How real is Musharraf’s real democracy?

the title would be a question that would be asked if there was actually a democracy to begin with. ask the question does democracy even exist with a president who can`t decide between a fauji uniform and a shervani. i personally think not.
i heard someone on the bbc urdu news service talk about how musharraf is the best option for pakistan right now. bollocks! if he is the only option, there`s a bloody long haul ahead.

ahmadzai #3: ``In order to gauge success of the elected Government of President Musharraf and PM Jamali, one should always look at economic and social indicators. Imho, economic indicators are good and measures are bing taken for social development.``

Yes. This should be the primary criteria, for countries, that do not have the pre-requisites of democracy. Only countries that have achieved the pre-requisites, will benefit from elections, after elections. Pakistan isn`t one of them. It never had them, since 47.

People should use the criteria that expatriates use when they migrate out of Pakistan, i.e. the chose economic benefits over democracy. They happily give up their democratic right to vote, to make more money in the USA. I have done that, so have so many on Chowk. After having done that, they cry for Pakistanis to give voting more importance than jobs.

I think Pakistanis should support any govt, Constitutional or otherwise, secular or otherwise, which can bring in the highest rate of economic growth, with the lowest level of financial corruption and a progressive outlook (specifically support of women`s and minority rights).

The immigration patterns of Pakistan prove this. As do the public opinion polls. I follow these quite closely. The number one and two issues in importance are always jobs (economic growth) and security. Religion, Secularism, Kashmir and Democracy are usually well behind these two.

I am getting more and more convinced of Fareed Zakaria`s thesis on this issue, by the day.

plats8 #2: ``You accused me of paranoia on another board, and disappeared thereafter. I
would like a response to my post there - it was specifically addressed to you.``

I rarely read your posts. I have a small group of individuals that I interact with, and I interact with them in quite a bit of depth. As I generally skip your post, so I must have missed it. Please reproduce the post here, and I will happily reply.

Zakk #9: ``I do not believe he has rebuilt institutions, which creates a situation where the country is left permanently destabilised if something happens to him and I also see his supporters use the same argument used by apologists of Benazir and the not so Sharif Nawaz Sharif`s supporters. The argument ``if he/she goes the country will fall apart`` . I despise that argument, Pakistan has survived everything from civil war to brutal repression. I am fairly certain it could survive without Musharraf(or the Army) involved in politics.``

Pakistan is a very resilient country. It has had terrible leaderships, yet has survived them all, from Bhutto to Zia. Any country is bigger than any individual, including Jinnah. What to talk of Musharraf, I think we need to stop looking to Jinnah as our savior also.

Political institutions in Pakistan will never develop, as long as feudalism exists and the Army intervenes. Feudals will get elected, will be replaced by the Army, yet the people will not complain, since they will be fed up with the feudals. Then they will get fed-up with the Army and the feudals will be back. Somewhere in the next ten years, I think the maulivs will break this circle, and will dominate politics, if you ask me. This has already started.

I am convinced that decent political parites, with honest leaderships, have no shot in Pakistan. That has nothing to do with Army intervention. It has more to do with feudal politics. So I gave up on that dream a long time. Until the status quo politics change. And obviously the status quo PPP and PML politicians will not change the status quo, and shoot themselves in the foot.

So the best thing to do is to look at social indicators and make judgements on govts. based on that. This includes economic growth rate, security, ratings on Transparency Intl. corruption list, reports by Amnesty International etc.

Pakistan does not really need a good Prime Minster or President. It needs a good Finance Minister (which it currently has). And most of all, Pakistan needs to ensure that individuals are given no more than one chance to screw up the country. This means BB and NS should be out, and opposed to the hilt, since they have already had two chances. If Musharraf cannot get the economy going (and loots the country also), then he should be out also.

Things like the Wana operation and support for Bush will be opposed by some and supported by others. The secularists will love it. The Daily Times editor was actually crying out for Pakistan to send troops to Iraq. Imagine what a mess that would have been. While the more conservative population will oppose. Others like PPP and PML(N) and MMA will use it to gain political mileage. I just read that the tribal leaders have asked MMA to mind their own business.

I don`t think Pakistan has given up too much to the USA. It has received quite a bit in return, also. Taking on the USA is no joke. It is self-destructive. The only time Pakistan should take on the USA is if the USA invades Pakistan. Other than that Pakistan should just stay out of its way. Neither get too friendly, nor become an enemy.

To take any kind of stance against the USA, Pakistan has to first straighten out its economy. Beggars cannot be chosers. Once the economy is sorted out, all other issues will sort themselves out. Including politics and elections.

50+ U.S. CITIES HOLDING EMERGENCY IRAQ PROTESTS & new cities are announcing their plans by the hour

Propagate.Promote. Protest.

``Who cares if the cat is black and white as long as it catches mice`` Mao Tse Tung

As long as musharaff catches the bearded mice infesting Pakistan nowadays, I dont care if he wears a uniform or a suit. Once the mice are cleaned up, then he can run for elections. I may even vote for him in that case. Unless someone really good (like Stuka or Dost Mittar, to both of whom I have granted honorary pakistan nationality) decides to run against him.

Pakistan has gone full circle in my humble opinion, from sham democracy to sham democracy. Musharraf was the first Pakistani politcian I honestly believed him when he spoke, i suppose it was a natural consequence of my early preference for technocrats (meaning the appointment of highly competent people who lacked the resources to get elected) which started with Moeen Qureshi`s caretaker government. Musharraf himself came across as a mixture of what in US politics is called a policy wonk and someone with that commando streak in him, someone willing to take risks.

I think my own process of going full circle started with the referendum and ended with the Wana operation, now I see him as a personally clean man, but someone who has covered up for others corruption, a person whose flip flops in policy reflect a good tactical streak but poor strategic vision. Like many politcians he seeks short term gain over long term benefit. I do not believe he has rebuilt institutions, which creates a situation where the country is left permanently destabilised if something happens to him and I also see his supporters use the same argument used by apologists of Benazir and the not so Sharif Nawaz Sharif`s supporters. The argument ``if he/she goes the country will fall apart`` . I despise that argument, Pakistan has survived everything from civil war to brutal repression. I am fairly certain it could survive without Musharraf(or the Army) involved in politics.

Most importantly for a country with little in the sense of natural resources he sold what was left of Pakistan`s soul to Dubya Bush.

Fauji Lovers often quote Ayaz Amir. Here is an excerpt of his current article from Dawn papers:

``Who says history is a great teacher? Not in Pakistan at least. If it were a teacher we would realize it is the army which requires supervision and the political system which requires freedom from constant interference.

Unwanted and ill-conceived wars, the breakup of Pakistan, the fooling around in Afghanistan, Pakistan`s jihadi image, the long rope given to Dr A. Q. Khan to become a public relations disaster, a walking bible of self-advertisement: who has been responsible for these disasters? Successive army chiefs, not political bumblers.

That politicians have been bumblers is a proven fact. Pakistan has been ill-served by its political leadership. But on any scale of disaster political leaders are outstripped any time by their military counterparts. Politicians and civilian leaders have been the petty contractors of disaster. The real big tenders have been floated by the military command.

Pakistan`s problem then: who`ll guard the guardians? Not, who`ll guard the civilians?

Elections, regular and honest, are the corrective to civilian excess or ineptitude. If one party blows it, an alternative is in the wings. Democracy doesn`t create perfection. It is not meant to. But if practised with some skill and maturity, it helps reduce the margin of imperfection.

What`s the corrective to military excess or failure? None has been discovered in Pakistan so far. The NSC will be another rope round the neck of the half-donkey, half-horse democracy Gen Musharraf has thought fit to tolerate. It won`t check military ambition. It won`t educate army chiefs to respect the Constitution and stick to their professional duties. So what will the nation get out of it? ``

Sameem:

``When ? After we have educated our population with regards to their rights and the impact of their political choices.``

This is trash talk. Please explain me your logic. Cause you have just insulted 85% of the uneducated, illeterate population of Pakistan. Only the elitist freaks do this. Are you an elitist freak? The argument that the common person doesn`t know the value of democracy reeks of sht. I don`t know the true value of many things. Does that mean those have to be taken away from me? Most of my friends can read and write. Yet they openly state that they will vote for someone with clout, with muscle- ie someone who can be crooked to get things done. Thus they favor crooked politicians over say the masoom PTI candidate. Are you saying YOU are smarter then them? That YOU can BETTER judge for THEM the impact of THEIR rights?

Idealistic ? Indeed, but that`s the only time democracy can be functional. And after all, democracy by it theme undermines the possibility of human greatness, doesn`t it ?

No, your arguments aren`t idealistic. They are deeply insulting and they are elitist bull.

Win back the trust

Sir: I was appalled by the recent statement of Mr Mumtaz Bhutto that the minority provinces should secede from Pakistan and that this would be ‘appropriate’. Nothing would be more inappropriate than what he is suggesting. Any attempt to act upon what Mr Bhutto is suggesting would be a tragedy for all Pakistanis, irrespective of their ethnic background.

While political injustices may have been committed against some minority provinces, it surely does not give anyone the right to call for secession, which under the circumstances would be an act of lunacy. Does Mr Bhutto think that an independent Sindhudesh would prove to be a panacea for all ills that plague Sindh? Does he seriously believe that an independent Balochistan and Pakhtunistan would result in peace and harmony? Even an independent Sindhudesh that Mr Bhutto is yearning for will not be ethnically homogeneous. What would be Mr Bhutto’s solution then? Will he drive out those people who live in Sindh but have roots in what is now India? Many countries are home to different ethnic groups. If every nation starts looking for a separate homeland, the world will be plunged in a never-ending war. Just because East Pakistan seceded does not mean that every other Pakistani province has to as well.

It is time for us to ensure that Pakistan means something to the Pathan in Peshawar, the Sindhi in Hyderabad, the Kashmiri in Mirpur, the Baloch in Gwadar and of course the Punjabi in Lahore. Pakistanis must put aside their religious, ethnic and linguistic differences for the sake of a better future. What is important is for Pakistan to use all its resources for economic progress, leading to equitable social development and a political system ensuring the rights of all ethnic groups. A strong Pakistan, unlike the situation at present, will be one which every Pakistani will proudly identify with.

I know for a fact that most Sindhis do not agree with what Mr Bhutto is suggesting. The challenge before us is to win back the trust of those few who seem to have lost faith in Pakistan.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
USA

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

Slight digression, folks...

Romair,

You accused me of paranoia on another board, and disappeared thereafter. I
would like a response to my post there - it was specifically addressed to you.

Excuse me if I`m raising questions which the article already answered, but I couldn`t even force myself to read through it. Simply because I`ve been fed this for the last 10 years.

``Democracy is the only answer``

``No form of Government should be acceptable other than one which is democratic``

I recall Ayaz Amir once saying, how could you expect a flower to bloom out of a bud that was so blatantly cut off the stem ? But even before that, why do we really need a democracy ? Why should democracy be the automatic choice ? Surprisingly enough, the answer to it is, it`s not so much of a ``Why`` question, than a ``When`` question.

Politics is an art Sir, treat it like one. Like any other form of Government, a democracy can only function under specific conditions. Democracy is no panacea. It is not the answer to all our questions. You have a literacy rate of under 15 % ( realisticaly speaking), you have a Feudal system strong enough to knock any democracy out of power and you most certainly have no ``System of Voting``. We don`t even have politicains, sigh.

So it`s a question of whether you want one bad man to rule over you, or a whole group of bad men? A democracy gone bad becomes an oligarchy, God Bless the US of A.

When ? After we have educated our population with regards to their rights and the impact of their political choices. Idealistic ? Indeed, but that`s the only time democracy can be functional. And after all, democracy by it theme undermines the possibility of human greatness, doesn`t it ?

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

Succes indicators:

In order to gauge success of the elected Government of President Musharraf and PM Jamali, one should always look at economic and social indicators. Imho, economic indicators are good and measures are bing taken for social development.

Good analysis. A unfettered process is the only way progress toward stable democratic system can be achieved.

Only when state institutions are allowed to fight for their individual entities rights will a form of checks and balances be achieved. Everytime faujiz enter the pictures they eliminate the process of institutional conflicts all nascent democracies go through in one form or another thus jeaporadizing chances for progress.

Bilal:

wish you had just asked this question on another chowk...raja bazaar?...but then they would have hauled you and you would not have written this...

the occupying army and democracy is like oil and water...enough said!

rgd,

t

ps: no footnotes!

I am always amazed when people try to establish and debate whether a military govt. is a democracy or interested in democracy. Obviously, it isn`t. Military govts. by their definition are dictatorships. They can never be democracies. So, there is no point in even debating that.

Will they give up power? Obviously not. Who in any country, much less Pakistan, ever gives up power, voluntarily. Not the military, not political parties, not maulvis, not the beaucracy, not the socially wealthy and elite (Chowk crowd), not superpowers, etc. Powerful groups at the domestic level, superpowers at the international level, always do everything they can to look after their own, and subjugate everyone else. If you can become a General (though not a Captain), you will be looked after, as the common man is subjugated. If you become a PPP MPA, you will be looked after, as you subjugate your constituents. If you can become a US citizen, you will be looked after, as the USA subjugates the rest of the world. If you can become a powerful union leader in PIA, Steel Mills etc., you will increase your own salary as your organization goes down the drain, much at the expense of the taxpayer.......

Pakistan has a political vacumm of credible leadership, and it will be alternatively be filled by three groups: military, feudal-led political parties and maulvis. From a political point of view, all three are negatives. This has been proven over history. Amongst these, the only group that is internally democratic are the maulvi parties. The Army, obiviously, internally, by design, is not supposed to be democratic. The feudal parties, should be internally democratic, but aren`t.

So what is the answer. There are two answers.

- Either Pakistan has to make so much economic progress, like Korea, Singapore, China, etc., under Constitutional (feudal) or unConstitutional (Army) dictators, that those out-weigh any losses it has due to lack of democracy. If such economic growth is achieved in a ubiquous manner, people will not complain about democracy, since individuals always chose economic growth over the right of vote. As inidcated by the Chowk expatriate crowd, who (like me) gave up their right to vote voluntarily in Pakistan, to get the benefits of economic growth in countries like USA etc., where they could not vote (I am always amazed a their hypocrisy, when they argue for voting over economic growth in Pakistan, when they chose exactly the opposite for themselves).

- The second option is for a fourth political force to emerge. Outside of the Army, mauvlis, and feudals. This cannot happen in the feudal areas, but it can happen in the urban areas. Obviously that group will not emerge from the two large parties, PPP and PML, since they will do their best to ensure the status quo of feudal parties. It will not emerge from Army, obviously, either.

Democratically speaking, it can only emerge from the maulvis or from a second force. The maulvis are democratic and have some qualities that I actually admire, e.g. they represent the lower class, their leadership is not elitist etc. However, they have too much other destructive baggage like short-sightedness, hypocrisy, lack of vision to be a credible leadership. So it has to be someone like the MQM (despite all its pmilitancy roblems), PTI, TI etc. However these parties can barely win a few seats, due to the feudal system of poltics.

The only way to keep the Army out is, thus, for people in urban areas, to ditch the PPP and PML and vote for alternatives. As someone who is involved with PTI, unfortunately, I don`t see that happening. In fact, I have a strange feeling, that Tehrik-e-Insaaf - a very positive and progressive (though non-secular) party - may die off pretty soon. And Imran Khan will be reduced to an independent, just able to win his own seat or two. It has been unable to grow larger than his name, since no one from the status quo powerful political elite will ever join it, as it is against the status quo.

I don`t see Pakistani politics breaking out of the hold of feudals, Army or maulvis in my lifetime. All these groups have dictatorial tendencies. The only outside hope I see is if, internally PPP is able to get rid of the Bhuttos and other feudals and hand over the leadership to its urbanites like Aitezaz Ahsan etc. But PPP has actually lost most of its support it had in urban areas (specifically Punjab). It is now overwhelmingly Sindhi feudal party.

I always felt Omar Asghar Khan or Imran Khan would be the two best electable political figures to lead the country. One is dead, the other is very unsuccessful politically. This leaves us with Musharraf, BB, NS, or Qazi. Take your pick..........

Anyone who thinks the Army will volutarily give up power, or that elections after elections, under the current corrupt political system, will get rid of feudal politics is living in a fairyland.