Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics

KRashid:

kahaN thay aap? What is the news about Prof Bilal Ahmed?

Fuzair #39

Fuzair bhai you missed a few categories.

rangrooT = 1 vote

ranks up to Subedaar = 2 votes

ranks up to Captain = 4 votes

Ranks up to Colonel = 5 votes

Brigediar sahib = 100 votes

Major Jurnail = 10,000 votes

Lt. Jurnail = 100,000 votes

Chief Sahib = Veto.

Veto??

Back to where it all started. Chief sahib already has the veto power. then why bother with all that work?:-)

Most people i asked about this new `legislation` were either matric fail, or did not get that far. And everyone one of them seemed to agree that the condition of graduation in and of it self was a good thing to have.

Naturally though, people are not stupid like the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and their chamchas like to think. They realize the filthy dictatorial and perverted intentions of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic.

The filthy armed forces are good at playing with the sentiments of the people. BUT THAT IS ALL THEY CAN DO.

As incompetent and duffers as the armed forces of Pakistan are in all other areas, in this too they excel.

They place the graduation condition on one hand, WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF EDUCATION.

Rather, the parasites that the Islamic Republics Fauj is, they continue to screw around with the innocent notions of people. When the people at large support the graduation condition, it`s not because they love the fauj (no one likes the fauj except for some irrelevant loser parties and a few people on Chowk.com) but cause they realize the value of the education that they are deprived of, has value.

As far as the legality of this issue is concerend, the words by this proeminent lawyer in a debate on PTV said it all. They were to the effect:

``When the Meeravala gangrape occured, the Supreme Court took suo moto and asked that the criminals be apprehended. Well, now the entire constitution is being GANGRAPED, so the Supreme Court should again take suo moto...``

It could not have been said any better.

re:Reply #: 38

hobbyty,

Your confusing logic has left me speechless. Are you saying that this legislation we are talking about, wherein only the persons with bachelors will compete for seats in the senate, is a step in the right direction?

Sridhar

Tahmed#

A verse can depict.

Baat Karni Mujhe Mushkil Kabhi Aisi To Na Thi

Jesi Ab Hai Teri Mehfil Kabhi Aisi To Naa Thi

Some form of situation like this.

Moreover,I became little busy.

PM# 28

Don`t worry.

Angels will vote in the election.

Whatever you do voters will be disenfranchized.

That is the writ.

B. Atashband and others interested

For your consideration - my response, which you will have guessed will include a further elaboration on why unlimited sovereignty of the assembly is a disasterous idea, and elaborate on the notion of the mythical majority, and the element of coersion, will follow.

From Today`s ``Daily Times``

`` Popper and limited sovereignty - Abdul Basit Haqqani

In “The Paradoxes of Sovereignty,” Popper criticized philosophy’s preoccupation, since Plato, with the wrong question-”who should rule? Or whose will should be supreme?” Such a question, he felt, would inevitable lead to the wrong answers

Sir Karl Popper was one of those rare philosophers who could express his thoughts, profound as they were, with such clarity that even a rough and ready soldier could understand him-if he ever read him. And he made eminent good sense, which is more than can be said for most philosophers, particularly those who gained fame in the twentieth century. His principal preoccupation was epistemology, particularly the problem of scientific knowledge, but he also contributed to the philosophy of history and social philosophy.

In The Paradoxes of Sovereignty, he criticized philosophy’s preoccupation, since Plato, with the wrong question-”who should rule? Or whose will should be supreme?” Such a question, he felt, would inevitable lead to the wrong answers, like “The General Will” or “The People”, “the best” or the wisest”. But that kind of answer is wrong because, “it is not at all easy to get a government on whose goodness and wisdom one can implicitly rely.” Political thought, therefore, should face, “from the very beginning the possibility of bad government” and we should “prepare for the worst leaders and hope for the best. ... [We should] replace the question: Who should rule? by the new question, How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?”

All this would seem to indicate that the General and his Perestroika manager are following Sir Karl’s advice even, as is likely, they never heard of him. They want to make sure that no Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif plays havoc with the country. This should be considered the dictate of prudence given the kind of people that make up our political class. Unfortunately, such a view would be terribly wrong. The army whiz-kids, in attempting to prevent malfeasance by politicians are giving the armed forces carte blanche to do what they like. If we cannot be sure that any elected government, which can be turned out at the next election, will do good, as Popper suggests, how can we be sure that unelected functionaries will. And since we will not be able to send these worthies packing, we will be stuck with a bad lot and will be totally helpless to prevent our rulers from doing damage.

Talk of belief in “unity of command” presumes that the country can be run according to military rules of administration and “engagement”. The difference between a cantonment and democracy is an interesting subject but even to talk about “unity of command” in terms of political life is an error. Besides, the General’s assertion is a transparent sleight of hand. The prime minister, who will be elected through a democratic or quasi-democratic process, can only serve as long as he is suffered by the man-in-uniform. If “command” is concentrated anywhere it is in the hands of a person whose legitimacy is derived from the sword he wields. But ignoring the verbal trick being perpetrated on the people, let us take a look at another one that is bandied about with equal frequency and emphasis.

The purpose of the constitutional mutilations that have been dreamt up by the bewildered is, we are told, to introduce “checks and balances” on what had become an all powerful office. Leaving aside the absence of checks and balances on the new all-powerful office being created, let us return to Popper to see if anything of the kind is required at all. He says that there is an assumption made by thinkers that “political power is ‘essentially’ unchecked but, he points out, “it is certainly a very unrealistic assumption. No political power has been unchecked and as long as men remain human ... there can be no absolute and unrestrained political power. Even the most powerful tyrant depends on his secret police, his henchmen and hangmen. This dependence means that his power, great as it may be, is not unchecked, and that he has to make concessions, playing off one group against the other. It means that there are other political forces, other powers beside his own, and that he can exert his rule only by utilizing and pacifying them.”

The General should have personal experience of this. His power may seem absolute to the disenfranchised people but he has to worry about the ISI, defer to the Corps Commanders, appease the Mullahs (as he is reported to have done once again by expressing readiness to reconsider the matter of joint electorates), and even political clients. Nor is his domestic agenda autonomous of the outside world. He must take into account the demands of the Americans, the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank. If he can be hemmed in, how can he imagine that a civilian prime minister will not be?

What the polity needs is ensuring that our leaders are subjected to pressures from those that are under the people’s control, not those capable of threatening them with brute force.

Basit Haqqani is a former ambassador with a long and distinguished career in the Foreign Service. His novel, “Papio,” won the Academy of Letters’ best book award``

I recommend a course in Sociology (101) for all those suggesting that the solution to the problem of bad (self-serving, corrupt) legislators in Pakistan is to let the masses use their power of the vote to reform the system. Hey, if you can`t enroll for the fall semester, maybe a cursory reading of German Political History circa 1935-1945 should get you some credit.

Alternatively, ask yourself who educates the educated into the ability to vote responsibly? (For the purposes of this discussion, let`s assume `educated` to simply mean ``knowing how not to get suckered over and over again``)

For my part, I`d rather have my kids growing up in an economically viable society, able to provide what are considered basic needs (rights?) under a goverment/regime that errs on the heavier side of justice, than in a pseudosociety of carpetbaggers and thiefs on and endless merry-go-round called take-the-money-and-run.

Shammiji, you on to sign up? :)

rgds,

PM

re. bluenoon2 # 38:

[[[PM: ``Gee, I`m beginning to miss Paksitan already!``

Sure - so does bin Laden, Shoe-Bomber, Jose Padia ....]]]

So, in the context of my original post, does that make India a better a worse place??

:)

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

I had some time to kill so I thought I would add this in to the comment pile.

J. S. Mill, arguably one of the greatest minds of the 19th century, was in favor of universal franchise but also afraid of who hoi polloi would vote for and what types of policies these representatives would enact. He thus proposed a system of graduated votes, i.e., better educated men would have more votes than less well educated ones. It was to be a, if I remember correctly, a sliding scale with, oh say, an Oxford Don, or other similarly learned man, having five votes and an illiterate navvy only one.

Mill`s idea was fairly straightforward. People will only learn to think for themselves and to act responsibly if they are given the opportunities to do so. That is, as far as he was concerned, man is perfectable BUT doing so requires the opportunities to make his own decision. So they must be given these opportunities. However, this entails a serious risk. What if they make the wrong choices? One-man-one-vote means that if some articulate and persuasive demagogue (Kwame Nkrumah, Bhutto, etc. *) fools enough people, he will get himself elected and heaven help us then. The graduated voting scale was designed to prevent this since Mill thought that education equalled enlightenment (so more education meant more enlightenment) and the larger number of votes in the hands of a small group of well educated men would prevent this sort of occurrence.

Oh, those wacky Victorians and their utopian ideals! Perfectable man, indeed! However, Mill did have a good idea and that is what, admittedly in a somewhat different form, we see in the US Senate, where a much smaller group (here smaller states) has effective veto rights over the proposals of the majority (the larger states), and the US Electoral College.

I would suggest that Gen. Musharraf also consider graduated voting. I think the following scale might do:

UnpaRh: 1 vote
Kum us kum ChaTTi Jamaat Pass: 2 votes.
Saatween, aaThween ya Nuween Jamaat Pass: 3 votes
Matric: 4 votes.
FA/FSc: 5 votes
BA/BSc: 6 votes
MA/MSc: 7 votes
Ph.D. (Pakistani): 8 votes
Ph. D. (wilayati): 10 votes.

After Matriculation, people falling inbetween categories will revert to the lower one, e.g., FA/FSc (fail) will get only four and not five votes. Now there is a problem in that Pass Divisions are not accounted for here. Should an FSc Third Division (we still have Thirds, right?) get the same number of votes as an FSc position holder? Presumably such a position holder would go on but, what if she (much morelikely to be a she) does not? Should a BA (Third Division) get more votes than an FSc (First Division). Haven`t decided this yet....

Any thoughts, people?


*I don`t include Hitler in this list since 1930s Germany was not at the same level of socio-economic development as 1850s Britain. However, making a comparison between socio-economic levels of development of 1850s Britain and current LDCs is more easily done. In any case, as Nazi Germany shows, even educated and `cultured` people can `vote` for the wrong man--ignoring for now the fact that the Nazis never had a majority, only a plurality, in the Reichstag.

Krashid

Long time no see -- where have you been -- good to see you -- welcome my friend.

Behram Atashband

Dear Mr. Atashbad, whether we agree or not will remain till the arguments we shall present have been expanded.

Your logic as expressed in your post, is miserly in the service it offers. My original post set the stage for an element of the argument, as concisely expressed by fuzair, If other exceptions, why not this?

The ``right`` to candidature does not exist in any theory of democracy that I am familiar with or it make be that scholars have not availed themselves of logic, though this is a distant possibility, you will grant. I invite you to consider fuzair`s original post, in particular the notion that if a majority should agree for something to have a particular meaning or content, that, that infuses the proposition with a content we can claim ``just``. Think of the ``capitulation`` of assemblies in Germany and Italy.

The general debate about these ammendments, I put it you, is the false conception of Democracy and democractic government. NEVER, must democracy ever mean the opinion of a ``Mythical`` majority about a particular issue. Mythical majority because society is a collection of groups with competing agenda, any way you cut it a particular group will be favored in a particular instance by legislatures/assemblies, because bargaining will the principle underwhich these will operate as opposed to action being taken based on agreement on a general principle - consider, won`t justice be whatever a majority believe it be. If it were not mythical would not all Germans be responsible for Hitler and all Indians responsible for Gujjrat and kashmir? Like Justice, like Lberty, like responsiblity, Democracy is essentially a negative value. Think of the why of justice or liberty or responsibility or democracy and it will be obvious - in all cases it for the prevention of excess, in cases a reasoned limit is proposed as just conduct. The same is the case for democracy - it`s core is to limit and diffuse power with a view to prevent the possibility of misrule and its consequences.

On a side note, If it is true that notions of justice and Liberty inform democracy, what would make of notions such as: ``The belief in democracy presupposes, belief in things higher than democracy``

RSriDhar

You are in error of equating constitutional ammendments with legislation. Constitution is about general principles, method. Whereas legislation is about particulars, that is to say they differ in character. This dialogue is generally about Pakistan and the conception of democracy and democratic government in Pakistan, if you wish my attention and have something worthwhile to offer, to further this understanding, by all means; or else, you may conduct yourself in silence and use these dialogues to prepare yourself to gain an understanding of and for the up coming reforms in your home country.

PM:

``Gee, I`m beginning to miss Paksitan already!``

Sure - so does bin Laden, Shoe-Bomber, Jose Padia ....

Amidst the general perception -- domestic and abroad -- that General Mushrraf is -– a power hungry army man -- and a liar – Anwar Syed in a very gentle way gives evidence -- that the General is indeed BOTH -- power hungry and a liar – despite the General’s Nixonian denial -–“I am not a crook”.

Debilitating the system

By Anwar Syed in Dawn

(excerpts)

In his address to the nation on July l1 General Musharraf declared, among other things, that he was not ``power hungry,`` and may have startled some of his listeners with the additional assertion that he was ``not a liar.``

Lust or hunger for power surface when an official wants to control operations and functionaries beyond his own lawfully appointed jurisdiction. ``Power hungry`` is a term of disapprobation, and it may be just as well to set it aside.

The evidence of whether or not General Musharraf desires excessive power is to be found not in the pronouncements he issues but in the arrangements for distributing governmental authority that he sponsors.

From time to time all governments tell lies and, in retrospect, justify it as raison d`etre. With rare exceptions, politicians will also tell lies,

The problem with the general`s observations in this context is that some of them, on the same subject, are mutually unsupportive and sometime even contradictory.

Take, for instance, his recent statements on the placement of governmental powers. He says that, being any army officer, he believes in the ``unity of command,`` and does not subscribe to the idea of ``sharing`` power.

Following the October elections, he says, all executive authority and power will vest in the prime minister, but he should not be allowed to become ``all powerful.``... The president should not interfere with the prime minister`s work, but the president should not be reduced to the status of a ``rubber stamp.``

The general intends to acquire the authority to dismiss the prime minister (by an appropriate rewriting of Article 58 (2B) but, having acquired it, he will ``shed`` it and transfer it to the NSC.

It follows that having thus received the said power, the NSC will become competent to order these dismissals. It will oversee the functioning of government and stop wrongdoing on the part of the prime minister and his cabinet. It will also be the forum that will enforce checks and balances among the power brokers.

Having said all this, the general informs us also that the NSC will have no executive authority, that it will not be ``intrusive`` and interfering, that it will make no binding decisions, and that it will have only an advisory role and status.

If so, how will it prevent wrongdoing in government, guide it to the right course in policy-making, and if it is only an advisory body?

When you put all of the general`s statements on the subject together, they make a package that is internally incoherent (an euphuism for outright lying).

Most probably he has no intention of ``shedding`` any of his presidential powers following the October elections.

He intends only to consult the NSC (whom he will dominate) on certain issues to obtain its endorsement of the decisions he is inclined to make.

In any case, he should make up his mind as to which way he wants to go, and then find a competent draftsman to put it in decent language.

In passing one may suggest to the general also that economy of words and brevity of expression serve a statesman (particularly one who also wants to be the nation`s chief diplomat) much better than overflowing zeal and expansiveness.

Much more unsettling than the above are certain facts relating to the elections scheduled for October10.

First, the proposed constitutional amendments bearing upon them have not been finalized.

Second, some of the rules framed by the election commission will be almost impossible to implement because of the lateness of their promulgation.

The general`s recent address to the nation revealed that the following election-related issues were still open to debate and reconsideration:



voting age,

electorate (joint or separate),

number of seats in the assemblies,

mode of filling seats reserved for women and technocrats,

and qualifications for eligibility to contest.

It follows that much of the work already done by the election commission may have to be cast away and redone.

For instance, electoral rolls and designation of constituencies will have to be reformulated, and once again made open to public review and consequent reconsideration, but where is the time for undertaking this huge task?

The requirement that candidates for election to the assemblies must be college graduates will knock off a great many of our established politicians.

One reaction may be that, well, that is ``good riddance,`` for the excluded ones are ``feudals`` and, when in office, they had shown themselves to be incompetent and corrupt.

That college graduates will carry none of these disabilities is an extravagant expectation.

The Supreme Court says the requirement is not unlawful. But it is nevertheless foolish, for it will also exclude many good and competent politicians (current and prospective) who have the people`s trust in their respective areas.

A recent ordinance (June 27) requires each political party, as a precondition for its participation in the forthcoming election, to submit to the election commission satisfactory evidence of its status in the following respects:

its constitution,

objectives, and programme;

description of its organizational structure, including bodies and office-bearers at various levels;

modes of electing and dismissing officers;

criteria for selecting party candidates for elections;

financial records, showing income and disbursements, authenticated by recognized auditors.

Moreover, the party must provide evidence that it has held its own internal elections to its various offices at all levels (presumably including the ward, constituency, district, provincial, and national levels).

It is not inappropriate for the state to regulate the organization and working of political parties.

The requirements now being issued in Pakistan are not unreasonable.

But if honesty is also an expectation, the lateness of their arrival makes it virtually impossible to meet them. It is well known that with a few exceptions, our political parties, including the ones called ``mainstream,`` do not maintain membership rolls, hold regular internal elections, follow their own rules of business (if they have any), and do not keep accounts of their financial transactions.

If the government insists on an honest fulfilment of the these requirements, most of the political parties currently in the field will stand disqualified and barred from participating in the election,

We may then end up with a pernicious political product, namely, a ``partyless`` election.

And given the continuing uncertainty about the number and shape of constituencies, mode of election for reserved seats, and other matters referred to earlier, how will even unaligned individuals decide whether or not to contest? If this state of uncertainty continues, and if the regulations already announced hold, the elections may bring us nothing better than a very spoiled crop to harvest. (DAWN)

_____________________________________________

This is an admirable effort to on the part of the author to analyze rationally -- the acts of an irrational, power hungry, delusional, peabrained general -- who hallucinates -- that he can SOMEHOW single-handedly carry out the Herculean task of ‘REFORMING’ a country -- messed by up primarily by a number of his equally deranged, past general colleagues – using all this elaborate self contradictory shebang as a lame EXCUSE for criminally assaulting a legitimately elected government -- and grabbing the power and keeping it for HIMSELF – apparently for decades to come.

With all these ever changing goalposts and hurdles he is erecting against a normal parliamentary elections -- Mr. Musharraf reminds me as one of the Alabama white polling officers --who in the heyday of segregation had imposed two conditions on blacks to ‘qualify’ for voting – one was poll tax – a substantial sum of money for the poor blacks – and a literacy test (not BA of course).

One black badly wanted to vote. He learnt to read and write, paid the poll tax and went to the polling booth on the election day – there the redneck polling officer was surprised to see a black daring to vote – but asked him politely to show the receipt if he paid the poll tax – the poor black man showed him with pride the receipt –so you paid the poll tax, eh – ok, now let’s see if you pass the literacy test -– can you read the headline of this newspaper –- and he handed the blackman a Chinese newspaper – tell me what the big letters say.

the blackman peered at the headline, shuffled the paper upside down and side ways for awhile and finally said – well, it says “no nigger ain`t voting this year too”.

Fuzair #13 To my mind the education requirement is not a bad idea - after all, they have minimum age requirements for the same reason: to have the elected representatives possessing a base level of maturity. And anyone who thought he could do without going to college probably does not have the right priorities anyway. It is an experiment worth trying I think.

This does not of course affect the voter registration list, and the number of people who can seriously think of running for national elections is probably less than 1% in any society anyway.