Why Democracy?
Ghazia Aslam October 18, 2005
#94 Posted by Romair on October 20, 2005 8:28:42 am
Ijaz_gul #70:``However, due to geo strategic factors Pakistan has consistently been able to attract aid, which utilised with whatever corruption was able to stimulate the economy. So what Romair calls 40 years is actually the time of artificial insemination. Democracy on the other hand never took roots.``
Your analysis is correct, except for the part, above.........
Pakistan has not been able to establish democratic traditions, due to the classical problem of feudalism. As you mentioned, the moment Jinnah died the landed elite moved in and took over politics. Jinnah is the only guy who could have sorted them out. Hardly anyone from the landed elite leadership of West Pakistan, actually wanted Pakistan created to begin with. Jinnah had to bring them along, kicking and screaming. Mazari (himself a tribal landowner) points out the challenges Jinnah faced with the landed leadership, in his book, ``A Journey to Disallusionment.``
It was only Jinnah`s personality that was able to intimidate the landed elite. As well as the fact that, eventually, Jinnah was able to by-pass the leadership and go straight to the people of the area, who did side with him. It was probably because of his fears of the landed elite usurping power again, that he centralized so much power in his own hands, throughout the creation of Pakistan, and afterwards........
It is virtually impossible to get rid of feudalism, in a country in a quick manner. It either takes centuries of slow transformation. Or civil wars. The USA fought a civil war, after which the plantation owner lost his power.
The third way is through rapid economic progress in urban areas, thereby providing outlets to the peasant laborers. This is why feudal parties, traditionally, will always be against economic progress. It will result in their death. This is why Pakistan`s economic progress has always been the worst under feudally dominated parties........
As for Pakistan`s economic growth being based on artificial insemination; that is not supported by facts, nor statistical analyis. Artificial insemination cannot result in four decades of economic growth for a city, much less a country. In comparison to 1947, Pakistan has had significant economic growth, by third world standards. Do read Shahid Javed Burki`s work on this. I will comment more later. But by the end of the 60s Pakistan was being taught at Harvard as a successful case study, for third world economiss.
Had Bhutto not nationalized everything, Pakistan`s companies, which were ahead of Malaysian, Korean, Singapore etc. companies, would have been giants today...........
Infact, the overwhelming amount of artificial insemination that came in, was during the 70s and 80s. And that was from expat remmitances. Pakistan did recieve loans, but really not much aid. Pakistan`s economy would have been better off without the loans..........
Your analysis is correct, except for the part, above.........
Pakistan has not been able to establish democratic traditions, due to the classical problem of feudalism. As you mentioned, the moment Jinnah died the landed elite moved in and took over politics. Jinnah is the only guy who could have sorted them out. Hardly anyone from the landed elite leadership of West Pakistan, actually wanted Pakistan created to begin with. Jinnah had to bring them along, kicking and screaming. Mazari (himself a tribal landowner) points out the challenges Jinnah faced with the landed leadership, in his book, ``A Journey to Disallusionment.``
It was only Jinnah`s personality that was able to intimidate the landed elite. As well as the fact that, eventually, Jinnah was able to by-pass the leadership and go straight to the people of the area, who did side with him. It was probably because of his fears of the landed elite usurping power again, that he centralized so much power in his own hands, throughout the creation of Pakistan, and afterwards........
It is virtually impossible to get rid of feudalism, in a country in a quick manner. It either takes centuries of slow transformation. Or civil wars. The USA fought a civil war, after which the plantation owner lost his power.
The third way is through rapid economic progress in urban areas, thereby providing outlets to the peasant laborers. This is why feudal parties, traditionally, will always be against economic progress. It will result in their death. This is why Pakistan`s economic progress has always been the worst under feudally dominated parties........
As for Pakistan`s economic growth being based on artificial insemination; that is not supported by facts, nor statistical analyis. Artificial insemination cannot result in four decades of economic growth for a city, much less a country. In comparison to 1947, Pakistan has had significant economic growth, by third world standards. Do read Shahid Javed Burki`s work on this. I will comment more later. But by the end of the 60s Pakistan was being taught at Harvard as a successful case study, for third world economiss.
Had Bhutto not nationalized everything, Pakistan`s companies, which were ahead of Malaysian, Korean, Singapore etc. companies, would have been giants today...........
Infact, the overwhelming amount of artificial insemination that came in, was during the 70s and 80s. And that was from expat remmitances. Pakistan did recieve loans, but really not much aid. Pakistan`s economy would have been better off without the loans..........
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#93 Posted by Kulharee on October 20, 2005 8:18:54 am
Re: # 92
Aquaris, UK is a monarchy like Swaziland is a Monarchy. Think of the UK as a Zoo and Queen as it’s prime attraction female Baboon, Charlie as a Monkey and Camilla Parker Brown as elephant butt cleaner. Queen’s job is to read a prepared statement on the Telle on Christmas eve. She doesn’t make any laws anymore, unless you have a slow internet connection.
Aquaris, UK is a monarchy like Swaziland is a Monarchy. Think of the UK as a Zoo and Queen as it’s prime attraction female Baboon, Charlie as a Monkey and Camilla Parker Brown as elephant butt cleaner. Queen’s job is to read a prepared statement on the Telle on Christmas eve. She doesn’t make any laws anymore, unless you have a slow internet connection.
#92 Posted by aquaris on October 20, 2005 8:06:12 am
I agree UK does , every thing a democracy is supposed to do , and in a way , a democracy is supposed to do....
None the less...... UK is technically a monarchy.... even ceremonial , I asked this question because the author of this Thread said some where
````A monarch achieves to maximize residual revenue of the state over unlimited time period.``
and in the process........ HAS to care for the social well being of its subjects, which forces him to do social good...... and although monarchies have not survived the test of time, yet the possibility to extend it to a unlimited time frame , does provided an incentive.....
...... Now UK, which though acts like a democracy, is still technically a monarchy,.....and we have seen , in recent history, they withdrew from indian sub-contenent as well as from other places,....... Yet there are still some countries for example Canada, and
Australia.... which have kept their subject status intact......
This Monarchy thing seems to be working pretty well, even though its now just a ceremonial thing..... at least in some countries...
#91 Posted by walkman on October 20, 2005 7:34:07 am
Re: # 89
Ironically most of the countries that have ``Democratic`` in their name often are quite less than democratic...
Mantolives, I agree 100%.
Ironically most of the countries that have ``Democratic`` in their name often are quite less than democratic...
Mantolives, I agree 100%.
#90 Posted by walkman on October 20, 2005 7:32:14 am
Re: # 82
Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do?
If by enlightenment you mean religious? Religous enlightenment is everywhere in America. Every city or town has at least one church or temple. My city has dozens of churches. If you mean to say that America is without enlightenment that is a slanderous statement. If that is your intention I am questioning your motives. Please elaborate.
It certainly does not sever a ``ruling class`` to keep people poor. Please remember that there are funds availiable to the working poor to attend college. It is within the reach of every American to become educated.
Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do?
If by enlightenment you mean religious? Religous enlightenment is everywhere in America. Every city or town has at least one church or temple. My city has dozens of churches. If you mean to say that America is without enlightenment that is a slanderous statement. If that is your intention I am questioning your motives. Please elaborate.
It certainly does not sever a ``ruling class`` to keep people poor. Please remember that there are funds availiable to the working poor to attend college. It is within the reach of every American to become educated.
#89 Posted by MantoLives on October 20, 2005 7:27:22 am
Walkman...
Ironically most of the countries that have ``Democratic`` in their name often are quite less than democratic...
People`s Democratic Republic of North Korea.. Democratic Republic of Congo ..etc...
Ironically most of the countries that have ``Democratic`` in their name often are quite less than democratic...
People`s Democratic Republic of North Korea.. Democratic Republic of Congo ..etc...
#88 Posted by Kulharee on October 20, 2005 7:25:09 am
Re: # 82
Mirmir Sahib, I think you need to go back to high school geography. The word “democracy” means different things to different people. One doesn’t have to put it in the titles, but implement it in the state to have a meaning. Do you hear the word “Azan” in an “Azan”? does that make it not an “Azan”? or Nimaz not a Nimaz? The Communists or the centrally controlled economies that you listed define the term differently, to them the state owning all the national assets (no “private” ownership) meant “Democracy”. Developed and modern states did not feel a need to add “Democratic” republic as a prefix to their name, or for that matter indicate their religion in their Passports.
Mirmir Sahib, I think you need to go back to high school geography. The word “democracy” means different things to different people. One doesn’t have to put it in the titles, but implement it in the state to have a meaning. Do you hear the word “Azan” in an “Azan”? does that make it not an “Azan”? or Nimaz not a Nimaz? The Communists or the centrally controlled economies that you listed define the term differently, to them the state owning all the national assets (no “private” ownership) meant “Democracy”. Developed and modern states did not feel a need to add “Democratic” republic as a prefix to their name, or for that matter indicate their religion in their Passports.
#87 Posted by walkman on October 20, 2005 7:23:58 am
Re: # 85
U.S. law and it`s court system was based on Great Britian`s. Officials are elected. I`m not sure why all the ignorance about what a Decomcracy is. In a Democracy, people - all people have the right to vote elected officials. The officials represent the people who elected them; their roles are to create and uphold laws.
A country that tacks the name ``Democratic`` to their name doesn`t make their legal system a Decmocracy. All people must be able to vote. Even Russia now is a Democracy, although plenty of dirty tricks keep it less so.
To answer your question, ``a constitutional Monarchy like that of UK`` is indeed a democracy. The Monarchy does not rule, it is merely a national symbol.
U.S. law and it`s court system was based on Great Britian`s. Officials are elected. I`m not sure why all the ignorance about what a Decomcracy is. In a Democracy, people - all people have the right to vote elected officials. The officials represent the people who elected them; their roles are to create and uphold laws.
A country that tacks the name ``Democratic`` to their name doesn`t make their legal system a Decmocracy. All people must be able to vote. Even Russia now is a Democracy, although plenty of dirty tricks keep it less so.
To answer your question, ``a constitutional Monarchy like that of UK`` is indeed a democracy. The Monarchy does not rule, it is merely a national symbol.
#86 Posted by MantoLives on October 20, 2005 7:00:30 am
aquaris...
UK is a monarchy only in form... in substance it is an ordinary democratic state...
UK is a monarchy only in form... in substance it is an ordinary democratic state...
#85 Posted by aquaris on October 20, 2005 6:58:33 am
BTW where would you put a constitutional Monarchy like that of UK....and a pretty successfull one..... in the prespective....??
#84 Posted by kaurasach on October 20, 2005 6:54:15 am
To add to Dulla`s post. The ``terrorists`` vicitmized other sikhs more often than Hindus. Many of our acquaintances (all sikhs) fled border areas for other states as far as MP, and other Deccan states.
Many of the Hindus were killed by the CID and other agencies to malign terrorists. Those innocent Hindus killed were not in the best interest of the terrorists or a threat to them.
Most terrorists were created by the govt. of criminals, personal rivallaries, etc. - undermining the true fighters of the cause who were a tiny minority.
Many of the Hindus were killed by the CID and other agencies to malign terrorists. Those innocent Hindus killed were not in the best interest of the terrorists or a threat to them.
Most terrorists were created by the govt. of criminals, personal rivallaries, etc. - undermining the true fighters of the cause who were a tiny minority.
#83 Posted by MantoLives on October 20, 2005 6:51:05 am
Dear Ghazia,
``About Pakistani constitution…have you looked up figures on who voted for and against Objectives resolution which ended up being an important part of 73 constitution?``
Objectives Resolution as a preamble was part of not just 1973 constitution but the 1956 and 1962 constitutions as well... The OR did not become an important part of the 1973 constitution untill it was added as a Substantive part of the constitution under Article 2 A by General Zia ul Haq, omitting rather interestingly the word ``Freely`` from the context of the minorities right to freedom. I believe there is a US case law that suggests that such an omission would be taken as a mistake and the word freely can be reinstated. I shall be taking up the matter in coming years... The Constitution of 1973 was passed by consensus in 1973... it had the support of everyone from Ghaffar Khan`s Pushtoon Nationalists to Islamic Fundamentalists ala Mufti Mahmood and Noorani.
``Besides, the constitution we have now has been affected by more than 7 judicial cases…starting with Asma Jilani v. Government of the Punjab and till the more recent Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf.``
You mean Zafar Ali Shah ... you don`t think Dred Scott, Plessey Vs Ferguson etc played an important role in US constitutional history?
``Judiciary has evolved the constitution in Pakistan.``
Refer above.
``Judiciary is not supposed to play that role in Constitutional Democracies.``
I think you are taking a very British view... where there is an unwritten constitution. However ... under written constitutions judiciary plays a very important role:
Please refer to the following case Law
Swami Keshavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala AIR 1973
I think we all agree that India is a constitutional democracy.
``However, the question that what consequences the role of judiciary had on constitutional democracy in Pakistan is a very intriguing one and I happen to be researching on that right now. Havent formed any opinion yet though. ``
Ghazia ... I still don`t see any statement... you seem to be stalling.
nb,
As the Indian census (2001) shows... it is clearly a few million short... my claim stands... though I don`t see any ideological brownie point either way. Read what Arjunm wrote... he said just as many... I don`t dispute that the Indian Muslim population post 1971 has been only a little less than post 1971 Pakistan`s... but the claim that there are more is clearly a fabrication... and pointless... BTW... it is short (by 3 million or so) even when one excludes Ahmadis from Pakistani numbers... and includes in Ahmadis in Indian numbers... to keep it constitutionally accurate.
``About Pakistani constitution…have you looked up figures on who voted for and against Objectives resolution which ended up being an important part of 73 constitution?``
Objectives Resolution as a preamble was part of not just 1973 constitution but the 1956 and 1962 constitutions as well... The OR did not become an important part of the 1973 constitution untill it was added as a Substantive part of the constitution under Article 2 A by General Zia ul Haq, omitting rather interestingly the word ``Freely`` from the context of the minorities right to freedom. I believe there is a US case law that suggests that such an omission would be taken as a mistake and the word freely can be reinstated. I shall be taking up the matter in coming years... The Constitution of 1973 was passed by consensus in 1973... it had the support of everyone from Ghaffar Khan`s Pushtoon Nationalists to Islamic Fundamentalists ala Mufti Mahmood and Noorani.
``Besides, the constitution we have now has been affected by more than 7 judicial cases…starting with Asma Jilani v. Government of the Punjab and till the more recent Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf.``
You mean Zafar Ali Shah ... you don`t think Dred Scott, Plessey Vs Ferguson etc played an important role in US constitutional history?
``Judiciary has evolved the constitution in Pakistan.``
Refer above.
``Judiciary is not supposed to play that role in Constitutional Democracies.``
I think you are taking a very British view... where there is an unwritten constitution. However ... under written constitutions judiciary plays a very important role:
Please refer to the following case Law
Swami Keshavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala AIR 1973
I think we all agree that India is a constitutional democracy.
``However, the question that what consequences the role of judiciary had on constitutional democracy in Pakistan is a very intriguing one and I happen to be researching on that right now. Havent formed any opinion yet though. ``
Ghazia ... I still don`t see any statement... you seem to be stalling.
nb,
As the Indian census (2001) shows... it is clearly a few million short... my claim stands... though I don`t see any ideological brownie point either way. Read what Arjunm wrote... he said just as many... I don`t dispute that the Indian Muslim population post 1971 has been only a little less than post 1971 Pakistan`s... but the claim that there are more is clearly a fabrication... and pointless... BTW... it is short (by 3 million or so) even when one excludes Ahmadis from Pakistani numbers... and includes in Ahmadis in Indian numbers... to keep it constitutionally accurate.
#82 Posted by mirmir on October 20, 2005 6:45:15 am
Re: # 61
mohar11...
Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do?
Please, those of you who write so glibly of democracy - what do you mean by the word? What does the following mean?????
People`s Democratic Republic of Yemen
Lao People`s Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of East Timor
German Democratic Republic
Belarusian Democratic Republic
Democratic People`s Republic of Korea
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Democratic Republic of Spice Girl Haters
Do you suppose there`s a consensus among these folks about the meaning of the word??????? Maybe some of you could contact them and set them straight.
Why isn`t the U.S.A. called someting like ``The Democratic States of America?`` Why no People`s Democratic Republic of Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand or England, or Iceland, or South Africa? I don`t believe that there`s even a ``Democratic Republic of India.``
mirmir
mohar11...
Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do?
Please, those of you who write so glibly of democracy - what do you mean by the word? What does the following mean?????
People`s Democratic Republic of Yemen
Lao People`s Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of East Timor
German Democratic Republic
Belarusian Democratic Republic
Democratic People`s Republic of Korea
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Democratic Republic of Spice Girl Haters
Do you suppose there`s a consensus among these folks about the meaning of the word??????? Maybe some of you could contact them and set them straight.
Why isn`t the U.S.A. called someting like ``The Democratic States of America?`` Why no People`s Democratic Republic of Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand or England, or Iceland, or South Africa? I don`t believe that there`s even a ``Democratic Republic of India.``
mirmir
#81 Posted by temporal on October 20, 2005 6:44:26 am
sahara #77:
ok...then let me point #55....what is your take?
ok...then let me point #55....what is your take?
#80 Posted by mirmir on October 20, 2005 6:43:20 am
Re: # 61
mohar11...
Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do?
Please, those of you who write so glibly of democracy - what do you mean by the word? What does the following mean?????
People`s Democratic Republic of Yemen
Lao People`s Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of East Timor
German Democratic Republic
Belarusian Democratic Republic
Democratic People`s Republic of Korea
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Democratic Republic of Spice Girl Haters
Do you suppose there`s a consensus among these folks about the meaning of the word??????? Maybe some of you could contact them and set them straight.
Why isn`t the U.S.A. called someting like ``The Democratic States of America?`` Why no People`s Democratic Republic of Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand or England, or Iceland, or South Africa? I don`t believe that there`s even a ``Democratic Republic of India.``
mirmir
mohar11...
Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do?
Please, those of you who write so glibly of democracy - what do you mean by the word? What does the following mean?????
People`s Democratic Republic of Yemen
Lao People`s Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of East Timor
German Democratic Republic
Belarusian Democratic Republic
Democratic People`s Republic of Korea
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Democratic Republic of Spice Girl Haters
Do you suppose there`s a consensus among these folks about the meaning of the word??????? Maybe some of you could contact them and set them straight.
Why isn`t the U.S.A. called someting like ``The Democratic States of America?`` Why no People`s Democratic Republic of Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand or England, or Iceland, or South Africa? I don`t believe that there`s even a ``Democratic Republic of India.``
mirmir
#79 Posted by arjun_m on October 20, 2005 5:34:14 am
#69 by HP on October 19, 2005 8:21pm PT
Aww...paki`s pissed off...the problem with your line of reasoning is that only pakis fall for it..
bottom line...this is how the west sees it....
India = IT, indian culture, indian food..
Pakistan = jihad, islamic terrorism, taliban,madrassahs...
Aww...paki`s pissed off...the problem with your line of reasoning is that only pakis fall for it..
bottom line...this is how the west sees it....
India = IT, indian culture, indian food..
Pakistan = jihad, islamic terrorism, taliban,madrassahs...
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- quin: Re: # 2 MatloobZaman, Thank... Honor Killings in Babakot
- quin: Honour killings and women... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: #47 hamidm: sigh..re-read #27.... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: tahmed, .... are these judges... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 45 faruk mian, ....... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 48 allah mian, ...... US Commando Strike in
- wiseguyin: Re: # 30 [[[ ...if... US Commando Strike in
- wiseguyin: Re: # 47 [[[ #40... US Commando Strike in
