List of Armed forces officers heading civilian institutions...updated as of 2004

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Good point, I think about the countries you've mentioned, Uncle Sam is to be credited for getting democracy to work there,

Does the US give aid to these countries? With the exception of Botswana, yes.

But.

Was the US giving aid to India during the 1950s or even the 1960s, when India aligned itself with the USSR? Is it really so difficult to believe that democracy was brought about by the efforts of a committed leadership heading a popular political party that could reign in the military in India?

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

it's Uncle Sam who just ruined these countries, sealed the fate of their people, and just put them under her own control.

Since this discussion is taking place in the context of military rule in Pakistan, and since you seem to be implying that democracy leads to subordination to the US, what makes you think that Musharraf is not a pawn of the USA?

On the other hand, why don't you go and take a look at development statistics for Turkey, India, and South Africa. You could even look at Botswana, which was a shining example of development in sub-saharan Africa until it was hit by an AIDS epidemic. What you will find is that these countries have reaped a democratic dividend in terms of human development. Can the same be said for Pakistan?

MD

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

*sigh*



Actually, it kind of does.



There is one major problem with what I'm sure you thought was a very cunning plan... noone elects a military dictator. Courts are bound to act in accordance with the constitution (itself embodying the will of the people). Legislatures have to listen to courts and, more importantly, can be recalled/dismissed through popular elections. The executive, while also subject to elections, can also be held in check by the courts and legislature.

In your system, you have an unrepresentative institution (the army) holding itself accountable. The problem with that is that at no point in time is it possible to assume that the army embodies the will of the people. Surely you can see the qualitative difference between checks and balances in democracy, and those that you've advocated. Ultimately, governments should be accountable to the people.

And don't even get me started on the possible procedural issues with what you've suggested...



I find it ironic that I'm being lectured on historical perspective by someone who clearly has none (at least when it comes to the question of what military rule has meant for Pakistan).

For the last time, in response to everything you have said, are saying, or might one day say: I KNOW! I understand perfectly well that there are 'influences' and 'limitations'. If you would all just read my posts, you would notice that I always say things like, 'the Pakistani state is structured in a way that lends itself to authoritarian rule'. What do you think I mean by such statements? Just to make things crystal clear, let me be a little less academic and type it out in much easier language: The military rules in Pakistan because historical circumstances allow it to do so.

Clearly, then, I am not oblivious to circumstances that exist outside of, 'ideas in my mind. The difference between you and me, Nee, is that while you are happy to live with an imperfect status quo, I see tha it is necessary, and possible, to change things. If I felt the military was good for Pakistan, I might not have opposed it. But the fact is that it is not, and its continued role in politics has to be curtailed. Towards that end, it is necessary to advocate, and fight for, change. As I have said before, people like you would have opposed the creation of Pakistan because the colonial government was in a position of strength (and because it liad some train tracks). Change has never been easy to bring about. It's not idealism. Idealism would be asking for something impossible. What I am suggesting is, instead, just difficult.



Right.



No, that isn't democracy.



In much of the rational world, when someone says party politics they generally mean parties contesting elections against each other. It takes a particularly deranged mind to suggest that a party cutting a deal with a military dictator constitutes 'party politics'.



In case you hadn't noticed, you can only be president twice in the US. If anything, the law was amended to limit the number of times a person could be president.



*pee noises*



There are plenty of arguments that would suggest that education etc. is not a prerequisite for democracy. There are also arguments that suggest that political autonomy can only be fostered through democracy.

I realise that none of those will change your mind because 'arguments' and 'logic' are for pussies (or so you've led me to believe). So how about the example of India? They're uneducated, and inherited colonial institutions similar to ours? How come they have democracy? What about Botswana? South Africa? Kemalist Turkey in the aftermath of the Caliphate? Weren't all these examples defined by illiteracy, a lack of autonomy etc. Democracy managed to work, though, didn't it?



I'm extremely happy to hear that. It would be unforunate indeed if you called a spade a llama, or a book, or something like that. Too bad you insist on calling a dictatorship democracy, though.



a) You can criticize the people. Be a man, and say so in your English class.
b) The US and British governments did kind of mislead their people by publishing faulty intelligence.

MD

1) I think you misread my first point. To exercise the whole plan was to show that a system of checks and balances is not an inherent part of democracy but with reasonable laws embodied in the constitution it could be achieved with virtually any form of governance. The executive would merely not be elected, while courts and the legislative would have their respective jurisdiction over them. So, we have a system of checks and balances here without democracy. I don't really see what your point is here..What possible procedural issues? Respecting the judiciary? It is unprecedented that the judiciary's verdict has been so well respected in Pakistan's history by the executive; Musharraf accepted the reinstatement of the CJ (being a military dictator), while Nawaz Sharif (a democratically elected prime minister) undermined the judiciary for his gods in America. Yes, a dictator respecting the judiciary.

2)I am sorry you took it as a lecture on history, though I thought I was merely reminding you that there is one thing that is practice and another an idea. If military has intruded historically, it still will in the future. The assumption that military has destroyed the country is a farce without any evidence. Like I said, we need only look 20 years in the past and draw a comparison between military and the democratically elected, those unspeakably precious, angels.

4) I don't know what your rational world is like, but the way I see it is that two parties or two strong people, who would be running for elections, join hands and contest combined. Why is this any lesser of democracy or where is the inconsistency in your democracy? Is it that you were yet again able to squeeze in the word 'military dictator' when talking about democracy?

Or maybe it is just right that it is not democracy. It is not your idea, democracy. It is the practice of democracy in Pakistan. Of course it can't connect to the holy democracy which exists in your mind.

5) The point is not how many terms the US deemed right, the point is that they have been 'amended' here. The ideal number of terms will always be a matter of conjecture and so can Benazir argue.

6) The way I see it, those countries are relatively stable countries economically and politically. In a stable environment, you might as well put a dictatorship or democracy or meritocracy and so on, and as long as the constitution and the practice of law is maintained, progress becomes imminent. That is, it is not 'because' they are democracies, but because there is stability and so on. Also, you give me examples, but if you have a point then show how 'democracy' changed those countries for the better. In fact that is my point usually, we need to reflect when we say 'democracy' and 'revolution' like a parrot, and conceive how it will work in Pakistan. Just saying this or that is democracy, and so we should be a democracy, doesn't cut it. How will democracy work in Pakistan? How did it change Turkey?This is the sort of reflection I am usually looking forward to...it is not a contest to name names and whoever does it more wins.

7) I never called a dictatorship a democracy. If you got the impression, then you may read my posts again.

8)
a) I am a bit more political with people. I ain't no angel lol.

b)Conjectural. There will be people who say that was spin, there will be people who will say that Bush and Blair honestly thought Saddam was a threat and WMD's existed. But the point is that the people didn't question what the administration said, they didn't 'educate' themselves in the matter. They said 'yes' because the govt said so. This is when democracy goes awry. Likewise, Congress didn't question it and approved it.

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by Nee

1) I think you misread my first point. To exercise the whole plan was to show that a system of checks and balances is not an inherent part of democracy but with reasonable laws embodied in the constitution it could be achieved with virtually any form of governance. The executive would merely not be elected, while courts and the legislative would have their respective jurisdiction over them. So, we have a system of checks and balances here without democracy. I don't really see what your point is here..What possible procedural issues? Respecting the judiciary? It is unprecedented that the judiciary's verdict has been so well respected in Pakistan's history by the executive; Musharraf accepted the reinstatement of the CJ (being a military dictator), while Nawaz Sharif (a democratically elected prime minister) undermined the judiciary for his gods in America. Yes, a dictator respecting the judiciary.

No. Your example did not illustrate how 'reasonable laws' could be included in the constitution to ensure checks and balances could work with any form of government. How can you just say that, 'the executive would merely not be elected'? Is that a small issue to you? If it's that small an issue, would you argue that Zia-ul-Haq's military regime was a system that had checks and balances? There were parliaments and courts then too. Would you argue that elections under Musharraf have been free and fair? Do you honestly believe that the military does not gain an undue advantage through its capacity for violence and its ability to operate above the law?

As for procedural issues... what about factionalism within the army, and generals vying for power? Unlike the case with democracy, generals won't be able to use institutional means, such as political parties, to compete against each other. Also, given that the executive cannot be dismissed through an election, what if an army chief decides to ignore the legislature or the courts? It's far more likely in your 'system' than in a democracy.

Originally Posted by Nee

2)I am sorry you took it as a lecture on history, though I thought I was merely reminding you that there is one thing that is practice and another an idea. If military has intruded historically, it still will in the future. The assumption that military has destroyed the country is a farce without any evidence. Like I said, we need only look 20 years in the past and draw a comparison between military and the democratically elected, those unspeakably precious, angels.

I am not wasting any more time on this issue. I have provided ample evidence, over the past few months, to illustrate why the military is problematic for Pakistan. In response, you have merely posted polemics in favour of the military. If you don't agree wit me, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion (unsubstantiated as it may be).

Originally Posted by Nee

4) I don't know what your rational world is like, but the way I see it is that two parties or two strong people, who would be running for elections, join hands and contest combined. Why is this any lesser of democracy or where is the inconsistency in your democracy? Is it that you were yet again able to squeeze in the word 'military dictator' when talking about democracy?

Surely even you can see the difference between two 'parties' and two 'strong people'. Do you think it is democracy if two 'strong people' sit together and arbitrarily decide the fate of 160 million people without any kind of popular support or election?

Originally Posted by Nee

6) The way I see it, those countries are relatively stable countries economically and politically.

Read my post again. I was referring to when they first implemented democracy. Was India 'stable' in 1947? What about Turkey in 1919? South Africa post-apartheid?

Originally Posted by Nee

In a stable environment, you might as well put a dictatorship or democracy or meritocracy and so on, and as long as the constitution and the practice of law is maintained, progress becomes imminent.

You do realise that the constitution and the 'practice of law' are far more likely to be respected in democracies than any other form of government. I'm assuming you go to a university with a half-decent library. Go look it up and see that I'm right.

Originally Posted by Nee

That is, it is not 'because' they are democracies, but because there is stability and so on. Also, you give me examples, but if you have a point then show how 'democracy' changed those countries for the better. In fact that is my point usually, we need to reflect when we say 'democracy' and 'revolution' like a parrot, and conceive how it will work in Pakistan. Just saying this or that is democracy, and so we should be a democracy, doesn't cut it. How will democracy work in Pakistan? How did it change Turkey?This is the sort of reflection I am usually looking forward to...it is not a contest to name names and whoever does it more wins.

Clearly, democracy did nothing for post-Ottoman Turkey or post-colonial India. Investment in human development, one of the biggest features of South Korean democracy, had no effect on the country's long-term development. But this is all nonsense to you, since all you're going to respond with is a long-winded paragraph about how 'it can't work in Pakistan'. Like I said earlier, if that is your opinion you are more than welcome to it. If you feel things are fine, that's great.

Originally Posted by Nee

b)Conjectural. There will be people who say that was spin, there will be people who will say that Bush and Blair honestly thought Saddam was a threat and WMD's existed. But the point is that the people didn't question what the administration said, they didn't 'educate' themselves in the matter. They said 'yes' because the govt said so. This is when democracy goes awry. Likewise, Congress didn't question it and approved it.

And a dictatorship prevents this how...? But I'm doing it again. I'm expecting rational argument from someone who has consistently failed to prove his point. Don't bother replying to this post because I, for one, am done and will not be contributing to this discussion any further. As I said to Suffyan earlier, you win. I don't need to convince you or anyone else that they are wrong.

MD

P.S.

Originally Posted by The News

In order to ensure smooth re-election of the president, the government is expected to slap emergency on the country, apparently to ward off the rising political pressure of the opposition through the courts and streets, a source told The News on Wednesday.

Source

There's your general for you.

MD

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

No. Your example did not illustrate how 'reasonable laws' could be included in the constitution to ensure checks and balances could work with any form of government. How can you just say that, 'the executive would merely not be elected'? Is that a small issue to you? If it's that small an issue, would you argue that Zia-ul-Haq's military regime was a system that had checks and balances? There were parliaments and courts then too. Would you argue that elections under Musharraf have been free and fair? Do you honestly believe that the military does not gain an undue advantage through its capacity for violence and its ability to operate above the law?

As for procedural issues... what about factionalism within the army, and generals vying for power? Unlike the case with democracy, generals won't be able to use institutional means, such as political parties, to compete against each other. Also, given that the executive cannot be dismissed through an election, what if an army chief decides to ignore the legislature or the courts? It's far more likely in your 'system' than in a democracy.



I am not wasting any more time on this issue. I have provided ample evidence, over the past few months, to illustrate why the military is problematic for Pakistan. In response, you have merely posted polemics in favour of the military. If you don't agree wit me, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion (unsubstantiated as it may be).



Surely even you can see the difference between two 'parties' and two 'strong people'. Do you think it is democracy if two 'strong people' sit together and arbitrarily decide the fate of 160 million people without any kind of popular support or election?



Read my post again. I was referring to when they first implemented democracy. Was India 'stable' in 1947? What about Turkey in 1919? South Africa post-apartheid?



You do realise that the constitution and the 'practice of law' are far more likely to be respected in democracies than any other form of government. I'm assuming you go to a university with a half-decent library. Go look it up and see that I'm right.



Clearly, democracy did nothing for post-Ottoman Turkey or post-colonial India. Investment in human development, one of the biggest features of South Korean democracy, had no effect on the country's long-term development. But this is all nonsense to you, since all you're going to respond with is a long-winded paragraph about how 'it can't work in Pakistan'. Like I said earlier, if that is your opinion you are more than welcome to it. If you feel things are fine, that's great.



And a dictatorship prevents this how...? But I'm doing it again. I'm expecting rational argument from someone who has consistently failed to prove his point. Don't bother replying to this post because I, for one, am done and will not be contributing to this discussion any further. As I said to Suffyan earlier, you win. I don't need to convince you or anyone else that they are wrong.

MD

P.S.



Source

There's your general for you.

MD

1) You are missing the point. The system has checks and balances in it. To further solidify the checks and balances, and the bring dictatorship and military power at the heart of a country, there can be a military general for each province and locality and so on. The dictator will not be voted? That is the point. Military has the capacity for violence? It comes from the same people! Good people, bad people exist in every sphere.

2) Well, I haven't seen any such thorough analysis, although you may not waste your time.

4) Why is it so hard for you to understand that it IS TWO STRONG PEOPLE WHO COME TOGETHER AND "CONTEST" FOR ELECTIONS!!!!!The vote is nevertheless in the hands of the people. They will be elected because it is PPP that people will support. Because PPP is the party with the most influence in Pakistan. And people vote BASED on those influences! That is democracy, however, as people choose! What is democracy, if not people's choice?
I mean two people make a party, one makes a party, how the hell is that different, it is people who make a party? Likewise, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir can join hands and it will still be the same, democracy.Practice of law is indifferent to democracy. Was the law not practiced in Hitler's dictatorship?

6) You have to argue, really, as a' process' that it was democracy that changed the countries for the better. A good example you give is India. It was a sovereign nation in 1947. It has been a democracy ever since. Why does prosperity comes only until recently, when democracy has been there for go years now? Why is still half or thereabouts (whatever the amount, it is half of world's people living in poverty) still submerged in poverty? Can I take your logic that since democracy was adopted in 1947, whatever the country's present state is, it is because of democracy... to argue that "it is because of democracy, since they have it since 1947, that half the country or thereabouts is submerged in poverty'"?

The examples of Turkey, India, and Korea are again one-word, unsubstantiated assertions. In fact I would argue that the western world has stolen prosperity of countries with dictatorships by enforcing economic sanctions and keeping them in poverty (just because they didn't share the same ideal of democracy).

For the last point, dictatorships might still not prevent them. But there won't be a certain person giving examples that it could be so different and better with democracy.

[nn||nr]

MD if you stoop down to answer that post, I swear I'll lose all respect for you. let him be man unless your bored and fresh meat walks into your frying pan

[MummyDaddy]

Due to my previously mentioned lack of time, I will indulge in one of my favourite forms of argument i.e. the one sentence response.

Originally Posted by Nee

1) You are missing the point. The system has checks and balances in it. To further solidify the checks and balances, and the bring dictatorship and military power at the heart of a country, there can be a military general for each province and locality and so on. The dictator will not be voted? That is the point. Military has the capacity for violence? It comes from the same people! Good people, bad people exist in every sphere.

Democracy allows the people to reach collective decisions, through institutionalised party politics, and apply collective sanctions against the government whereas your system makes no allowance for the will of the people to be represented.

Originally Posted by Nee

2) Well, I haven't seen any such thorough analysis, although you may not waste your time.

I humbly submit that you go through the Current Affairs Section of this forum and read the hundreds of posts I have made, or simply access my user profile and go through my posting history.

Originally Posted by Nee

4) Why is it so hard for you to understand that it IS TWO STRONG PEOPLE WHO COME TOGETHER AND "CONTEST" FOR ELECTIONS!!!!!

C'mon... just admit it... you really don't know what a political party is, do you?

Originally Posted by Nee

The vote is nevertheless in the hands of the people. They will be elected because it is PPP that people will support. Because PPP is the party with the most influence in Pakistan. And people vote BASED on those influences! That is democracy, however, as people choose! What is democracy, if not people's choice?

Provided elections are free and fair, this is a fairly reasonable statement.

Originally Posted by Nee

I mean two people make a party, one makes a party, how the hell is that different, it is people who make a party?

When people talk about 'political parties', they are generally referring to mass organizations with a sprawling organizational apparatus that can mobilise support for various political causes, and vertically channel articulated interests, at the grassroots level while, at the same time, campaigning for electorial support at multiple levels of government.

Originally Posted by Nee

Likewise, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir can join hands and it will still be the same, democracy.Practice of law is indifferent to democracy. Was the law not practiced in Hitler's dictatorship?

Have you completely lost your mind?

Originally Posted by Nee

6) You have to argue, really, as a' process' that it was democracy that changed the countries for the better.

Would you, perhaps, believe me if I pointed you in the direction of the vast scholarly literature that says exactly that or would you, instead, just be willing to save yourself the trouble of reading all of that and just take my word for it?

Originally Posted by Nee

A good example you give is India. It was a sovereign nation in 1947. It has been a democracy ever since. Why does prosperity comes only until recently, when democracy has been there for go years now?

If you had paid attention to the last Indian election, you would have noticed that the BJP lost precisely because Indian economic growth was not helping the poorest sections of society and this, I would say, is a great example of how accountability through democracy works in the favour of the people.

Originally Posted by Nee

Why is still half or thereabouts (whatever the amount, it is half of world's people living in poverty) still submerged in poverty?

Because, after two centuries of rapacious colonial rule, followed by flawed economic policies, it takes time to recover?

Originally Posted by Nee

Can I take your logic that since democracy was adopted in 1947, whatever the country's present state is, it is because of democracy...

The link between democracy and economic prosperity is well established by countless cross-national studies, with the work of Seymour Martin Lipset, Herbert Kitschelt, Adam Przeworski, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (to name a few) being prominent and now that you have some names, leave me alone and go harass your librarian.

Originally Posted by Nee

to argue that "it is because of democracy, since they have it since 1947, that half the country or thereabouts is submerged in poverty'"?

You have clearly never studied the rules of logic, causal inference, economics, politics, sociology, or anything even remotely related to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Nee

The examples of Turkey, India, and Korea are again one-word, unsubstantiated assertions.

They are 'one-word, unsubstantiated assertions' because this is an internet forum where I, in my stupidity, made the mistake of assuming that I was arguing with someone who had a passing familiarity with academic debates on democratization and development. Clearly I was wrong. As I said earlier, you can either engage with the literature on democratization yourself, or you can take my word for it.

MD

[Filthy Fish]

Nee, I mean this in the sincerest possible way;

You are a fucking idiot.

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by nn||nr

MD if you stoop down to answer that post, I swear I'll lose all respect for you. let him be man unless your bored and fresh meat walks into your frying pan

Goddammit I saw this after I'd replied. I feel dirty.

MD

[Digital Jedi]

Democracy allows the people to reach collective decisions, through institutionalised party politics, and apply collective sanctions against the government whereas your system makes no allowance for the will of the people to be represented.

Well, Nee is right. And where do you see these "collective decisions" when MQM wins elections in Karachi??? Does democracy allow the people of a village to vote against the local land-lord?? Please explain.

Practice of law is indifferent to democracy. Was the law not practiced in Hitler's dictatorship?

Practice of Law, is indeed, not an attribute of democracy, which only belongs to democracy. We see countries like Japan. And you know about it.

You have clearly never studied the rules of logic, causal inference, economics, politics, sociology, or anything even remotely related to this discussion.

What do you do MD??

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

And where do you see these "collective decisions" when MQM wins elections in Karachi???

Local elections. Once. Have they ever entered a provincial government in Sindh without coalition partners? No. And as I very fond of reminding people like you, the MQM was created with General Zia-ul-Haq's support, and has been a long time partner of General Musharraf's regime. Musharraf actively supports them.

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Does democracy allow the people of a village to vote against the local land-lord?? Please explain.

There was once a party in Pakistan that won an election in 1970 without the support of landlords. That party was called the PPP, and it was led by a man named Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who realised that a mass party, with a clear ideology and good organization, could bypass traditional power holders.

Regardless of what Bhutto did later, the answer to your question is: yes. Democracy can allow the people of a village to vote against a local landlord. If political parties in Pakistan have been crippled by the military, and if the military itself has historically been more than happy to strengthen landlords, why do you blame democracy as a system?

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Practice of Law, is indeed, not an attribute of democracy, which only belongs to democracy. We see countries like Japan. And you know about it.

The last time I checked, Japan was a democracy.

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

What do you do MD??

I lick myself from time to time.

MD

[Digital Jedi]

The last time I checked, Japan was a democracy.

Maybe my mistake, but if my memory serves me right Japan has a royal family.

If political parties in Pakistan have been crippled by the military, and if the military itself has historically been more than happy to strengthen landlords, why do you blame democracy as a system?

because no matter whoever was the culprit, it was the democratic system that got busted, and is currently not in a state to properly function in Pakistan

But I get your point, thanks

[PsychedelicBreakfast]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Maybe my mistake, but if my memory serves me right Japan has a royal family.

So does England. And Norway. Whats your point?

[Digital Jedi]

So does England. And Norway. Whats your point?

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Practice of Law, is indeed, not an attribute of democracy, which only belongs to democracy. We see countries like Japan. And you know about it.

This is my point

[DionysusRevolution]

Are royal families extremely rich?

[Digital Jedi]

Did you see Diana's Merc when it crashed. I mean not the condition, the model???

And what's your point???