Desperately Seeking Dictators and Dissenters

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

dost-mittarji:

That is the fine line I have trying to discuss...about authoritarianism in democratic societies, and Singapore is a fine example. My poser was essentially meant to discuss dictatorial policies of so-called democracies, as you have understood well...

- - -

[it`s rather amusing to see that it takes again an Indian Hindu to explain to even an Indian Muslim the difference between Dictatorship and Democracy...]

nasah saab, this article was not written from the tunnel vision of an IM and the response you refer to was not from an Indian Hindu (Sikh, really) POV... it is time we asked some questions about the flaws in democracies as well.

I would not make a blanket statement though that ``democracy is not in the blood of us Muslims``, as I wouldn`t do so for any other group. Is there any uniformity in Islam? That should say something...

- - -

BeeJay:

I know that the last two appended quotes were not yours, which is why I used asterisks to demarcate. (I do not like to have too many posts from me on my boards...). Sorry about the misunderstanding.

- - -
Feroz, thanks for the reply...

The discussion on Singapore is interesting........

Singapore is actually a dictatorship. Albeit a civilian one. People tend to never take into account civilian dictatorships. A dictatorship is defined, in the dictionary as, ``Absolute or despotic power.`` And despotic is defined as, ``oppressive power.``

Neither Musharraf nor Lee Kuan Yu are despots. But are the absolute rulers. Yes they are, as are their parties, thereby, making them both dictators. People should keep in mind that both Musharraf and Yu are (were) in power, on the basis of a Constitution. Albeit, a twisted version of it.

Singapore, since its formation, has been a one-party state. Nothing can be more absolute politically than that. Infact, it has been a one family state. Yu ruled from the formation of the country to 1990. He is the Jinnah of Singapore. So, he decided to stay in power as a Senior Minister, even after he stepped down.

Lee Kuan Yu handed over the reins of the country to another one of his ministers, for the 90s. Until Lee`s own son was ready to take over. Now Lee`s own son is the Prime Minsiter of Singapore, while dad is the Senior Minister. Lee`s daughter-in-law and the current PM`s wife, is the CEO of a huge govt. owned Singapore company. Kind of like Musharraf handing over Pakistan to Bilal Musharraf and becoming the Senior Minister, himself. And Musharraf`s daughter-in-law becoming the CEO of Paksitan State Oil.

During this whole time, the PAP (Lee`s party) has ruled Singapore. Which is an understatement. It wins every election, with a landslide larger than anything Saddam or Asad could dream up. Infact, it is much much larger victory margin than Musharraf`s PML(Q), which did not even get the highest number of votes.

Singapore, has an 83/84-seat elected parliament (plus six appointed seats). In the last few elections PAP has won 81,77,80,75 etc. of the 84 seats. Infact, in the previous election it won 51 seats unopposed.

In 2001 PAP won 81 out 84 seats again. So a father and son have ruled the country, through one party, since its birth, and there are only two opposition members in parliament. In addition, press is not free in Singapore etc. And people can get physically canned for committing small crimes. If that is not a dictatorship, then what is it?

So Singapore is far more of a dicatorship, politically, than even Egypt and Syria (and far more than Pakistan). However, Singapore is a world-wide success story. Why? Because its leaders (read dictators) did their job. Infact, Lee Kuan Yu had the world record for longest serving PM. It was later broken by another civilian semi-dictator. What was his name? Husni Mubarak? No. It was Muhathir Muhammad of Malaysia..........another success story from Asia......

As the Russian saying goes: Best govt., good czar.......Worst govt., bad czar........More bad czars than good czars...........Lets hope Musharraf is remembered as a Lee or Muhathir and not as a Zia or Mubarak............

``Still, it doesn`t make Singapore a dictatorship.``(dost-mitter ji)

it`s rather amusing to see that it takes again an Indian Hindu to explain to even an Indian Muslim the difference between Dictatorship and Democracy...

well lemme confess it openly as a Muslim the well kept secret about my religion and Democracy -- Democracy is not in the blood of us Muslims....period

.....despite its claimed Islamic origin 1400 years ago....

Re: # 50

Romair,

excellent post, with some very fine analysis. i was impressed. you stated at the end that musharraf has not attacked the feudals, but at the same time has not joined them either. how do you see the induction of people like the chaudhry`s of gurjat and the sheikh rashids? are they not large landowners who have benefited from being `lotas`? that to me is enough of an unholy alliance. as COAS, and someone to make such bold promises in 1999, he has done little to change the political structure of pakistan. you covered that in one of the earlier posts, could you expound on that a little further? thanks.

Amit

``billions in transit fees`` and ``golf at gulmarg`` were always an options for last 57 years - those options were always there. The trade opportunities between the nations was always sizeable and India has been dangling those carrots since ages.

But pakis never took - They continued jihad. If money was a consideration, pakis would never have started jihad on India in the first place. And if 911 wouldn`t have happened - jihad would have continued with full force even today - ``billions in transit fees`` notwithstanding.

They dumped taliban because Uncle Sam held gun to their head - not because Uncle sam promised money [that came later]. In fact Uncle sam was offering money long before that - to get pakis away from supporting taliban. But pakis never took ....... So what makes you so convinced that paki elite knows its ``self-interest``? ...... Or this the usual wist-ful day-dream known to affect large chunk of indian ``intelligentsia``?

Moreover - Mushy may be pliant under threat of violence, that doesn`t mean entire paki establishment is. Over the years, Paki army has been jihadized to its core - so who knows what is simmering under the surface?

Dear Farzana:
#66

Yes, I do admire Lee Kuan YIew as I do Musharraf. But there is difference. Lee came to power legitimately as the leader of a polticial party in an election. He was more an authrotiarian leader than a dictator. He moved out of the office by himself. He did not allow freewheeling opposition parties or a freewheeling press but he did not trample over the constitution. I would add that, despite being a dictatorship, Pakistan is a freer scoiety with freer media and opposition parties than Singapore. Still, it doesn`t make Singapore a dictatorship.


Mohar#73

You must be mistaking me for someone else. I am on record saying that Musharraf has not destroyed India-specific jihaid infrastructure and has kept his option open to turn the jihadi tap on whenever he wants and can do so with impunity from his Masters. But I also recognize that Musharraf is a leader of Pakistan and not of India.

Re:mohar#92

Jihad needs sponsors and funding. There will always be fundos available to do anything from a manpower perspective. However, if they dont have the backing of the elite and powerful forces in Pakistan, they cannot do anything. I do believe that the elite in Pakistan is highly conscious of its self-interest. Look how quickly they dumped the Taliban. I am suggesting that it will go against their self-interest to start jihad again after gaining billions in transit fees from gas pipelines and the opportunity to play golf at Gulmarg.

Re: # 87
//....how much incentive will there be to start another jihad?...//

You don`t understand concept of Jihad, do you? Money, vacations in Srinagar or whatever - these things may be ``incentives`` for you - certainly not for jihadis :)

#89 ,

Well thats a first....for a long time here on chowk myself and other Indian posters had grown accustomed to the equating of hatred of Pakistan with hatred for followers of a certain religion. But now we have a guy with an Indian sounding name saying the same thing.

Jeez. Here goes. A much used and abused response...

Muslims != Pakistan...

And I am not supposed to be a normal Indian because of my not so warm feelings towards Pakistan ? Also , I fail to understand the `scare` part. Yes I am scared of exams and stuff like that...

Re:avenger#89

The only person who is not normal is you. You seem to be really scared of muslims bordering on a phobia. I don`t know why. Maybe you are a Kashmiri Pundit who had a hard time. Otherwise, I cant understand how a normal Indian can be so scared of Pakistanis.

Pakistanis are not normal people. They have an irrational hatred for India which characterises them , and drives them to do some really wild stuff. Kargil-1999 for instance , was a product of this irrational hatred. Right now , this hatred has been bottled-up temporarily. To expect long term rational behaviour from the Pakistanis by offering them sops of any nature is foolhardy to say the least.

Amit ...look you sound like a middle aged guy but exhibit the naivety of a goody-goody child. It never was about Kashmir to begin with. It has always been about `CRUSH INDIA`. Kashmir is/was just an instrument towards that end. Thats just the way it is , and this is the sort of enemy Indians must deal with.

Re:mohar#86

All Indians know this. We are careful of every step with Pakistan. At the same time, this is a great opportunity for us to peacefully turn upside down the entire establishment in Pakistan by creating a hardcore peace constituency. Once there is pipeline revenue coming in and the army officers/feudals are vacationing in Srinagar with their families, how much incentive will there be to start another jihad? We should not be so scared of Pakistan that we can never take any risks.

Re: # 79
//... If it is under US pressure, so what? ...//

So a lot of things. It means that when the pressure is off, jihad will be back. US won`t be there forever holding the paki head down in the toilet bowl, will it?

Keep in mind - the basic paki ideology has not changed. Jihad has not been abandoned - it has been saved into cold storage, for a later time. When the right time comes - it will be back again.

Mushy may not be Saddam [ Mostly because, he has not been given the required time and he doesn`t have the oil resource] but don`t let that be a consolation for you. It`s like saying your local goonda may be bad but atleast he is not like Dawood Ibrahim.

So don`t get fooled by Mushy`s acquiescence under pressure and don`t be be complacent. Yes - it`s good that Mushy is doing the right things - thank god for small mercies. But it pays to realize that - at the basics, nothing has changed. So take the good things while they last and be prepared for the eventual blowback - is all I am saying.

for Muslim`s certitude -- whether progressive or regressive -- there is always a razor thin line between democracy and distatorship.....a believer`s genetic defect present even in disbelief....