The Last Trumpets

re: Mantolives # 31

Yes; in that sense I agree to what Jinnah`s role was in the post 1947 Pakistan and that is why, a presidentially centralized power structure in Pakistan, which marginalizes the feudal power is the best hope.

Another point, it was the lack of the political constitutencies of the Muslim political emigres, which allowed the feudal barons to use their fiefdoms as a contitutency and hence, the reason why they supported a parliamentary form of government.

Ciao

Inspired by your article... I have submitted an article on what Pakistan`s constitution should embody... wrt the Executive vs Legislature vs Judiciary element...

F. R. Khan,

Thanks for the clarifications. Gives me a better perspective.

``India took some time, but India seems to outgrown the family dynastics of politics, but Pakistan is still caught up in the politics of family dynasties``

Will you please.. please instill this wisdom in our current Amma`s (Soniyaji`s) head. We are so apart... but so much same... aren`t we :)

Presidential system is fine. Provided, you give Ali and Ameenas say in local and state level. Even local level will do to start with.

Yogiraj Patil

FerozK:

One fall morning I woke up to find on Dawn`s website that Nawaz Sharif had replaced Musharaf with a `lifafa` General. As much as I disliked NS, it was extremely gratifying to see a Fauji being screwed by a civilian. However, the happiness was short lived. After taking a shower, Dawn revealed that the tables had turned.

But still, yes, I really thought Musharaf was the real deal- a person who could make amends for all that went wrong. Like others I had great expectations. Even a couple of years down the road, I was excited at seeing friends (factory workers) run for elections as part of the devolution plan.

I realized however- particularly after the joke of the referendum, that I was being extremely stupid. Nothing is more shameful than looking for saviors in people who sneak in through the back doors.

Pakistan does not need any saviors. It just needs free and independent institutions. These things take time to develop. One only needs to look at the example of Bangladesh. Now that that country has had over a decade of uninterrupted democracy, do you think the Fauji freaks will EVER dare to fu-k with the people? And when there are no Faujiz available to stab the embryo of democracy, no matter how dissatisfied the opposition, it has to depend on the people to bring about change- just as the government has to engage people to establish trust in policies. In one form or another, the relationship with the people remains the supreme factor. BB and NS screwed up in many ways, but their governments were always forced to feel insecure by a meddlesome establishment lead by the Army.

My point is, Pakistani Army is a parasite who will use any opportunity it has to secure its own interests over those of the country. Thus, it is the primary enemy of the country. Has Pakistan EVER witnessed the massive country wide shutdowns that Bangladesh had to face during the never ending government opposition rows? Did the Bangladeshi army step in to `help` dispel such polarized atmospheres? It didn`t. However, Pakistan army needs only a small pretext- any pretext and it will step in as otherwise its role will evaporate once a government fulfills its elected mandate.

Anyhow, since both of us agree that institutions are what need to be developed, I would like to ask a few questions: HOW can institutions be developed when you have the Army`s role entrenched in politics? Over the past four years, has ANY institution been strengthened? Name one please. How many have been weakened? ALL OF THEM! The fauji fu-ks have screwed their OWN babies- like the local bodies system- from the very first day serving Brigadiers were going around kidnapping (maybe not at gun point) council members who they feared would not vote for their chamcha Mian Amir.

You seem to have expectations that with the role of the army, institutions will be strengthened whereas this has never happened before. The interests of the army and the people have always been at odds. One has to give and it’s hard to see how there could be a long-term reconciliation. We will continue to face ‘more of the same’ in power struggles as long as the army remains in power in any manner.

Sure politicians need to change their habits as you say. Stop the rule of `dynasties`, stop being `corrupt`, feudal suck etc. I agree. But aren`t these expectations also extremely idealistic? They are.

And I would say that it is FAR MORE likely that in time (say ten or fifteen years) the people in their demographic, economic and social shifts, will CHANGE those they elect or the way they act than seeing the FAUJI freaks even consider changing their parasitic behavior. There is NO chance of institutional development when their independence is held to the mercy of the gun. Thus the reasoning by many that we’ll keep going in circles if the Army is allotted a role- something that is a sad reality right now.

Anyhow, my last post was about true leaders. It insults the intelligence to put Pakistani faujiz in the same bracket as Ataturk or Castro or Mao or Mandela.

ps) I gave the example of Bangladesh. You probably know more about how it`s politics work. But Pakistan has never had such a polarized atmosphere during the short periods of democracy that Bangladesh had. Yet that country has managed to progress. So I do not agree that Pakistan is not fit for democracy.

re: Rozaiba # 36

Ideally, I would like the institutions in Pakistan to evolve without any political meddling over a period of time. However, that is being really idealistic in Pakistan and its present political context. The next option is to reject the political reality of Pakistan post October 1999 and revert to a status quo ante as it existed prior to the coup d`etat. In many ways, the crisis over LFO is about this issue. The third option is that neither option ``a`` or option ``b`` is feasible. Hence, I have to compromise with the devil and hope that I do not end up regretting my decision.

Rozaiba, this is a very unsavory choice, but the best option, given the constraints, seems to be to massage the present Musharraf based local bodies system and allow it to mature and evolve naturally. In Pakistan, the institutions have not been allowed to grow and have been mindfully stunted, and we have to avoid this mistake again and let the political process in Pakistan find its own reason and justification. In this sense, the present parliament should be allowed to end its duly mandated term. Even if the present grid lock continues, it should be allowed to continue and if nothing happens; then let nothing happen, but do not derail the process. In this sense, Yogiraj has a very conscise agrument and that is, allow the process to iron out its own wrinkles. There is a parliament and even though its birth can be debated, it exists and in its existence it does offer an opposition to the government. Pakistan should institutionalize this dissent. Pakistani government should make this dissent formal by rejecting the notions of dissolving the parliament, because it is not behaving like a ``gentleman``. There is a valid agument that LFO is an obstacle, but the obstacle of LFO should not be allowed to occupy detract attention from what is important; and that is - the process is more important than the LFO.

The next step is to decide what Pakistan wants: a parliamentary form of government or a presidential form of government and then, only then, we should think about our political institutions. In many ways, our present political institutions are of a parliamentary nature supporting a presidential based form of governance. Unless, we know what kind of a government we want, there is no sense in solidifying the political institutions. Till we reach that level of maturity, we should use the existing infrastructure in Pakistan as a stepping stone to where we want to go; the journey`s end which should be a democratic government and in my opinion, it should be a presidential form of government. It is at this stage of developement that we arrive at Mantolives` suggestions of writting a new consititution describing the new powers of the state and their seperations. We Pakistanis need to know what we want before we strenghten our political institutions, because we do not have the luxury of making more mistakes and ignoring the consequences of our follies.

The present government and the MMA are discussing a constitutional package and the paradigms of LFO, This is a healthy sign and the discussions should be allowed even if they end in failure, because we, Pakistanis, have to reject the notions of a zero-sum political ideal. Insitutions and the process will only be strenghtened in Pakistan if we follow the ``due process`` and do not seek extra-constitutional detours, whose logical ends are political cul-de-sacs. At the risk of being called a traitor to the cause, I support the post 1999 system in Pakistan, because it offers a sense of stablity and even though it may be far removed from the picture perfect vision of a democracy, it is better than continuely pushing the clock back and reinventing the political wheel in Pakistan. I support the illiberal democracy of Musharraf, because to me, personally, it is more important to forge ahead than to relive the past and in hopes that the past can be changed for the better. The past 56 years in Pakistan have been a political failure and instead of spending time placing blame, we should realize ways to look ahead and understand our mistakes. Unfortunately, we repeat by our mistakes by perpetually existing in a cycle of trying to recreate the past. We have to realize and understand that the past cannot be recreated, but the future can be influenced by a bitter pragmatism based on a realistic sense of skeptism.

I am willing to take this malfunctioning system and its ideas of a flawed demcoracy as a better coin than that, which seeks to replace this process with a process, which has been a disappointment. Again, how many times are we going to reinvent the wheel? I have an American friend and he is an engineer by profession and he always says, ``work the problem``. Lets work the problem and if we seek to replace the present ``system`` with another one, what will happen in the mean time as we actualize process of moving from one system to another? This system maybe bad and the new one maybe good, but over all else, we have to avoid the vacuum that will exist while we are in the process of changing systems. Institutions in Pakistan have not devloped, because we have existed in a political vacuum and as nature abors a vacuum, the political vacuum will sooner or later be filled. In our case, it has been filled by the presence of the army. Lets avoid creating another vacuum, shall we?

re:Yogiraj # 35

You are welcome and yes, we are similar though we like to pretend that we are different! :)

re: Mantolives # 34

I will look forward to your article. The Government of India Act, 1935 and its amended version, which governed Pakistan from 1947-1956 needs to be understood and reviewed. The cow webs of confusion need to be clarified, because we need to study the past holistically, as you once said, in order to understand the future.

The first step is to create an awareness of the problem. The second step is to allow and encourage a debate on the choice of whether Pakistan wishes to be a parliamentary or a presidental form of government. The third step, is what you are presently thinking, and that is the process of implementing this choice formally in a constitution.

Mantolives, please contact me at ferozk@brain.net.pk if you want a sound board to fine tune your agruments, because I really feel that this debate has been neglected too long in Pakistan. I am interested in this debate and would welcome any input from any Chowkie!

Ciao

Mr. Feroze you failed to make a case in one way or the other thru this littany. I have no idea, what you are trying to say - even with the title introduction on the front page.

I think people in Pakistan (and on this site) spend too much of their mental bandwidth debating relatively useless ideas (for third world nations), like religion and secularism, elections or no elections, etc. Everyone states they are doing it for the benefit of the, “common man,” without really looking at the behavior patterns of the, “common man.” What they should be debating is the benefit of one economic policy over another. They should be debating Jinnah’s education policies, and Musharraf’s and Bhutto’s industry politicies, not their secular or religious policies.

I doubt the common man is too concerned about secularism or religionism. Nor is he/she concerned about elections, or lack there of, or breaking away or reunificaition with India. These are all luxuries of the Pakistani elite, who have Internet connections. The common man wants economic progress and security. I can bet anything he will give economic growth more importance than secularism or Islam or USA or India, or Jinnah or Nehru, or democracy or dictatorship.

Just take a look at the immigration patterns of Pakistanis, for the answer. Overwhelmingly, the lower middle class of Pakistan has migrated to the Middle East oil states, as labor, whenever they have gotten the chance. In essence, they have voluntarily, again and again, given up their chance to vote in Pakistan, and have prefered to live in Arab dictatorships. Why? Because they got more security and economic progress there. Even within these Arab states, they have not been bothered too much by the secularism or Islamism of their destination of migration. People have given up the relative secularism of Pakistan to migrate to Islamic Saudi Arabia, again and again. And they have given up the relative Islamism of Pakistan, to migrate to a more secular UAE, again and again. Economic progress being the key common factor.

Even the well-off Pakistanis never think twice about migrating to North America. They have given up their right to vote in Pakistan, in a heartbeat, to migrate to North America, where they have no chance of being a part of the democratic process for a decade or two, until they become citizens (if they do beocome citizens). Ironically, after giving up this right to vote, they seem to be very concerned about democracy being the most important thing for the common man in Pakistan. A bit of hypocrisy, if you ask me. Since they themselves have prefered economic progress over democracy.

Amongst third world Asian nations, there is an interesting trend. The countries that have judged their govts. by giving economic progress the highest priority (higher than secularism or religionism or misguided democracies etc.), include Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China etc. While the other group, that has given, “democracy” more importance than economic progress, in their intellectual debates, include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.

Take a look at where these countries are today, and you will get an answer to what the common man wants.

If the maulvis raise the living standard of the poorest Pathan in NWFP more than the secularist ANP, then rest assured the common man will prefer the maulvis (so he should). Not because they are religious, but because they got him a job. And vice-versa. If the Army govt. provides more jobs for the common man than the democratic govts, he will prefer the Army govt. And vice-versa. Not because he hates democracy, or hates the Army, but because he wants food and an education.

Pakistanis for the next fifteen to twenty years, would be well-advised to judge any govt. by the primary criteria of how much it can raise the economic growth of Pakistan, without worrying about how democratic or dictatorial it happens to be. Or how secular or religious it happens to be. The, “common man” (and even the rich man) of Pakistan has always prefered to migrate to countries based on economic progress. He could care less whether Jinnah was secular, or whether the Military Mullah alliance will ruin Pakistan. And the progress of Asian nations has shown that economic progress is a pre-requisite to, “real” democracy. Democracy is not a pre-requisite to economic progress.

So the only alternative to a govt. in Pakistan, should be another govt. that can provide a higher rate of economic growth. Not one that is more, “Islamic” or more “Secular” or more, “Authoritarian” or more, “Democratic” than the previous. These concepts are only important to well-fed rich Pakistanis who are not effected much by the economic conditions of Pakistan.

``They should be debating Jinnah’s education policies, and Musharraf’s and Bhutto’s industry politicies, not their secular or religious policies.``


Dude... where in the name of my khansama`s shami kebabs, are we discussing their secular or religious policies... You are beyond redemption. We tried to explain to you that secularism is not an ideology. Education and Industry are secular endeavors, not religious ones...

Obviously there is something really wrong with you.

-Manto

FerozK:

``seems to be to massage the present Musharraf based local bodies system and allow it to mature and evolve naturally.``

Again you fail to understand my point. As long as the army is there, there will NEVER BE ANY evolution of ANY system. No matter WHAT system we have. Ok. Let`s look at it like this. The provincial MMA gvt. of Baluchistan and NWFP are extremely unhappy that the provincial gvt. cannot control all the finances which instead are going to the districts as part of the devolution scheme. If Musharaf strikes a deal with MMA to keep his uniform, and as part of the deal, he allows MMA`s provincial Govt. to legislate WHO - the state or the districts- has the authority to spend the finances, will you accept that Musharaf`s ONLY attempt to bring change has come to nought? That he has done absolutely nothing to bring change? That he and the Army have once again- tru to their nature- embraced cowardice by prefering selfish fauji interests over those that are better for the country?

Because I still don`t see ANYTHING that the army has intentionally done to promote a sense of certainty, stability and freedom of institutions that will help convince me that the role of the Faujiz is productive. The Faujiz have been in power for a longest uninterrupted duratioin since General Zia`s time in the 80`s.

FerozK, despite my opposition to anything Fauji, I still hope the local bodies system was able to succeed. Provincial governments are a big menace. Local bodies system makes sense if allowed to run on it`s own and if no matter who gets elected, the district administration has the powers to decide about finances without being tied down by upper level governments. However, I don`t delude myself by saying that it will survive the arm twisting and manipulative tactics employed by the faujiz.

---

And as for those Fauji lovers who to defend their fauji blood so dearly speak of the need for `economic stability`- you should stick to writing enjoyable translations of Ghalib.

But since you are so eager to show your concern by talking economics, lets talk economics. Economics demands stability. It demands certainty. Most importantly, it demands INVESTMENT. Since you are so FREAKING concerned about economics and want ECONOMICS to determine governments and direction of a nation, lets see if you are willing to practice what you preach- or at least change what you preach.

Economics dictates that Kashmir be forgotten. Immediately accept LoC. And for all intents and purposes say `The HELL WITH KASHMIR AND THE SUFFERING OF IT``S PEOPLE`. This is what economics dictates. Economics says that all political, social and psychological desires have to make way for choices that make economic sense- such as creating free trade environments that giving market access to a country`s products. Economics vehemently states that the Fukin Fauji is the most UNPRODUCTIVE person in the world. Get rid of him. Economics will also state that the DEMAND for a single roti, kaprra and makaan is 12 BILLION times greater than all the dinky F-16s,Mushaks, Al-Khalids, Ghauris, Hatfs, Shaheens combined.

Yes, I agree. You should stick to translating Ghalib. No disrespect to Ghalib, but like you, he was EXTREMELY bad at things relating to economics. :)



Mantolives:

where did you eat khansama`s shami kebabs? Go to Model Town and eat `Bhaiyay kay Kebab`.

re: rozaiba # 41

Army will always be in Pakistani politics. It is not that I do not see your agrument, I do not understand how you are going to remove the army from Pakistani politics. Rozaiba, saying is one thing, but actually implementing that in practice is very a difficult and diffrent thing. My point was that we have to, for a lack of choice, to evolve our political institutions inclusive of the army`s role. There is a unhealthy degree of symbiosis beteween the army and the politics in Pakistan and though I agree with every word you said, but I still have to reason a method which seperates the two in Pakistan in a formal manner, which prevents a relapse.

Getting army out of politics is a theoretical statement, which implies that things will improve afterwards. I agree to this proposition. My question is how, in a pratical sense, do you propose to remove the army from politics? Shall we call the Americans or the Indians and ask them to fight the army, defeat it and disband it so the political process in Pakistan can march onto the sunlit uplands of joy and hope? No one is denying that the removal of the army will improve things, but no one seems to have come up with a solution on how this blessed event will happen. Then there is the problem of the army itself. Do you think that the army will willingly remove itself from Pakistani politics and go back to its barracks? What happens if the army resists? Are you prepared to fight the army in the streets and alleyways of Pakistan and win your democracy? This is what it boils down to; are you willing to fight a civil war for democracy in Pakistan? We fought a civil war for democracy in Pakistan in 1971 and we all know the results of that little fraticide,

Since you are the resident expert on removing the army from Pakistani politics, how do you plan and envisage the army`s removal in pratical terms, which can be implemented.

Rozaiba, in theory I agree with you, but do you not think we should now realize that theory in a tangible sense and come up with a practical solution and if we cannot, then we have to learn to live with the army. Just wishing the army away will not make it go away! LOL

re: urstruly # 38

Pakistan is more suited for a presidential system. Pakistan is not suited for a parliamentary system of goverance. In Pakistan, we had the ``wrong dream`` to cling to a parliamentary form of government, when all our leaders; civilian and military have excerised presidential powers from Jinnah to Musharraf. We should repudiate the constitution of 1973 and replace it another constitution, which gives Pakistan a presidential form of politics.

Basically, given our history, we have the wrong system of government; we have the wrong consitutution and we have the wrong speration of powers in Pakistan. We have a malfunctioning political system in Pakistan based on flawed ideals, which is creating untold of contradictions in our polity. In short, we squandered the last 56 years trying to create utopia in Pakistan and only ended up creating a political nightmare.

Does this help or do you need Cliffnotes to help you understand? :)

Ciao

re: Romair # 39

Romair, with all due repect, that is just what Rozaiba, Mantolives and I have been debating on this forum!

My friend, we need to come with institutions and policy infrastructural frameworks, before we can even imagine thinking about economic issues! Economic issues and their utility is meaningless, unless we are able to develop political institutions in Pakistan, which cater to and sustain the kind of economic development you are wishing. You say that the average man in Pakistan is least concerned with these issues and I will agree with you. Romair, unless we can come up with a viable system, there will be no economic benefits, which will accure to the common man, because economic development needs a consistent, organized and coherent approach. We need a framework, which will give tanigble intent to your arguments and I am sorry to say this, but your agruments in lieu of what we are discussing, simply amounts to putting the cart before the horse!

Ciao

The presidential system can only work if there is a strong and independent judiciary and legislation. Even if these two things are available the system cannot work unless there is a very strong consciencious press. Because the accountability of the president by the people is only thru the press. And people can only practice their right to accountability if they are educated and have a political knowhow. President is very less accountable to the elected body in this case. As a matter of fact a president can veto a decree by elected legislative. A president presents himself for accountability by the people thru his state of union address. Similarly, the accountability of judiciary, for example, is thru press. That is the reason whenever a new law is enacted in USA, the justices have to explain all the juristic reasons before the press.

However, in case of parliamentary system the accountability of Prime minister is thru the legislative body as well as thru the press and judiciary. And in some cases, when 58(2)B was in effect, president could also hold the PM accountable. A PM cannot override the decree of parliament as a President can veto in case of presdential system. So it offers more accountability than the presidential system. The failure of Parliamentary system in Paksitan is not because Parlimentary system is not suited for Paksitan but because Army has interferred in the business of polity. It has stuck its nose in every nook and cranny where it does not belong. Even a presidential system will collapse in Pakistan if army does not submit to the sovereignity of the people of Paksitan. Unless of course the president is an army chief in uniform......but then it is called dictatorship...isn`t it? As a student of political science you must appreciate the difference between a dictatorship and presidentship. Or you need coles notes for that :)

re: urstruly # 44

Pakistan is not United States and comparing an American presidential system to a would be Pakistani presidential system is flawed. We cannot import the American form of government to Pakistan and hope that it works better than what we have presently. Pakistanis need to create their own version of a presidential or a Westminister model of government. What ever they decide, they better decide because for the last 56 years we have been arguing about this issue.

You blame the army and that is fair enough.

Please answer this question, why was parliamentary democracy in Pakistan from 1948 to 1958 considered a failure; failure in the sense of resolving the issues of goverance? Why did the Governor-General and the office of prime minister engage in a continuous struggle to amass powers? Urstruly, even before the military entered the fray, Pakistan was grappling with the questions of a seperation of powers, between the prime minister and governor-general. The military did not start this debate; Jinnah did with the amended Government of India Act, 1935 giving him extra-ordinary powers, which eclipsed the power of his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan and thus, created the present debate which has mutated into the present LFO crisis - but the basic question is the same: who has the power?

Pakistanis think that Pakistan was a democracy before 1958 martial law and the coup d`etat of Ayub Khan, but it was not a democracy. All those governments, which were created and which ruled Pakistan were appointed by the governor-general. There were no elections held and there were no care-taker/interim governments. They were dismissed by the governor-general. Pakistan`s first truly free and fair elections were held in 1970. Pakistan from 1947 to 1958, was a dictatorship. Yes; Jinnah may have been a benign dictator, but he was a dictator never the less. All that happened in 1958 was that the army ended the debate and sided with the argument that power should be concentrated in one office and not shared in a diarchy.

You are right and I agree with you that the army in Pakistan has proliferated its interests in Pakistan and it must burden its share of the blame. I have never denied this argument. My question is this: what was the role of the army in Pakistani politics on August 14, 1947 when Jinnah decided to assume the viceregal powers of a viceroy in the guise of the governor-general, as those powers were amended in the Government of India Act, 1935? Who and which political act started this power tussle between the prime minister and governor-general/president`s office? Why did the army enter politics? Blame the army to your heart`s content, but what were the reasons which brought army into the politics? Did those reasons start prior to 1958 or after 1958? If they started prior to 1958, then when did they start? August 15, 1947?

The army did not intervene in politics as long as its commander-in-chief was a British officer, but it learnt the lesson of ignoring its civilian leaders from its British commander-in-chief. Douglas Gracey was the British officer in charge of the Pakistan army and when he refused, rightly or wrongly is another debate, Jinnah`s orders to send the army into Kashmir in 1947-48, he created a dangerous precedent. He established the principle that the army could ignore its civilian leaders. It was the wrong lesson to impart to the impressionable officers of the Pakistan army. If there is a person to be held accountable for erasing the line and undertaking the first step into politics, it was Gracey and not Ayub. Ayub followed in Gracey`s footsteps, but historically he was not the first one to bring the army into politics. Again, it was not Ayub Khan, but Sikander Mirza who as the president dismissed the government and brought martial law to Pakistan. Mirza was not a soldier; he was a civilian. Did the army ask for its chief to attend cabinet meetings? No, it was again Mirza, a civilian who brought Ayub to the inner santum of politics.

Does this absolve Ayub`s mea cupla of 1958? No! It does not, but who paved the way for the army to enter politics? If Ayub had ambitions, who encouraged those ambitions? Who recommended Ayub for the post of commander-in-chief of Pakistan army - it was Mirza and why did he do it?

Still, another question is if the army was disposed towards disobeying its civilian leaders in 1947-48, why did it wait ten years before formally entering politics? Why did the army not enter politics in the years before 1958?

As to your last question, please name one Pakistan civilian leader who did not rule Pakistan as a dictator? Name one leader who did not try to grab all the power into their hands and who willfully tried to stifle dissent against their rule? Name one leader who was not an autocrat and did not believe in autocracy? Name one civilian leader who did not amend the constitution of Pakistan to gain more power?

Urstruly, historically Pakistan has never experienced democracy, because since its birth it has existed as an autocracy under the rule of a dictator. From 1947 to 2003, Pakistan has been and is a dictatorship. Musharraf maybe a dictator who wears a uniform and Jinnah may have worn Savaille Row tailored suits, but he was the First Autocrat of Pakistan. Remember, a dictator does not always have to wear a uniform; it can be a sherwani with gold braided collars and he may have the written the 1973 constitution of Pakistan. Whether we have a prime minister or a president, it makes no difference because both wish to rule like autocrats and that makes Pakistan a dictatorship. In Pakistan, there is no difference between a dictatorship, a presidentship or a prime ministership, because all are dictatorships.

On a lighter note, I would appreciate those Cole notes! I need to understand how we got so messed up in our politics! LOL :-)

Ciao

ferozk

Let me make it short. Army has no business interfering in civilian affairs in any shape or form. LFO, a uniformed president or dictator, and a security council are all absolutely unacceptable. Presidential system is acceptable to me if an independently elected parliament approves it by 2/3rd vote and then get it reapproved thru a fair referendum. Mushraf or any army stooge in any shape color or form in uniform or naked is unacceptable.

I dont understand your point of calling Quaid-e-Azam a dictator. He became the head of state thru a transparent mechanism and not thru a coup de etat; and immediately formed the legislative assembly. He only lived 1 year after independence. By your standard Nehru from 1947 to 1951 was also a dictator. But such designation to either of leaders is moronic. Quaid did not use his powers in indiscretion. However, Ghulam Mohammad and Sikandar Mirza used this power to crush democratic aspirations of this nation. Both were appointed by our former colonial masters. Quaid on the other hand refused to share power with mountbatten and also fired general Gracey the commander in chief. But it has nothing to do with being a dictator.

Romair:

Are you busy studying Economics 101? Or does economics no longer make sense? Good Luck.

Yes, you are right. Just wishing the army go away wont` make it go away. But eventually the Army WILL go away as there is NO alternative available then that the army go away.

I gave you the example of my friend who made less than 5000 rupees and was elected into the local council. How do you think he feels being treated like a sheep by serving Fauji Brigadiers who are ONLY there cause they have guns in their hands. Even though he was a sympathiser with PML Q (chamcha league), the action of faujiz from the get go reveals an obvious rift between civilians and faujiz.

Why do you think the politicians are so against the faujiz? Faujiz have NO legitimacy. ANY representative system they implement will fail as it is IMPOSSIBLE for those elected to stomach the role of faujiz- it is FAR more likely that the Faujiz will fail in their attempts to bring about a change than have the civilians accept their role.

I ain`t no resident expert :) but from my observations there is no way the civilian leadership will allow the army to have a say for any quantified period. Attempts by faujiz to legitimize their role will always fail. they always have.