Military Intervention vs. Institutions’ Growth

sameer,HP-
Reading the article and the interacts,I have some questions.
What keeps the army so united? Such rallying behind a person is striking,at the cost of the welfare of the nation.Even if it is believed that the army men are too selfish and do not care abt the average Pakistani,still it is amazing that one man is allowed his free will. Considerations of hunger for power,ethinicity etc. may have come into play,I would have assumed.
Secondly,it appears that army has been destabilising democracy.Why would they need covert tactics? Why do they need to make a case for coup?Do they need the moral support of Pakistani people and or international community?
Thirdly, Why is it the case of feudals vs army?Cant they have a cozy little pact and run a sham democracy? why does one of them get over ambitious?
Romair
If militiary is better than the feudals,do you think the change required is more social than political,on lines of the russian revolution ?

Romair:

You are comparing apples with oranges here. Musharraf on the throne is not at all due to the bad actions of Nawaz Sharif you outlined. You should have added the refusal of senate to debate, let alone pass, a bill condeming honor killing, hadood ordinance, creation of Shariah courts and council of Islamic ideology which predate nawaz Sharif government.

Musharraf has not even once publically spoken against Shariah or Shariah bill because he knows that it is political suicide to go against Islam in Pakistan.

The storming of Supreme court predates elevation of Musharraf to the COAS position and previous COAS chose not to take action on this bais. Before that military establishment actually supported Nawaz Sharif against both Ghulam Ishaq Khan and later Farooq Leghari. If he was so corrupt, then why did military supported him instead of getting rid of him with the help of Presidents? Most of the people who wer going to vote for Shariah bill are now in QML and sitting in the Assembly.

The shariah Bill, if I am not mistaken also predates Musharraf. Anyway, when Shariah bill was moving through the National Assembly, Musharraf was actually buddy-buddy with Nawaz Sharif. Nobody can deny it.

If NS committed blunder by letting his supporters storm the supreme court, Musharrad did worse humiliation by making it rubber stamp Supreme court through excecutive orders to retake oath. The people who participated in storming the supreme court, except Khawaja Asif, are in QML and some even ministers under Musharraf.

Talk about honor killing. Why blame NS only when Musharraf had two chances, one as CE and other now, to condemn it by law and set the punishment? He did not do it. He did not even change qasas law, eliminating Shahriah courts, Hudood ordinance or Blasphemy law, when he had free and easy authority under Supreme court for 3 years as CE and now with hand-picked civilian set-up to overturn draconian laws.

He made 40-50 changes in the constitution through constitutional amendment but none of them deal with the above mentioned issues you are so fond of presenting over and over. He does not have the balls to do it and bascally interested in prolonging his hold on power. Tying cat around camel`s neck is common practice world over in politics. All the draconian laws could have been attached to the package of LFO easily.

So, please quit presenting bad apples as the reason for bad oranges. Musharraf did not come to power because of them. He came due to power hunger and paved the way in that direction by creating wedge between civilian and military establishments starting with Kargil operation.

I guess according to your logic, India would have avoided Gujrat riots, if military had taken over, overthrowing hindutva BJP government. With such a forsight, you ought to be a consultant for some Indian think tank.

Wouldn`t Pakistan have been a theocratic state by now, had the coup not occured? I would have to say the answer is 100% yes. The Shariah Bill had passed through the Assembly. And due to the PML`s overwhelming majority, it would have easily passed through the Senate. After that Pakistan, for the first time in its history, would officially be run under an Islamic Shariah. Following are some interesting points of the Shariah Bill:

``The Federal Government shall be under an obligation to take steps to enforce the Shariah, to establish salat, to administer zakat, to promote......``

`` Bill to amend the Constitution providing for the removal of any impediment in the enforcement of any matter relating to Shariah and the implementation of the Injunctions of Islam may originate in either House and shall, if it is passed by a majority of the members voting in the House in which it originated, be transmitted to the other House; and if the Bill is passed without amendment by the majority of the members voting in the other House also, it shall be presented to the President for assent.``

So, the govt. could pass Shariah laws, based on simple majorty. And any law could be kicked out, if it did not fall under Shariah interpretation by an unelected body of maulvis, to interpret the, ``Shariah``-ness of a bill. To make a long story short, NS would have been the amir-ul-momineen of Pakistan, and anything he did not like could be declared un-Shariah. He could, for all practical purposes, declare elections to be un-Shariah also.

This is where Pakistan would have been today. A bankrupt, isolated Shariah-based country, being ruled by the interpretations of unelected maulvis. The govt. had stormed the Supreme Court, fired a Chief Justice, appointed the PM`s best friend and maulvi judge (who helped in getting the Chief Justice fired) as the President. And appointed the PM`s personal accoutant as the finance minister. However, the Prime Minister, running this whole show, would have been elected through an election, thereby satisfying the traditional democracy argument.

People cannot have it both ways. If they want to support NS and, ``elections at all costs`` argument, then they must support the Shariah Bill, because it was perfectly legal, being carried out by an elected govt. Pakistan`s natural evolution would thus have resulted in a theocratic country, under such an arrangement.

Yet one never hears this side. If one is going to support NS`s elections, one has to support, in principle, Pakistan becoming a Shariah country (even if one dislikes Shariah personally). The 15th amendment was, infact, the biggest change that the NS was to bring in Pakistan.

I can respect those who argue that Pakistan should have been allowed to become a theocratic country, as long as an elected govt. was doing it. The people I cannot respect are the ones who on the one hand keep arguing against theocracy and maulvis, and on the other hand keep supporting elections at all costs............

#17 fuzair

Whatever I wrote in my post has been mentioned in the print and electronic media of Pakistan over the years. Even without mentioning any of it and following HP`s general assertion leads to the same conclusion that military is a contributor in not letting the situation improve. The best argument, though not related to democracy is military spending. Somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 billion dollars from a total of 12.6 billion dollars government revenues per year are spent on military leaving much less for education, infrastructure and other developmental programs. How can then military not be resposible for creating the bad situation? Is this also a conspiracy theory that military`s industrial complex involves in unfair business practices and undermines competition? Is this also a conspiracy that billions of rupees collected from the selling of sick industrial unit by privatization commission were siphoned off to fauji foundation and other sick military institutions? Why dont they sell fauji foundation to the highest bidder like other sick industrial units?

kkkandk#20
fuzair #17,

Before thanking you must realize that Mush did nt topple NS to save the country; it was a desperate act ofself-preservation. Because after the Kargil debale it was either Mush`s ass or NS`; they both instituted measures to checkmate each other. In the event the boot had the upper hand.
Secondly NS was not the product of a democratic milieu, he was the creature of the military establishment, particularly Zia and Jilani. So no tears there. One should also examine the shennanigans of NS: he sundered and compromised the high judiciary; screwed a president; made an army chief resign; passed a constitutional amendment regarding floor-crossing to muzzle political debate and dissent and was trying to ram in the 16 th amendment to impose the so-called sharia law. So how could expect democracy coming from the womb of such a dictatorship? Politicians elevated to high office are compromised due to their associaytion with the military. Therefore such a system is inherently incapable to promote democracy.
A genuine democracy is only possible if fair and open elections are held. But under the present dispensation, thats a chimera.
The pathetic apathy of our nation only help feed authoritariansm. We are even too far in point in time even from the illiberal democracy of Zakaria.

#17 by fuzair
#15 Sameer,

”That is quite a conspiracy theory you have going! Wow! IF only the powers of the military could be turned to good!”

Which part of Sameer’s post is conspiracy Theory? I am little short of time right now but would also like to add my 2 cents to what Sameer has put down.

The comparison with NS or BB is not accurate as they never got into power without army’s blessings. More on this later but please read my posts on Feroz’s “The Barrack” (#145 by HP and more) board where I have argued that both NS and BB are not democrats and would be happy to share power with the army. Their aspirations to be PM for life or the Chairperson for life are ridiculous but their roles in Pakistan have not been as destructive as the army role has been for the last 50 years.
Thanks.

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

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

#15 Sameer,

That is quite a conspiracy theory you have going! Wow! IF only the powers of the military could be turned to good!

Sameer and Feroz:

But seriously, what do you do with a ``bad`` democracy? A civilian who is determined to turn himself into ``President for Life,`` as was the case with Nkrumah of Ghana and is the case with Mugabe of Zimbabwe? And don`t forget, that is exactly what Nawaz Sharif wanted: to be PM for life (or at least 20 years or so, and then his son would have taken over)?

It is very well for Clinton and people like you to say that the only remedy for bad democracy is more democracy but where is this ``more`` democracy going to come from? How are you going to get rid of a ``bad`` civilian ruler? Notice it hasn`t exactly been easy to get rid of Mugabe.

OR do you seriously think that, if NS had remained as PM, the next general elections would have been ``free and fair`` and the people would have been allowed to throw NS out given the pathetic state the Pakistani economy would have been in then?

NS is a prime example of Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument. As Zakaria says, there is nothing good about democracy per se, it is only a liberal democracy that is desirable. And how liberal was Nawaz Sharif and Co?

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

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

Only Indians can be so hungry…

Worry about your backyard stupid cunnilingus!

..drought-flood scenario in various parts of the country, leading to disruption in supplies and providing play to speculators. The prices of several essential commodities, including fruits and vegetables, have almost doubled. Much also depends on the proposed truckers strike from tomorrow on the service tax issue.
The Government has announced another fiscal measure in an effort to dampen the inflationary pressures. Effective today, the customs duty on non-alloy steel (other than seconds and defectives) under specified customs tariff headings have been reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent. The five per cent customs duty on melting scrap of iron and steel (other than stainless steel or heat resisting steel) has been withdrawn and the customs duty on ships for breaking up reduced from 15 per cent to five per cent.

This is a good piece of writing without relying on emotionalism associated with the topic invoved. The case for democracy is made as simple as idiot`s guide to anything found these days in the bookstores. I would have, though, liked a rebuttal right after the statement of Musharraf, “military intervention 15 years down the road if situation does not improve”. The rebuttal of this statement is very easy which nobody here can refuse.

In all four cases of military takeovers, army establishment played from significant to decisive roles in destabilizing the situation. So it is false and cheap statement rgarding improving the situatioin.

Army`s role in pavingt he way to Iskander Mirza and later Ayub Khan`s coup are well documented and can found in number of books and articles. Similarly even seemingly playboyish and dumb Yahya Khan systematically paved the way for his takeover from Ayub Khan. This is also well-documented that despite Ayub Khan`s inclination to negotiate with Sheikh Mujb Ur Rehman about his famous six points, army establishment under direction from Yahya Khan vetoed the proposal to make any link with Sheikh Mujib, precisely in order to destabilize Ayub Khan by creating an impression of ultranationalism and conservatism of the establishment. Zia Ul Haq followed Yahya Khan exactly and destablized Z. A. Bhutto while constantly showing his loyalty to Bhutto. Army intelligence role in uniting the opposition to PNA movement was backed and handled by military intelligence. Additionally Saudis also contributed either in support of mullahs or as middlemen for Kissinger and US intelligence. And this guy, Musharraf did the worst. The Kargil operation was part of a plan to destabilize and overthrow NS government. Their proxies in religious parties and Jihadi organizations wer given green light and in at least two instances, the arrested sectarian terrorists were helped escape from prison. The situation was so obvious that one of their proxies Qazi Hussein Ahmed, in his infinte wisdom, predicted the exact timeframe in which NS government was to be eliminated. The operation was to be taken 2 weeks before but Abbaji (father of NS) and some common friends mediated (read bribed) many in the army establishment and offered sweetened deals to stop it from happening. The date was forwarded and operation was to be taken as soon as Musharraf coming back from Sri Lanka. Rest is well-known.

Musharraf and his buddies created the situation more than the alleged and almost certain corruption, storming the Supreme Court and Shariah bill. They even bugged prime minister house with the help of their man in his cabinet, Ch. Shujaat who was then interior minister. Two other military agents, Sheikh Rashid and Mushahid Hussain not only kept military establishment informed of the NS planning but Mushahid Hussein actually suggested to divert flight coming to Karachi to make justification for takeover. NS trusted Mushahid too much knowing well where the loyalties of this Bihari bhayya lied but hoped to make him double agent or switch loyalties to him.

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

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

Ali_1

Well said. As a matter of fact the recent overnight change of faith of hindu journalists just as their government nodded and winked, was spectacular. They turned their pubes grey demonizing Islam and Paksitan for years and how they have shed their snake skin now in just one second is amazing - laholwila quwwat.

Here is a gem from Ustaad Daaman about our hindu friends:

mahatma ji de falsafay de charchay
Enj naiN vich jahan ho gayay

taupaaN uttay dhandorchi shaanti de
kade mantri, kade pardhaan ho gayay.

aidhoN wadh keh moaujaza haur ki hona
Daaman jay diloN musalmaan ho gayay.