Failure of Democracy in Pakistan

i think it is a real truth about failure democracy in pakistan. i like it too much thnx n plaz write.

Dear Mr. Qazi:

It`s not the ``parliamentary`` system per se that is the problem but the divvying up, or assigning, of powers to the un-elected functionaries, as you allude. Parliamentary system is not our problem. It shouldn`t be. And, I feel it wasn`t with the last President at the federal level.

You perplex me: right next door India has Parliamentary democracy. It seems to work well --willy nilly. I do not understand why you picked up the genre rather than the defacto system in Pakistan escapes my comprehension?

Please advise. Thank you.

re: limits of democracy in India
In India, democracy has become an eye-wash. People enter politics only to make money. Serving the people is only a cliche best forgotten. The following article will show that India has a long way to go to have even a functioning democracy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=355241
Sridhar

Putin Questions U.S. Terror Allies
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and PATRICK E. TYLER

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Nov. 22 — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia welcomed President Bush to his hometown today, then raised pointed questions about the reliability of two important American allies in the campaign against terrorism, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

In remarks made at Mr. Bush`s side in the majestic setting of Catherine Palace outside St. Petersburg, Mr. Putin also suggested that the disappearance of Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, was a major piece of unfinished business as the Bush administration focused its attention on a possible war in Iraq.

The Russian leader cast strong doubt on America`s choice of allies in the antiterror campaign. ``We should not forget about those who finance terrorism,`` Mr. Putin said, adding bluntly that most of the 19 terrorists who committed the Sept. 11 attacks ``are citizens of Saudi Arabia, and we should not forget about that.``

Then, turning to Pakistan, Mr. Putin abruptly said: ``Now where has Osama bin Laden taken refuge? They say he is somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan.``

Mr. Putin said that while he supported Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, he asked, ``What can happen with armies armed with weapons that exist in Pakistan, including weapons of mass destruction?``

He added, ``We should not forget about this.``

American diplomats say that Mr. Putin has often expressed doubts about the trustworthiness of Pakistan as an ally, and has referred to the Pakistani military leadership in private conversations as ``a junta with nukes.``

Senior administration officials appeared reluctant tonight to characterize Mr. Putin`s comments. One official said Mr. Putin ``expressed those kinds of concerns`` during the meeting with Mr. Bush, and suggested that Mr. Putin was ``talking about a broader problem.`` The official did not elaborate further, except to say, ``that`s his view and not ours.``

The Russian leader`s remarks did not seem to be a direct criticism of American policy, nor did they appear to be a gratuitous needling of Mr. Bush. In fact, both men emphasized the positive developments in their countries` relations since they first met in June 2001. But in the context of what both described today as a strong, personal relationship that allowed them to be extremely frank with each other, Mr. Putin seemed compelled to speak out.

Pakistanis Question Perks of Power
Many Say Military Confuses National Interest With Its Own

By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, November 22, 2002; Page A01

KARACHI, Pakistan -- Public schools here are little more than warehouses, grim concrete shells lacking libraries, sports facilities, sometimes even teachers. Classes have as many as 60 students. But the children of Pakistani military officers almost certainly are not among them. For them, there is Army Public School O Levels.

Geared toward preparation for the competitive ``O Level`` exams required by British universities, the handsome school is an educational showpiece whose computer, physics and biology labs would not seem out of place in an American suburb. Teachers make three times as much money as their public school counterparts.

The officer class in Pakistan has always had a strong sense of entitlement stemming from its dominant role in defending the country and in running it, directly or from behind the scenes, for most of Pakistan`s 55-year history. It has been aided in that regard by corrupt and incompetent civilian governments, the most recent of which was toppled in 1999 by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in a coup d`etat that many Pakistanis greeted with relief.

Three years later, though, a backlash has set in, as the military`s accumulation of lavish perks, and its growing encroachment on civilian institutions and the economy, cause many Pakistanis to ask whether uniformed leaders -- like the corrupt politicians they replaced -- are confusing the national interest with their own.

Why else, they wonder, would officers` children at the seven-year-old army school enjoy basketball courts, fields for cricket and soccer, even a petting zoo stocked with ducks and deer.

``The army considers itself a privileged class,`` Khayyam Durrani, a retired officer who serves as principal of the school, said with a smile. ``The fact is that the actual rulers in Pakistani society are the army people, so they want their children to go to a privileged institution.``

But among the critics of the military`s perks are members of Pakistan`s newly reconstituted parliament, which convened last week after last month`s elections for the first time since the military takeover. Lawmakers and party officials have vowed to halt the ``militarization`` of government, economic and educational institutions that they say has accelerated under Musharraf`s rule.

``I think this is one of the biggest issues that is confronting civil society in Pakistan,`` said Raza Rabbani, secretary general of the Pakistan People`s Party, headed by former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who lives in self-imposed exile. ``Never before has the militarization of Pakistani society been as complete as it has since`` Musharraf seized power.

Some critics go a step further, accusing the military of deliberately stoking tensions with India, particularly over Kashmir, to justify its hold on resources and power. ``Peace would be a disaster for the military,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, an anti-nuclear activist and MIT-trained physicist who teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.

There is no denying the military`s dominant role in Pakistan. The military owns the nation`s best farmland and several of its largest industrial conglomerates. Retired or active-duty military officers run the ports, postal service, electric utilities, sports federations, telecommunications authority, culture ministry, mineral development agency, anti-narcotics police, railroads, civil aviation authority, national shipping company and Pakistan`s biggest steel mill. They hold top administrative posts at Pakistan`s best universities. Many of Pakistan`s ambassadors are retired officers.

While Musharraf has vowed to restore ``real democracy,`` he also has tried to institutionalize the army`s role in politics by means of recent constitutional amendments that he says do not need parliamentary approval. One of them creates a new National Security Council to oversee parliament. The council, chaired by Musharraf, will include the military service chiefs as well as the chief ministers of Pakistan`s four provinces. Another amendment gives Musharraf the power to dissolve the assembly.

Opposition lawmakers, among them leaders of an alliance of fundamentalist Islamic parties that has emerged as a main power broker in the new assembly, have vowed to roll back the changes, although they are unlikely to muster the two-thirds majority needed to do so.

Musharraf saw to that when he barred the country`s two main opposition leaders -- Bhutto and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who also lives in exile -- from participating in the elections on corruption grounds. In doing so, he paved the way for a pro-government party, the Quaid-e-Azam faction of the Pakistan Muslim League, to claim the largest share of seats, although the party fell short of the simple majority needed to form a government on its own. The party finally succeeded Thursday in cobbling together a narrow majority that elected Zafarullah Khan Jamali, a career politician from the province of Baluchistan, as prime minister.

The Bush administration, which considers Musharraf a close ally in the war on terrorism, has expressed concern about the constitutional amendments but has generally tried to stay out of the civil-military debate in Pakistan. Last month, the State Department described the Oct. 10 elections as an ``important milestone`` in the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.

Government officials say the military`s preeminent role is justified by several factors. They cite in particular the looming threat of India, with its lopsided advantage in population and resources, and the dismal record of civilian politicians who plundered Pakistan`s wealth and drove many of its institutions to ruin. Any special privileges that accrue to the officer class, they say, are aimed at compensating for low salaries relative to those at private corporations and rewarding those who have dedicated their lives to protecting the nation.

``Pakistani forces are not some sort of peacetime army,`` said military spokesman Brig. Salaut Raza. ``We shed our blood for the nation. Pakistan armed forces, we are living in a peculiar situation -- our next-door neighbor is our enemy. Already we have fought three wars.``

The military`s primacy is reflected in the national budget, about 22 percent of which goes for defense, compared with 16 percent in the United States and 15 percent in India, according to the CIA World Factbook. The high proportion of defense spending has come at the expense of social programs in this impoverished nation of 147 million, which spends 42 percent less per capita on health care than other countries at the same income level, according to the World Bank.

Whatever the hazards faced by Pakistani officers, they also inhabit a kind of parallel universe that insulates them from the hardships endured by other Pakistanis. Many live with their families in manicured, colonial-era ``cantonments`` with good schools, well-maintained roads and reliable power and water supplies.

One of the fanciest clubs in Karachi is the Defense Housing Authority County and Golf Club, a sparkling new facility with lush fairways, a two-story driving range and a gracious stone clubhouse overlooking an inlet of the Arabian Sea. Active-duty military personnel can join the club for an initiation fee of $16, compared with $9,166 for civilians, according to the club`s fee schedule.

Under an arcane point-based system that dates to the British Raj, the military also rewards its senior officers by allowing them to purchase agricultural and urban land from the army`s vast inventory of real estate at prices far below market value. A number of these properties are grouped into ``defense societies`` in tony suburbs of Karachi and other major cities. The societies are administered by the Defense Housing Authority, which ensures the provision of municipal services. Officers who acquire such land often develop it as rental property or sell it for hefty profits.

One of Pakistan`s most coveted addresses, for example, is the blandly named Army Housing Scheme II, which is built on the site of an old antiaircraft battery in the upscale Karachi suburb of Clifton. A gated community protected by paramilitary troops, the development consists of spacious, Mediterranean-style villas grouped around a playground and an elaborately landscaped Japanese-style garden. Nearby are clothing boutiques, jewelry stores, restaurants and a yoga studio.

Property owners in the neighborhood include several army corps commanders, Interior Minister Moeenuddin Haider, a retired general and Musharraf, who rents his large stone house to a German business executive and his wife for $1,416 per month, according to a local real estate agent. Musharraf owns seven pieces of property in all, including six residential plots and a piece of agricultural land, according to the asset list he disclosed shortly after seizing power.

Raza, the military spokesman, said he would not comment on specific cases. But he defended the reward system, saying the army was in most cases turning over ``barren`` land that would not have been developed otherwise. He also said the program helps compensate for low salaries and pensions. ``It`s part of the package,`` he said.

Individual perks aside, the military presides over a network of businesses and industry that assures it a dominant role in the economy. In the 1980s, for example, the military government of Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq set up the National Logistics Cell, which ferried supplies to Islamic rebels fighting to oust Soviet forces from Afghanistan. The organization is now the largest freight company in Pakistan, grabbing business from railroads and private trucking firms, according to Hasan Askari Rizvi, an academic and author who has written widely on the Pakistani military.

In a similar vein, the military after independence established several charitable foundations to look after the welfare of retirees. They have since grown into huge business empires. The army`s Fauji Foundation, for example, is Pakistan`s largest industrial conglomerate with assets of $133 million in 1996, including sugar and cereal mills, cement plants, fertilizer factories and a power project, according to Rizvi.

Installing men in uniform in civilian businesses and institutions did not begin with Musharraf. In 1980, Zia established a 10 percent quota for military personnel in civilian government jobs. But Musharraf, by all accounts, has taken the process further than his uniformed predecessors, dispatching military ``monitoring teams`` to key civilian agencies and replacing top officials with senior officers. He contends that corrupt and incompetent management by civilians left him little choice.

Durrani, the principal of Karachi`s army school, acknowledged that he is troubled by the military`s gradual encroachment on civilian institutions. At the same time, however, he has big plans for the school, including a new auditorium and perhaps even a swimming pool.

``I just have to convince the general,`` he said, referring to the school`s chairman. ``If the general wants to arrange for funds, he can.``

Special correspondent Kamran Khan and researcher Robert Thomason in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

re: Failure of democracy in Pakistan
There has never been a real democracy in Pak, so the question of its failure does not arise. Politicians in Pak are just opportunists, ready to tow any line, compromise on anything. They seem to lack in conscience. Read the following article published in Forbes. It seems Benazir Bhutto, after striking a deal with the army, went to North Korea for bringing the 2 pariah nations (at that time both were) together so they can exchange some critical information. Result was Nodong, reshaped as Ghauri missile for Pak and a centrifuge machine for North Korea. Did it bother Madame Bhutto what the implications for world peace would be? Heck, no. Pak does not meet the first criteria for a democratic expt viz a leadership committed to the idea. Read on:

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=267268
Sridhar

sameerJB #39
Except for the fraud in the actual vote casting and the direct exchange of money as the author alleges( added to the absence of any issue-basis to provide a decent cover for horsetrading), this description sounds like how the US Congress works.

Today in the Indian Parliament for the first time one MP manhandled another over the UP confidence vote issue.

Sometimes these bodies are just useful for keeping a lot of powerful people too busy inside to create real trouble outside.

Nasah: This one is for you. Enjoy reading another page from democracy AH Musharraf style.
Naked manipulation to fix elections
Politically Incorrect
By Amir Mateen
ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly went through over 12 hours of tortuous labor to elect its Speaker and his deputy who will run its affairs for as long as it will, if the three proverbial A`s of Allah, America and the Army are generous this time, last.
The Lower House now has in Chaudhry Amir Hussain`s shape the most passive custodian to handle one of the most aggressive and troublesome Assemblies in the country`s history.
If Amir Hussain`s performance as Parliamentary Affairs Minister during Nawaz Sharif`s first government is any guide, the establishment has a serious crisis at hand. A trailer of things to come was displayed on Tuesday that saw frontal attacks unleashed against the president`s person, his policies and his legitimacy to retain his office. But a more ominous development was the way Aimal Kasi`s death was condoled.
While diplomats watched from the galleries, Pakistan`s Parliament denounced ``those responsible for Kasi`s `murder,` whether in Pakistan or outside (read America).``
Worse, the establishment surpassed its earlier record of naked manipulation to `fix` the Speaker`s elections. But it was put into practice so shoddily that the fixers were caught with their pants down.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi, whose three-year ordeal has sharpened his wits markedly, jumped at the opportunity to expose their trick by showing to the House about five blank papers emerging from the ballot box. Three votes came out pressed together. There was even a page from Shujaat`s letterhead found in the box.
Interestingly, the formula was not changed even though it had been published in The |News. The `lotas` were required to bring out their ballots while stuffing a blank paper in the box. A trusted loyalist was supposed to later cast them together. But somehow the `loyalist,` Safdar Shakir in this case, allegedly blundered by not just failing to cast his own vote but also losing five purchased ones in the process.
It was fun to see the fixers squirming on their seats to see so much money and effort going down the drain. Some of them had been working till the wee hours of Tuesday, hunting down the vulnerable `horses`, this time from the PML (N).
PPP`s Aslam Bodla was being followed as late as 3 am. What had started as a preliminary session of purchasing loyalties of about ten PPP members reached new heights for the election of Amir Hussain.
Worryingly, this practice is going to get worse for the election of the Prime Minister, if at all they are held on the scheduled Thursday. It is quite possible that the PML-Q may need more time to win over more opposition members to ensure its victory in the PM`s election.
As things stand the Q-League`s situation, despite immense buying and selling, is anything but secured. There is just a gap of 16 votes between Amir Hussain`s 167 votes and the combined 151 votes of Aitzaz Ahsan and Liaquat Baloch. Even if one adds the nine invalid votes the figure of 176 in a secret balloting remains risky for Jamali to become the Prime Minister.
Who knows what might have been the result if the three opposition parties had put up a joint candidate. The figure for PML-Q deputy speaker further downed to 163, which is nine short of the 172 required for the election of the prime minister.
It is obvious that the fixers need to do much more homework to accomplish that number in an open election, where many turncoats might back off. Reports suggest that the operation had already been launched and more `brief cases` had come into operation.
Speculation was on about the new turncoats. As Aitzaz Ahsan got two votes more than their strength of 69, the accusing fingers were directed towards the PML-N, where six votes were missing. Two members hailing from the two most important PML-N constituencies were prime suspects besides members from Multan and Khanewal.
Also under intense scrutiny was Benazir Bhutto`s last minute decision of withdrawing her candidate. Many felt she was under pressure from the Americans to support the MMA candidate. Others felt that she knew it was a lost cause so why taints the liberal image of siding with the MMA.
Whatever, the transition of speaker took off in a bad way. What the official tricksters ignore is that with each immoral step the establishment`s writ is being further curtailed. It is not just the things that they are doing but also the way they are doing.
Never in the otherwise checkered history of Parliament the Speaker`s elections were rigged as blatantly as this time. One has to give credit to opposition parties that they let the issue go. They even let the open purchase of their members pass. The whole thing was so open that it was visible even to the non-professional eye.
There was coterie of `players who were negotiating deals right there on the backbenches. But the more the establishment is using these tactics the more it`s getting bogged down and provoking the assembly to further hostility. No points for guessing where this ire will be vented in the end.

re:#17 by nawaid
You seem to pose the question: Is not a dictatorship better than a democracy if it offers a better standard of living to its people?
Those who have lost freedom will tell you how precious it is (eg the victims of Nazi holocaust). Those who have never experienced real freedom (eg those in Saudi Arabia) or experienced such freedom in fits and starts (eg those in Pakistan) will not know the value of freedom.
I personally will prefer freedom to any kind of prosperity. Once you are free, you have destiny in your own hands and you can do what you want with it.
Sridhar

Can anyone comment on what exactly is holding up government formation in Pakistan?

Its more than a month since the elections, isn`t this sort of prolonged uncertainty worrying, esp as Musharraf`s personal role in future setup is also up in the air?

Ref #35 Harimau:
No doubt the commies have have ruined bengal but demographics is also a factor. According to the latest census West Bengal has a density of population of 905 people/ SQ Km(Highest among states....apart from Delhi). Among better-off states TN: 478, Punjab:482.

Factors like population density( A major factor in impoverished South Asia), are to a major extent beyond the control of today`s politicians.

My point was you have to make a fair comparison. Look at all the factors and especially the starting point. Bengal started(At the time of independence) at a disadvantage WRT say Tamil Nadu. I agree....over the years it has only become worse. If we do not do that I can prove that the leadership in Argentina is great. Mind you, Argentina was among the most prosperous countries in the world after WWII..... Look at them now....Food riots and all.

Pakistan(Present day Pakistan) no doubt started at an advantage. Obviously the advantage was basically in agriculture. With time agriculture will become less and less of a factor. Whoever put more emphasis on improving infrastructure(instead of hanging ex Prime ministers) will do better.

Ref ssdhillon #31

[It is no secret that Bengal, Bihar, Orissa bring down the economic performance of the country as a whole.]

Calcutta was as much an economic powerhouse as Bombay before Jyoti Basu and Company took over and attempted to impose Marxism-Leninism on West Bengal. It is the Communists who are responsible for the economic decline of West Bengal and a couple of years back, Jyoti Basu was reduced to begging NRIs to invest in West Bengal.

[Pakistan does not have it`s eastern wing any more.]

To exploit. You can read all sorts of statistics that prove that West Pakistan took in more money from East Pakistan than spent on it.

[This is a silly argument. You can start comparing yourself to B`desh and justify that you have done well.]

Sorry, Pakistan can`t do even that. In truth, Bangladesh is doing better than Pakistan.

Doesn`t look like she is -- here is the latest:

ISLAMABAD: Benazir Bhutto has directed her party leaders in Islamabad to immediately start disciplinary proceedings against three ringleaders of PPPP forward block and expel them from the party before the election of prime minister, sources said.

They said initially Faisal Saleh Hayat, Nourez Shakoor and Rao Sikandar will be expelled on the charges of violation of the party discipline and weakening of the bargaining position of the party at the crucial moment.(Jung)

``That is why BB is quite about it.``(sameer)

sameer:
yes that was indeed a surprise -- is she in it?

ssdhillon: Pakistan actually did better than India for most of post independnce period and has oly fallen behind for the last few years. It is the trend that worrys Pakistanis that 20-30 dollar per capita behind right now. Trend is very worrisome. I wrote something about it and you might want to read it as post #153 or 154 under an article titled, ``In Defense of the Left`` by sameer.
Pakistan has been ``Punjab dominated`` since 1971. Brfore that we had East Pakistan to compare against your West Behgal, Orissa and Bihar.
And of course, we are Muslims with angelic, self annointed military establishment.
nasah and rozaiba: It is going to be Jamali with or without the help of MMA unless MQM miraculously chooses to oppose Musharraf. If it is anybody from opposition, assembly/ government will be very short-lived. In re-elections, more rigging will make PPPP to lose more ground, MMA will lose more, MQM and PML(N) need not worry with small presence. That is why, PPPP and MMA are trying hard to avoid dissolution of assembly whereas others are not that much worried. At the same time for PPPP and MMA joining Musharraf now and paying later when they will have to defend their stand against anti-Musharraf forces possibly led by resurgent PML (N). If PPPP supports Musharraf now, it will be toasted next time around.
The forward block might be a blessing for PPPP for future. Now sacrifice 10 members to gain little foothold in the door while remaining opposed to Musharraf and avoiding dissolution of assemblies in short term. That is why BB is quite about it. [Or maybe Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat was once rumored to be a potential suitor for BB until Asif Zardari moved in along with a Qureshi from Multan. Nusrat Bhutto preferred Shia over Sunni eliminating Qureshi saheb and then between two Syed Shias, Zardari won with the help of some aunties.]

#17 by nawaid on November 15, 2002 5:30am PT

++
is India is doing better then Pakistan? standard of living is high in India in comparison to Pak?
++

That is a strange argument. Pakistan could have done much better with a democratic system where the leaders were accountable to the people.

Pakistan should be doing much better than India. 70% of Pakistan`s population lives in Punjab. At the time of independence Punjab was
by far the most prosperous province. In India Punjab still has the highest per capita income(even though it is not very industrialized). It is no secret that Bengal, Bihar, Orissa bring down the economic performance of the country as a whole. Pakistan does not have it`s eastern wing any more. That would have beeen a fair comparison. Inspite of that the per capita incomes of the two countries are almost the same now. A couple of decades ago Pakistan was doing better in that aspect.

The truth is India has more poor people and poverty is probably more visible. However that does not mean Pakistani leaders have done a better job than Indian leaders(Not that the Indian leadership has been outstanding). This is a silly argument. You can start comparing yourself to B`desh and justify that you have done well.