistani journalists who emotionally write about areas in which they have no knowledge (economics, military, constitution, law, etc.), Burki sticks to his areas of expertise. And unlike many Pakistani journalists, who have never been international observers, much less international players, Burki has been both.
I have been following his writings on Pakistan, since the mid-80s. A very good and objective source. Here is what he writes about the current amendments:
``Reform: six positive elements
By Shahid Javed Burki
[This is the second and concluding part of Shahid Javed Burki`s article on constitutional reform. The first part appeared in this space in yesterday`s issue.]
Will General Pervez Musharraf go the way of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif? These four leaders in Pakistan`s recent history were given the opportunity to provide Pakistan with a durable political system. Unfortunately all four failed. Or will Musharraf live up to see his own dream come true - to walk in the footsteps of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan`s founding father?
What distinguishes Jinnah from all the leaders that followed him was his passionate commitment to the principles of democracy. He could have reached for the moon in 1947 when, almost single handedly, he was able to get the British administration and the Congress party to create Pakistan - a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India. A grateful community of his followers would have given him the moon had he asked for it. He didn`t. Instead, although close to death with a debilitating disease, he went about laying the foundation of a democratic state in the country he had created.
None of Jinnah`s successors followed his example. They were interested more in furthering their narrow interests or the interests of the groups and communities to which they belonged. For 51 years - from 1948 when Jinnah died to 1999 when General Musharraf took command of the country as its chief executive - the story of Pakistan is a story of endless conspiracies forged by narrow-minded leaders to operate the political and economic system for their own benefit. President Ayub Khan sought to follow a different course initially. But even he was brought back to the familiar road by the vested interests who then so thoroughly dominated Pakistani society and whose grip remained tight until very recently.
With this unhappy record, what are the options available to Pakistan as it tries once again to move towards democracy? Or, will the country fail once again? Will the leaders let this opportunity to fashion a workable system slip away one more time?
The Supreme Court, in sanctioning the military takeover in October 1999, required General Musharraf to restore democracy within three years. He was given this time to stabilize the economy - which he has done - and to bring about changes in the political system that would make it durable and sustainable over time. This is what the general is attempting to do now.
The two constitutional packages announced by General Pervez Musharraf have several innovative features. Six of these are worth some mention. They combine some of the elements from the previous constitutions while introducing some new ones in order to achieve the regime`s objectives.
What is the regime`s stated objective? Relying on the many pronouncements made by General Musharraf over the last several months, what he and his administration is attempting to do is to create a structure that will serve Pakistan`s common citizens. Only time will tell whether that is the true intention of General Musharraf and his colleagues.
Without losing the right to be extremely watchful over the way the regime proceeds in the weeks and months ahead, it would be useful to suspend suspicion for a while and give General Musharraf the benefit of the doubt. Let us see what his government is attempting to accomplish.
The regime has incorporated six important elements into the new structure that were not present in the Constitution of 1973. One, it plans to check the power of the elected prime minister by creating a strong presidency. The president, presumably elected by the national and provincial legislatures, will have the right to dismiss the prime minister on the grounds specified in the amended Constitution.
However, the president`s power to dismiss the chief executive will be constrained by the need to get the approval of the National Security Council. The president will have to make a reference to the NSC and get its approval to remove the prime minister. Since the prime minister will be a member of the NSC he (or she) will have the opportunity to defend himself (or herself) against the levied charges. The NSC`s decision, presumably, will be taken by a vote and - presumably once again - if the president does not receive the majority vote, he may have to resign.
If this is a correct interpretation of the ``dismissal clause,`` it comes with a number of safeguards that were not available in Section 58.2(b) of the Constitution as amended by President Ziaul Haq. The four dismissals of prime minister under that provision were based on the decisions taken in great secrecy. They were sprung on an unsuspecting prime minister in the equivalent of a ``mid-night knock`` on the door.
The second innovation in the proposed constitutional packages concerns the creation of an NSC of eleven members, seven of whom will be politicians and four will come from the military. During General Musharraf`s tenure the distribution will still be in favour of the civilians - there will be six politicians and five military men, including the president. Most of the critical commentary in the press has focused on this provision of the proposed constitutional arrangement.
Why should a non-elected body of people have the authority to dismiss an elected prime minister, critics have asked. ``Non-elected state functionaries have no business to interfere in political affairs,`` wrote Dawn in an editorial (``Defending the package,`` July 14, 2002). ``Their job is to carry out their duties as assigned by the elected leadership. What the NSC proposes to do, however, is to subordinate Pakistan`s elected leadership to a cabal of Bonapartists in disguise. This is hardly the road to take the nation to `real democracy.```
This is a valid criticism but it places a great deal of faith in the elected leaders who have failed the people so often in the past. Is this faith warranted? Will they behave this time around and carry out the wishes of the people? Will they manage to resist the temptation and not use the state - its institutions and its resources - to enrich themselves and their families and friends? Will they use their time in office to strengthen the institutions of democracy and not bring them to general ridicule once again? Given our record, it is not easy to assume that we will see good behaviour this time around. Some checks are needed and that appears to be the main motive behind the creation of the NSC.
The NSC is likely to function as a watchdog on the civilian-led administration, acting only when the prime minister has crossed a clearly demarcated threshold. Most of the time, it is likely to work as an institution where the two important components of the Pakistani ruling class interact with one another and exchange information. There is a precedence for this.
I was a member of the Council for Defence and National Security, the CDNS, created by President Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari in 1996. This was a nine-member body chaired by the president with the four service chiefs and four central ministers (defence, finance, external affairs, interior) as members. It met three times and my recollection of the role of the military members was that of interested listeners and not active participants. I don`t recall any major decision taken in those meetings. The emphasis was on exchanging information.
The third innovation is to bring in a large number of women in the legislature. This can only help broaden the representative character of the assemblies. Giving women a voice in these chambers will begin to address the acute problem of their overall backwardness. With women present in such large numbers, it should be possible to get some laws on the books that would protect them.
The trend, unfortunately, has been in the opposite direction. It should also be possible to introduce women as active participants in the economy. Today, Pakistan has a very low female participation rates in the workforce, one of the lowest in the world. Getting women more actively engaged will add to the dynamics of the economy.
The fourth element is also aimed at expanding the representative character of the assemblies. The number of seats has been increased in the legislature, thus reducing the size of the constituencies elected members were called upon to represent. Under the previous arrangement, the average size of a constituency was 700,000.
Under the new arrangement, a constituency will have less than half a million people. Also the elections of October 2002 will use voter lists based on the Census of 1998. These changes will shift the centre of gravity of the Pakistani political system away from the countryside and towards the country`s towns and cities. It is in the urban areas that Pakistan must create the dynamic centres for its economy. This shift should help to accomplish that objective.
The fifth element is to restrict representation in the legislative assemblies to only those who have college degrees. This provision has been interpreted, perhaps correctly, as an attempt to cleanse the political system of those elements in society who wield power for hereditary reasons - the legendary pirs, maliks and landlords who have dominated politics for so long. If that is the reason, it could have been achieved by exposing the performance of these individuals in the legislature by allowing legislative proceedings to be broadcast on television and radio. Restricting participation, no matter for what reason, creates distortions in a system. Total openness is always to be preferred.
The sixth element in the new constitutional structure is aimed at creating a three-level federal system with most of the responsibility for providing basic services to the people assigned to local governments. For the first time in Pakistan`s history, local administration is to be the responsibility of elected rather than appointed officials. This is a good but an unpopular move. It has drawn howls of protest from the members of the elite civil services who have seen the base of their power taken away from them. It is also not sitting well with the political establishment which will now have to share power with local leaders.
If Pakistan can make this three-tier system work, it will contribute enormously to the country`s political and economic development. It has been shown over and over again that development programmes have a better chance of success when people are directly involved with determining the priorities of the communities in which they live.
The much condemned - and also the much misunderstood - system of Basic Democracies succeeded in promoting local economic development. A system directed by the nazims, elected representatives of the people, has an even greater chance of succeeding. (www.dawn.com)
I have followed his articles very closely, and they make a lot of sense. Unlike many Pakistani journalists who emotionally write about areas in which they have no knowledge (economics, military, constitution, law, etc.), Burki sticks to his areas of expertise. And unlike many Pakistani journalists, who have never been international observers, much less international players, Burki has been both.
I have been following his writings on Pakistan, since the mid-80s. A very good and objective source. Here is what he writes about the current amendments:
``Reform: six positive elements
By Shahid Javed Burki
[This is the second and concluding part of Shahid Javed Burki`s article on constitutional reform. The first part appeared in this space in yesterday`s issue.]
Will General Pervez Musharraf go the way of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif? These four leaders in Pakistan`s recent history were given the opportunity to provide Pakistan with a durable political system. Unfortunately all four failed. Or will Musharraf live up to see his own dream come true - to walk in the footsteps of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan`s founding father?
What distinguishes Jinnah from all the leaders that followed him was his passionate commitment to the principles of democracy. He could have reached for the moon in 1947 when, almost single handedly, he was able to get the British administration and the Congress party to create Pakistan - a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India. A grateful community of his followers would have given him the moon had he asked for it. He didn`t. Instead, although close to death with a debilitating disease, he went about laying the foundation of a democratic state in the country he had created.
None of Jinnah`s successors followed his example. They were interested more in furthering their narrow interests or the interests of the groups and communities to which they belonged. For 51 years - from 1948 when Jinnah died to 1999 when General Musharraf took command of the country as its chief executive - the story of Pakistan is a story of endless conspiracies forged by narrow-minded leaders to operate the political and economic system for their own benefit. President Ayub Khan sought to follow a different course initially. But even he was brought back to the familiar road by the vested interests who then so thoroughly dominated Pakistani society and whose grip remained tight until very recently.
With this unhappy record, what are the options available to Pakistan as it tries once again to move towards democracy? Or, will the country fail once again? Will the leaders let this opportunity to fashion a workable system slip away one more time?
The Supreme Court, in sanctioning the military takeover in October 1999, required General Musharraf to restore democracy within three years. He was given this time to stabilize the economy - which he has done - and to bring about changes in the political system that would make it durable and sustainable over time. This is what the general is attempting to do now.
The two constitutional packages announced by General Pervez Musharraf have several innovative features. Six of these are worth some mention. They combine some of the elements from the previous constitutions while introducing some new ones in order to achieve the regime`s objectives.
What is the regime`s stated objective? Relying on the many pronouncements made by General Musharraf over the last several months, what he and his administration is attempting to do is to create a structure that will serve Pakistan`s common citizens. Only time will tell whether that is the true intention of General Musharraf and his colleagues.
Without losing the right to be extremely watchful over the way the regime proceeds in the weeks and months ahead, it would be useful to suspend suspicion for a while and give General Musharraf the benefit of the doubt. Let us see what his government is attempting to accomplish.
The regime has incorporated six important elements into the new structure that were not present in the Constitution of 1973. One, it plans to check the power of the elected prime minister by creating a strong presidency. The president, presumably elected by the national and provincial legislatures, will have the right to dismiss the prime minister on the grounds specified in the amended Constitution.
However, the president`s power to dismiss the chief executive will be constrained by the need to get the approval of the National Security Council. The president will have to make a reference to the NSC and get its approval to remove the prime minister. Since the prime minister will be a member of the NSC he (or she) will have the opportunity to defend himself (or herself) against the levied charges. The NSC`s decision, presumably, will be taken by a vote and - presumably once again - if the president does not receive the majority vote, he may have to resign.
If this is a correct interpretation of the ``dismissal clause,`` it comes with a number of safeguards that were not available in Section 58.2(b) of the Constitution as amended by President Ziaul Haq. The four dismissals of prime minister under that provision were based on the decisions taken in great secrecy. They were sprung on an unsuspecting prime minister in the equivalent of a ``mid-night knock`` on the door.
The second innovation in the proposed constitutional packages concerns the creation of an NSC of eleven members, seven of whom will be politicians and four will come from the military. During General Musharraf`s tenure the distribution will still be in favour of the civilians - there will be six politicians and five military men, including the president. Most of the critical commentary in the press has focused on this provision of the proposed constitutional arrangement.
Why should a non-elected body of people have the authority to dismiss an elected prime minister, critics have asked. ``Non-elected state functionaries have no business to interfere in political affairs,`` wrote Dawn in an editorial (``Defending the package,`` July 14, 2002). ``Their job is to carry out their duties as assigned by the elected leadership. What the NSC proposes to do, however, is to subordinate Pakistan`s elected leadership to a cabal of Bonapartists in disguise. This is hardly the road to take the nation to `real democracy.```
This is a valid criticism but it places a great deal of faith in the elected leaders who have failed the people so often in the past. Is this faith warranted? Will they behave this time around and carry out the wishes of the people? Will they manage to resist the temptation and not use the state - its institutions and its resources - to enrich themselves and their families and friends? Will they use their time in office to strengthen the institutions of democracy and not bring them to general ridicule once again? Given our record, it is not easy to assume that we will see good behaviour this time around. Some checks are needed and that appears to be the main motive behind the creation of the NSC.
The NSC is likely to function as a watchdog on the civilian-led administration, acting only when the prime minister has crossed a clearly demarcated threshold. Most of the time, it is likely to work as an institution where the two important components of the Pakistani ruling class interact with one another and exchange information. There is a precedence for this.
I was a member of the Council for Defence and National Security, the CDNS, created by President Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari in 1996. This was a nine-member body chaired by the president with the four service chiefs and four central ministers (defence, finance, external affairs, interior) as members. It met three times and my recollection of the role of the military members was that of interested listeners and not active participants. I don`t recall any major decision taken in those meetings. The emphasis was on exchanging information.
The third innovation is to bring in a large number of women in the legislature. This can only help broaden the representative character of the assemblies. Giving women a voice in these chambers will begin to address the acute problem of their overall backwardness. With women present in such large numbers, it should be possible to get some laws on the books that would protect them.
The trend, unfortunately, has been in the opposite direction. It should also be possible to introduce women as active participants in the economy. Today, Pakistan has a very low female participation rates in the workforce, one of the lowest in the world. Getting women more actively engaged will add to the dynamics of the economy.
The fourth element is also aimed at expanding the representative character of the assemblies. The number of seats has been increased in the legislature, thus reducing the size of the constituencies elected members were called upon to represent. Under the previous arrangement, the average size of a constituency was 700,000.
Under the new arrangement, a constituency will have less than half a million people. Also the elections of October 2002 will use voter lists based on the Census of 1998. These changes will shift the centre of gravity of the Pakistani political system away from the countryside and towards the country`s towns and cities. It is in the urban areas that Pakistan must create the dynamic centres for its economy. This shift should help to accomplish that objective.
The fifth element is to restrict representation in the legislative assemblies to only those who have college degrees. This provision has been interpreted, perhaps correctly, as an attempt to cleanse the political system of those elements in society who wield power for hereditary reasons - the legendary pirs, maliks and landlords who have dominated politics for so long. If that is the reason, it could have been achieved by exposing the performance of these individuals in the legislature by allowing legislative proceedings to be broadcast on television and radio. Restricting participation, no matter for what reason, creates distortions in a system. Total openness is always to be preferred.
The sixth element in the new constitutional structure is aimed at creating a three-level federal system with most of the responsibility for providing basic services to the people assigned to local governments. For the first time in Pakistan`s history, local administration is to be the responsibility of elected rather than appointed officials. This is a good but an unpopular move. It has drawn howls of protest from the members of the elite civil services who have seen the base of their power taken away from them. It is also not sitting well with the political establishment which will now have to share power with local leaders.
If Pakistan can make this three-tier system work, it will contribute enormously to the country`s political and economic development. It has been shown over and over again that development programmes have a better chance of success when people are directly involved with determining the priorities of the communities in which they live.
The much condemned - and also the much misunderstood - system of Basic Democracies succeeded in promoting local economic development. A system directed by the nazims, elected representatives of the people, has an even greater chance of succeeding. (www.dawn.com)
#84 Posted by nasah on July 24, 2002 5:17:52 am
harimau miaN just relax -- here is the latest statistics for India:
````In 2001 those figures had been raised to 80 percent of males and 66 percent of females—73 percent of the overall population.````
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
````In 2001 those figures had been raised to 80 percent of males and 66 percent of females—73 percent of the overall population.````
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
#83 Posted by hobbyty on July 24, 2002 5:17:52 am
Nasah
Neither the point of view I present nor the English language suffer from any inadequacy that you are familiar with. If it did you would be able to counter both with the force of argument and reason.
While other on Chowk rely exclusively on the abandon of reason and argument, it is clear to me that, that is not a path you can tread easily.
It is not I nor the point of view I am presenting, that is at issue, any attempt to make it the issue is a transparent, and entirely unworthy attempt at obfuscation.
Where intellect and reason will not advance, nothing will.
Neither the point of view I present nor the English language suffer from any inadequacy that you are familiar with. If it did you would be able to counter both with the force of argument and reason.
While other on Chowk rely exclusively on the abandon of reason and argument, it is clear to me that, that is not a path you can tread easily.
It is not I nor the point of view I am presenting, that is at issue, any attempt to make it the issue is a transparent, and entirely unworthy attempt at obfuscation.
Where intellect and reason will not advance, nothing will.
#82 Posted by krashid on July 24, 2002 5:17:52 am
TAhmed321#
My computer got sick after I received e-mail from son of Mr. Bilal. (Got virus) and files got corrupted. His e-mail was lost.
I don`t know anything after that.
My computer got sick after I received e-mail from son of Mr. Bilal. (Got virus) and files got corrupted. His e-mail was lost.
I don`t know anything after that.
#81 Posted by nasah on July 23, 2002 9:15:33 pm
Another apology to my friend Hobbyty -- no ``character assassination`` EVER intended for you prof -- that is a strong phrase -- to attribute to my comments -- it was all in fun my friend -- you definitely are saying something profound -- but your message is not keeping up with the inadequacies of the English language.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #59 maybe india can... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: hamidm:#58: Going by his lota... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #58 Posted by BJ2... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- jang: #59 cheema, you liked... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- akcheema: Re: # 58 Good post... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- hamidm2: Re: # 57 bj mian, ....... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- BJ2: Re: # 13 Harish, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- BJ2: Re: # 48 [... but... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
