How real is Musharraf’s real democracy?

I blame women for #67`s problems.

Romair various post and # 67:

Having read your posts on Fareed Zakaria, Farrukh Saleem, Javaid Burki and finally the contents of post # 67, I will like to mention what I used to write when I had joined Chowk last year:

In the days to come, the Pakistan`s political arena will comprise of two forces - emotionally led MMA and economic growth led Musharraf/Jamali team. All the remaining parties will be marginalized. Already PML N is about to disappear and PPP has been rendered to a rural Sindh party.

I think that in future, MMA, if it remains intact, will be a force to reckon with due primarily to the reasons outlined in your post # 67. Besides, Islamic emotionalism will be their trump card. There is only 1 way they can be defeated - through superb economic performance falling nothing short of a miracle. There is simply no other way.

And why should Pakistanis be scared of MMA - remember my quote of a taxi driver in Peshawar - no cricket, no hockey, no music, no movies, no catwalks, no make-up, no fashion, no fashion clothing, no luxurious living, no average living because of austerity drive, no dining out, no watching entertainment programs on TV, no Basant, no Shandur Mela, no tourism, no our 8 year old daughters going out with their burqa clad moms without cladded in burqa themselves, no women in schools, colleges and universities, no women in workforce, no men out of work force as they will have to do a rota in Hisb Force or Jihad Army, no emigrating outside for their will be no demand for people from a country labeled extremist, etc.

Well, I have decided what I want for myself and for the ones I love.

As for others, well we have democracy in Pakistan. Every Pakistani for himself/herself.

Tauheed at # 68:

By mentioning the presence of FBI and CIA in Pakistan, malik99 is giving into the emotionalism campaign of MMA. There is no such presence in Pakistan. There may be some for skills transfer required for combating terrorism, but that presence has been there in all European countries too, including at the international airports - Heathrow, Schipohl, etc. Why don`t Pakistanis complain to European Governments for giving into the US pressure.

On another of malik`s count, Pakistan has resisted many pressures from the USA, including refusal to send troops to Iraq, refusal to let American army enter Pakistan, refusal to handover Pakistanis arrested inside Pakistan under terrorism charge, continuous refusal to roll down our nuclear enrichment levels, etc.

As a youth, Shabbir Sher knew only the isolated life of a small planter. Born the third son of a local farmer, he knew that where he grew up, class status showed in a man`s dress, his leisure habits, his house, even his religion. In such a society he would step aside and tip his turban when the propserous neighbours went by.

As much as you think you`re empathizing with the ``majority``, youre the farthest away from it. I`m sorry but I have no arguements to offer to somebody who so clearly opposes the education of the masses. I`d rather bang my head against a brick wall with lesser chances of inflicting pain upon myself.

Do me a favour, the next time your maid brings you a cup of tea, ask her what she thinks her rights are.

I rest my case.

Rozaiba,

Lastly, read post #65 by Romair.

malik #51 I have been going to Pakistan at least once a year all the time I have been in the US, and trust me when I tell you that it is not the FBI or CIA that I (as a Pakistani civilian) am concerned with over there. While it is fashionable for the well off Pakistanis to talk big about the FBI, the fact is that for the ordinary Pakistani the ones to fear are the armed bands of religious fanatics. The thousands of innocent pakistani civilians that have been killed by mullahs - the shia doctors who have been specifically targeted by the, the shia and sunni worshippers, the passer bys on streets hit by bombs planted by these extremists - obviously mean nothing to you. Well, they mean a lot to me. They are my brothers and sisters who have been killed by these men you seek to defend. The hindu villager who has been gunned down by these mullahs is my brother and I will never forget who did this to him.

So, spare me your pious talk about FBI and CIA - try to get down from your intellectual high horse and look at the injustice and satanic deeds performed by these mullahs.

As for Kashmir: what you write clearly reveals that you have been fooled by the very same man you declare to be a whore. Why is Kashmir even an issue? (read the answer carefully): Because kashmir has been the way to maintain hostile relations with India - and hostile relations with India is the reason the military has so much influence in Pakistan.

hamidm #63 Ha! Ha! I told you not to drink and listen to bbc at the same time. You didnt listen, and now you are totally confused between chowk and real life.

Have some more to drink, and you will start seeing pink elephants sitting in the national assembly. Not bearded apes as is actually the case.

Rozaiba #53 You are creating an artificial cause and effect. Repeat after me (you too, Tanweer sahib):

``Economic statistics do not suppress democracy. Dictators do.``

harimau #57 you are right. it was deng tsaoping, not mao tsetung, who said that thing about cats and mice. my mistake. all chinese look alike to me, and that is why i got confused between the two. (just kidding on that last sentence).

ferozk # 61 - You wrote ``The majority of the Pakistanis do not give a fig about democracy or the issues, which appeal to the expatriate community of Pakistan. Their basic issues, which are their primary concerns are about economic empowerment and economic prospersity``

You sometimes say make such a sensible and clear-cut statement that I feel like lifting you up on my shoulders and walking down Madison Avenue. Might I add that the current positive economic indicators have more to do with foreign policy rather than economic poicy. Increased foreign reserves, foreign aid, stock exchange spike, are all a result of foriegn policy rather than a sound economic policy.

nazarhayatkhan at # 50:

``All his famous U-turns were not through the courage of conviction but through the compulsions of the circumstances. So no credit to him.``

If your viewpoint is correct then you are supporting my viewpopint. This would have been the course of the events even if BB, Nawaz or MMA were in power. So why hate the guy so much on taking a u-turn?

Imho though, he took a u-turn before 9/11. His speech on 14th August 2001 is an evidence.

Romair at # 66:

``So if you are from Wana and are tribal, you should be attacked. If you are from Sind, Baluchistan, and Punjab and tribal, you should run the country..... ``

There are two flaws in your argument:

1. Tribals in Wana have not been attacked. Only 1 tribe harboring the foreign terrorists has been attacked and that too after an offer to handover the terrorists peacefully was turned down by them.

2. I am 100% sure that if tribal look alikes from Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan provide refuge to the terrorists they too will be held accountable in the strictest of terms. An example can be sought when an Al Qaeda operative was nabbed from the house of a religious leader. His household was also raided.

If you stick by your argument then unfortunately you will also be contributing to misplaced emotionalism that our religious parties are so skilled in to win popular support.

Romair at # 65:

Excellent post.

One point I would like to add is that those Pakistanis living abroad who are OK with the performance of President Musharraf`s / PM Jamali`s Government will not like to come on websites and leave messages in his favour. Its basically the minority who likes to express their view more than the majority. Majority already has it their way so they don`t bother to express their mental state of well-being.

nazarhayat #50: Musharraf`s biggest success is not his liberal streak - ``he is normal. He drinks & plays with dogs. He is not a religious nut.``

Most Pakistanis are actually not liberal. They are conservative; though not to the point of being mullahs (at least, not yet). They don`t drink, nor play with dogs. Musharraf is thus, out of tune, with the rest of Pakistan, on this. This is why he has had to become much more conservative (though still a liberal by Pakistani standards) than his own normal personality (in his normal personality, from talking to those who know him, he is quite like hamidm).

``Liberalism`` requires a certain amount of wealth, specifically in Islamic countries (not oil wealth, but industrial wealth). Only rich people in Islamic countries (including oil countries) are liberal. This is a fact, be it Arabistan or Pakistan. The poorer the person is in an Islamic country, the more conservative he/she is. This is why Pakistani politics has been getting more and more conservative, over the years. Because the country has been getting poorer and poorer. PPP, PML, PTI, and of course MMA are more and more conservative by the day. Benazir Bhutto is far more conservative in her demenour than Zulfiqar Bhutto. I never saw Zulfiqar Bhutto carry a tasbeeh around. Nawaz Sharif of PML is far more conservative than its founder, Jinnah. Imran Khan is far more conservative as a politician than he was as a cricketer. And MMA has started winning votes.

If there is no significant change in Pakistan`s economy, or if Pakistan`s feudal political structure (which is very different from India`s) is not gutted from its core, eventually religious parties will take over, in a democratic manner, through elections. This is inevitable. It has already happened, in nearly all Muslim countries, which have held elections - Turkey, Algeria, Egypt (wherever in society it holds elections), Iran, Iraq (when elections are held), NWFP, Baluchistan etc. It will happen in Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries, if elections are held there.

The Muslim world is getting more and more religious because it is getting more and more poor. The only thing that has kept religious parties from completely taking over, is that most of the Islamic world is still undemocratic. However, as it becomes democratic, the religious parties will get elected power. To counter this, the non-religious parties will have to get a more and more religious agenda also. Which they are doing. Since they have failed at providing economic growth, and are discredited.

The only group that can, through elections, gut Pakistan`s feudal structure from the core are the maulvis. They have already taken out NWFP and Baluchistan. And it is only a matter of time, before they move in furthur. Or they force PPP and PML to follow the MMA agenda. The mauvlis are actually the political force that is dictating to the govt. and are the leaders of the opposition, also.

The common argument that people like Tariq Ali used to make was that maulvis never get elected in Pakistan, hence democracy in Pakistan, is inherenlty anti-maulvi. They can no longer make such an argument. Now, they state that maulvis can not win a majority in Pakistan. Quite a significant change of arguments. Pretty soon that argument will be out the door, also.

Pakistani English-speaking intellegensia only reads Dawn, Daily Times, Herald, and Newsweek. They should take some time to read Takbeer, Jang, and other such news sources - which define the Pakistani local mindset more than the English papers (English papers have very minimal readership, since very few people in Pakistan read English). Thus the English-speaking crowd is in a state of denial about this. Primarily because they are compeletely out of touch with the person on the street. They keep equating the rise of the maulvis to the policies of Zia. When, in fact, Zia died over 16 years ago. And even after his death, maulvis could not win any seats in the four elections held in the 90s. There rise has roots in the failiure of economic growth rates by non-maulvi govts. And Zia cannot be held responsible for their rise in countries like Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt...I hope you get the point...

Their biggest asset is the failiure of Pakistan`s more secular forces, who have run the country - PPP, PML, Army (outside Zia`s rule) - to provide any economic growth to the average Pakistani (non-Chowk crowd). If elections after elections is the key, to replacing corruption, then one would have to argue that elections will result in the end of PPP and PML feudals. Who will replace them? Who will fill the vacuum? Is there a third political force? Do you see one, other than the maulvis? If there is one, why hasn`t it appeared in any other Muslim country?

Musharraf`s biggest drawback is that he is from the Army. Had he been the first Army coupmaker, the intellegensia would have been ok with him. However, he has to carry the baggage of Yahya and Zia. In fact, even now every argument on this board, is critical of, ``Army`` rule. People rarely discuss his own achievements and drawbacks - specifically on the number one area of economics.

Musharraf assets are that he is financially honest (a rarity in Pakistani politics). He is a Muhajir (hence not part of the powerful Sindhi and Punjabi families). He has an international standing, due to 9/11. He has support of the USA. He has allowed so much freedom of press, that the English press supports him personally (even though it does not support the Army rule).

However, the one asset that I think is the deciding factor is his economic team, and the fact that he has, by hook or by crook, been able to keep the political interests away from banks etc, thereby allowing his economic team to do their job. This is what is going to make or break him.

If by the time he leaves, Pakistan keeps growing at a significant economic rate, the non-Chowk Pakistani crowd will not care whether he was from the Army or not. They will forgive all his Constitutional sins. If the economy does not grow, then he will be out, through local movements.

However, I am convinced that Pakistan (and other Islamic countrires), more than anything else in the world, need structured economic growth (i.e. not oil growth, but industrial growth), i.e they need to become rich. Pakistan needs fifteen years of 6%+ economic growth. This will result in the end of feudalism, since much of the growth will benefit poor farmers. Obviously feudal govts. will never allow this to happen.

If such economic growth doesn`t happen, I have very little doubt in my mind that Pakistan will not be the exception, and elections will result in victories for mauvlis, much like what is happening in the rest of the Islamic world.

I am waiting to see what will happen when Musharraf gets rid of his uniform. I think the, expatriate and rich folks will be more willing to accept him as a civilian dictator. A govt. is only as good as its finance minister. As long as any govt., be it Musharraf or otherwise, can give Pakistanis high economic growth rates, it should be supported. I think common Pakistanis have accepted this.

And feudal govts. will never want high economic growth rates, since to do that they will have to make the farmer wealthier. And if that happens then the feudal gets weaker. If you don`t believe me, just take a stroll to Jamali`s constituency in Baluchistan or Fahim`s constituency in Sind. If they are given a good twenty years in power, the rest of Pakistan will look like that also. However, before that occurs, the maulvis will kick them out. And then the rest of Pakistan will Mansoora or Akora Khattak.......

All of this, of course, does not mean, that the Army should rule. Army rule has its own drawbacks. All of this just means, that any govt. which can achieve high economic growth, in comparison to other govts. should rule, until Pakistan gets to a stage, where it can think about more asoteric things like democracy and secularism.

There are certain things in life that make you say, ``hmmmm``

1. People want the Govt. to use the Army to invade Wana and fire rockets at the tribal leaders, because they feel those in Wana will kill their daughters if they look over outside their window. Fine. Point taken. My stance is not that extreme, but something needs to be done.

But the same people want similar individuals from feudal Punjab, tribal Baluchistan and Sindhi wadera-land, who do similar things to their daughters and to other people`s daughters to rule over not only their own lands, but over the rest of Pakistan, also. This list would, of course, inlcude 7 MNAs from Wana-land, one or two of whom would become ministers.

So if you are from Wana and are tribal, you should be attacked. If you are from Sind, Baluchistan, and Punjab and tribal, you should run the country.....

Hmmmm........

2. People migrate out of Pakistan to get bigger hotdogs in the USA. Thereby voluntarily giving up any right to vote. Even in the USA, they only get a right to vote if they become citizens, which can take over ten years. And even then they can only vote in the USA, not in Pakistan. They also migrate to dictatorial kingdoms like UAE, Saudi Arabia. Or to civilian dictatorships like Singapore etc. Completely giving up their right to vote.

Once they get there, they start crying for democracy in Pakistan. This is all well and good, if democracy leads to higher growth rates. But what about when it leads to basketcase growth rates. One could understand if such individuals moved back to Pakistan to fight their democracy battles, but aren`t the bigger hotdogs more important to them.......

Hmmmm.......

I support any govt., civilian or military, dictatorship or Constitutional that is financially honest and can maintain a 6% of higher growth rate in Pakistan (with some freedom of press, minority rights, women`s rights etc.). If in the process, I cannot vote, no biggie. I am willing to give up my right to vote, for a bigger Bun Kabab. After all that is why I moved out of Pakistan to begin with. Why wouldn`t I move back to Pakistan, under the same precedence. If the govts.` growth rate goes down, or it is financially corrupt, then I will start calling for its removal.....from the comforts of my luxury condominium, of course.....

hamidm #: You argument is much like Urstruly`s. He sits in the USA and is carrying on an Islamic jihad, from a distance, in comfort, without participating in it, himself. You sit in the USA and have become Pakistan`s Thomas Jefferson, from a distance, in comfort, without participating in it. If you are so concerned about democracy, why don`t you move back to Pakistan, and participate?

No one in Pakistan gives a flying fig about democracy, except the rich. Even you don`t give a flying fig about it, since you migrated out of the country, to get a better standard of living. Neither do I. Neither do the individuals who line up to get visas to UAE and America - basically everyone in Pakistan (and in India also).

No one in Pakistan gives a flying fig about secularism either. Niether do they care about Islam. The most secular of people die to get a job opportunity in Wahabi Saudi Arabia. And the most Islamic people convenieently migrate to secular USA.

Nor does anyone in Pakistan give a flying fig about the Army rule, or maulvi rule or feudal rule. They just want jobs and a chance to migrate out of the country.

Once they do all of this, all of a sudden they become champions of democracy, or secularism or religion. Interestingly, everytime I talk to the guy cleaning the street in Pakistan about Constitutions and amendments and voting, he looks at me like I am from outer space (or from the USA).

As I have argued before, I think people should support any govt. - be it Army, Navy, Air Force, Maulvi, feudal, labor, dictatorship, elected etc. that can get the highest rate of economic growth. And that is what people are doing. Which is a very wise thing to do....Now if only they could get their expatriated Jeffersons off their back.....