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

[PsychedelicBreakfast]

I've no idea what your post means, but if you're implying that Japan, England aren't democracies, you need to get out more.

[DionysusRevolution]

I'd say, without source or bibliography, 1 million midgets, 10 million gays, 50 million mentally ill, 70 million physically ill, 1 billion wankers.

No, democracy won't work.

[MummyDaddy]

Suffyan, Japan and Britain etc. are constitutional monarchies. What that means is that their royal families have ceremonial roles and no real political power.

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Practice of Law, is indeed, not an attribute of democracy, which only belongs to democracy.

You do, of course, have laws under monarchies and dictatorships. The difference between them and democracy, however, is that the laws that are made and enforced do not necessarily reflect the will of the people. Instead, they represent the will of the rulers.

MD

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

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



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.



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.



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



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



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.



Have you completely lost your mind?



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?



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.



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



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.



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



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

1) That is the point.

2) I admire the fact that you 'humbly' ask me to read it. Nevertheless, I will not.

3) Grow up, you need to learn to argue in a proper manner. In each of your responses, you tend to establish that 'You don't know' or, effectively, 'You are not well-read'. You may keep your personal remarks in a notebook or something. But that is not significant. What is important is what 'you' know and you should give a counter-argument.

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

It is hard to get through some of your language. Key things in what you mention are 'mobilize support for various political causes' and of course campaigning for electoral support in whether tehsils, districts, provinces, and at the federal level. Whether they do it vertically or horizontally or apply some other laws of physics or angular motion is a different matter. Moreover, this is not the only way parties are structured. A party need not be a single entity representing its stakeholders one-dimensionally, that they have a particular political view in each instance, but party structure may also be arranged in a manner that the views of the members within the party can afford to be versatile. Such independence amongst stakeholders within the party is something I admire more than a party with fixed, stringent guidelines and agendas. A good example which distinguishes the two is the British- style party structure versus the American-style party structure. As per the matter of Musharraf and Benazir contesting through the same party, it is really irrelevant who the name of the stakeholder in the party is...I still don't see what your point is or how you exempt one or the other here.

'Have you completely lost your mind?'
huh?

4) If you can't describe it as a process, then I am afraid you shouldn't be making the argument. I can also point to scholarly literature which will highlight how democracy has failed. What is significant, however, is what you and I make of it here and in this debate. Am I to believe that democracy is right because a certain scholar thinks so? Or am I to believe that democracy is wrong because a certain scholar thinks so? Or am I to believe what I think so?

'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 favor of the people.'

A republican president won in the US. Democrats, as you should know, argue for equity, redistribution, and the rights of the poor. Republicans argue for the right to be left alone or the freedom of property rights. In other words, republicans argue for the poor to make what they can of themselves without any government aid. So, conversely, the appointment of Bush-- for two terms-- may be attributed as a failure of democracy as it was the lesser of the two outcomes to aid the poor?

your analysis of India is not fully correct... India has had individual and political liberty since 1947 and has remained a democracy throughout.... however, till 1991 the economy was in shambles because there was little economic freedom India was a socialist economy and in order for an individual to conduct any economic activity was extremely difficult the economy was mostly centrally controlled and in fact it was called the 'License Raj' as you needed a license from corrupt bureaucrats do anything in terms of business/economics.

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

Same could be applied to Pakistan. So, then, again our problems aren't because of the lack of democracy, but 'because it takes time'...

'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.'

Please don't give me names. I also said this in the last post, it is not a contest to name more names. If there is substance, you may post it.
Look at China's ridiculously high economic growth. If it continues at this rate, it will overcome world's second largest economy-- and Asia's largest of course-- Japan in 3,4 years. But China is not a democracy at the federal level. People don't have the vote to choose the president.

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

I don't know how that is related. Nor do I understand why you have to again mention what I don' know, rather than simply make a point (if you have one). What I was doing, and is done with arguments and judgments, is to take a particular logic and apply and test it in different situations. If the results are fairly consistent, then it is a point well made. I merely reapplied your logic in a different situation and showed you the inconsistency. Of course, if your response or claim wasn't merely a one-worded allusion -- and without an in-depth analysis, so to say, India is a democracy and it seems there is prosperity so take India, rather than an in-depth analysis or points supported by good sources-- I'd refrain from testing the logic or showing you the flaw in it. I'd be a lot more convinced if you were a bit more convincing--- which means concrete information which explain things as a process, not random examples which come about in mind when looking at countries with only two things in mind, such as, 'democracy' and 'prosperity', without analyzing either's impact on the other or even if one necessarily leads to the other.

Hmm.. I realize now how you are trying to exempt Musharraf and Benazir from the party. I wish you were a bit more articulate. What you are saying is, if I understand it correctly, that the republican party, for instance, has all the people in the house locally, and the senators, elected through a democratic process. So, an arbitrary person, X,Y, or Z cannot contest within that party.

Except that the idea of democracy is that anyone, independently, or through a party, can compete for elections and ask the people to vote for him. Furthermore, 'Republican' is not inherently a party, but it is just that senators and the officials in the house 'identify' themselves as republicans (which is a particular thought of governance regarding state intervention and the conception of freedom). Thus, replucianism is a value structure. What happens is that the more the people identify with this structure of governance, the more they support it, whether morally or monetarily. Now, suppose, Nader understands the concern of these senators who identify themselves as republicans and vice versa. In other words, they agree that the party is going to support Nader, morally and monetarily, in winning the elections as president. That is perfectly reasonable and legitimate, as any person can be elected in a democratic country. Those senators, or 'members of the party', simply agree to support a candidate. He need not necessarily come from the party for him to be supported, morally and monetarily, by the 'members of the party'. This would be the equivalent of Musharraf striking a deal with Benazir, that is, both would be supported by the party. It is fair that the party may support those candidates. Another way of looking at it is that the people elected in the party don't want to become president and they support other individuals who want to become president. What is wrong with that?

That is in fact the problem with the party system. While moral support from the people back there to the parties thru voting at the grass-root levels will always remain dubious (as people really don't know who to vote for and are largely uneducated, at least in lesser blessed areas, to understand the issues at stake), monetary aspects will be the determinant of the support garnered and the outcome at the local level as well as the national level. Suppose in interior Sindh zamindaars own land. Zamindaars will support a candidate as long as the candidate is corrupt, as long as he will give them something back in return when he is elected. Once Zamindaars will give their support, the subjects of their lands will give support. Zamindaars of course will in turn give monetary support with the expectation of corrupt deals in return. So, the moral support through voting that people are giving is flawed. The monetary support that officials are receiving for their election bodes for a corrupt official in the future. From bottom to top it is the same story.

I don't say democracy is a bad system of governance, I say it is a good system of governance. But for fairly individualistic and autonomous individuals. People with more independence. So, you see, with democracy, in fact, just as an example, this corrupt system of zamindaars will be sustained. That is why in the short-term a dictator is a better person in power, as long as he could instill more education and rid the country of this feudal system gradually. Once, there is economic and political stability, and the country is set for democracy, then only it is the right thing. Otherwise my view is that a corrupt system will be fed further. Just look at it, with 'free and fair' elections Benazir will come again. And more corruption. If the power is solely in the hands of the military, we know who the corrupt people are and where exactly the menace lies, or where it is limited to. When democratic governance comes, corruption comes ground-up and in anybody and everybody.

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by Nee

3) Grow up, you need to learn to argue in a proper manner. In each of your responses, you tend to establish that 'You don't know' or, effectively, 'You are not well-read'. You may keep your personal remarks in a notebook or something. But that is not significant. What is important is what 'you' know and you should give a counter-argument.

Anyone else who has read this thread, or others like it in the past, will testify to the fact that I have given counter-arguments. You just fail to see them. You've reduced me to having to ridicule you because logic has clearly had no effect on you.

As for being childish... yeah. So?

Originally Posted by Nee

It is hard to get through some of your language. Key things in what you mention are 'mobilize support for various political causes' and of course campaigning for electoral support in whether tehsils, districts, provinces, and at the federal level. Whether they do it vertically or horizontally or apply some other laws of physics or angular motion is a different matter.

In this paragraph, you have simply repeated what I said and then said the form of mobilization doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? Where is your 'argument'? What am I supposed to rebut here?

Originally Posted by Nee

Moreover, this is not the only way parties are structured. A party need not be a single entity representing its stakeholders one-dimensionally, that they have a particular political view in each instance, but party structure may also be arranged in a manner that the views of the members within the party can afford to be versatile.

That is why most political parties reach decisions democratically... to allow for debate. You are merely stating the obvious. I ask again... where is the argument?

Originally Posted by Nee

Such independence amongst stakeholders within the party is something I admire more than a party with fixed, stringent guidelines and agendas.

Parties like the PPP today, or the PML, are parties with no internal debate. They are not internally democratic. You oppose the very parties you're supporting.

Originally Posted by Nee

A good example which distinguishes the two is the British- style party structure versus the American-style party structure.

How? Why? Isn't this just a random example you pulled out of your ass?

Originally Posted by Nee

As per the matter of Musharraf and Benazir contesting through the same party, it is really irrelevant who the name of the stakeholder in the party is...

In a real party, the 'stakeholder' is the party's constituency i.e. the people who vote for it. After all, a party is supposed to represent people and articulate interests. Why should I give a fuck if Benazir's 'stake' is being safeguarded with Musharraf's. Throughout this discussion, you have missed the point I have repeatedly made about the Musharraf-Benazir deal i.e. they have, before an election, decided how to divide and share power amongst themselves. In exchange for the premiership (allowed through an amendment in the constitution enabling BB to be prime minister a 3rd time),Benazir has decided to drop opposition to Musharraf. Is this a democratic decision? Where is the will of the people being represented? Is this how political parties operate?

Originally Posted by Nee

I still don't see what your point is or how you exempt one or the other here.

Blow me.

Originally Posted by Nee

huh?

I said that you had lost your mind because you said that Nazi Germany was essentially the same as any democracy.

Originally Posted by Nee

If you can't describe it as a process, then I am afraid you shouldn't be making the argument.

There is a correlation between economic well-being, social provision, and democratic rule. Since you didn't believe me, I cited literature. Now if you're expecting me to summarize a few thousand pages of detailed research because you're lazy, guess again. Go visit a fucking lbrary.

Originally Posted by Nee

I can also point to scholarly literature which will highlight how democracy has failed.

Please do because you, at least, have not made any arguments that would support the claim that democracy is flawed.

Originally Posted by Nee

Am I to believe that democracy is right because a certain scholar thinks so? Or am I to believe that democracy is wrong because a certain scholar thinks so? Or am I to believe what I think so?

You know, that has got to be the stupidest fucking argument I have ever read. Please, by all means, believe what you want to believe. I, for instance, like to think that I'm a princess and there is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise. What do scholars know compared to us, eh? Newton was a prick... gravity... pah!

Originally Posted by Nee

A republican president won in the US. Democrats, as you should know, argue for equity, redistribution, and the rights of the poor. Republicans argue for the right to be left alone or the freedom of property rights. In other words, republicans argue for the poor to make what they can of themselves without any government aid. So, conversely, the appointment of Bush-- for two terms-- may be attributed as a failure of democracy as it was the lesser of the two outcomes to aid the poor?

A more plausible explanation is that issues of welfare took a backseat to issues concerning traditional values and war. Remember that the 'swing vote' in the 2004 elections was decided on questions like abortion. Besides, the last round of elections was won by the Democrats because of mounting opposition to the war. Finally, a party fighting to defend the rights of the poor is hardly going to win an election in a society where the middle class has far more electoral strength than the poor. Not that the democrats are likely to properly fight for the rights of the poor, but that's a much longer discussion that I will not be drawn into here.

Originally Posted by Nee

your analysis of India is not fully correct... India has had individual and political liberty since 1947 and has remained a democracy throughout.... however, till 1991 the economy was in shambles because there was little economic freedom India was a socialist economy and in order for an individual to conduct any economic activity was extremely difficult the economy was mostly centrally controlled and in fact it was called the 'License Raj' as you needed a license from corrupt bureaucrats do anything in terms of business/economics.

Are you familiar with the argument concerning liberalizing markets once the markets in question are ready for it? Since you probably aren't, let me spell it out for you... having a closed, 'socialist' economy allowed Indian industries to develop to a point where it could handle competition in a global market. The Indian economic miracle of the 1990s would not have been possible without that base. Similarly, extensive state involvement in the economy, and a recognition of the perils of globalization, led to legislation that made it mandatory for MNCs in India to be partially owned by Indians (thereby allowing for a greater investment of profit within the Indian economy itself). Similar arguments are made for China.

Originally Posted by Nee

Same could be applied to Pakistan. So, then, again our problems aren't because of the lack of democracy, but 'because it takes time'...

I have never argued that democracy wouldn't take time. What I have said, instead, is that the army doesn't give it time.

Originally Posted by Nee

Please don't give me names. I also said this in the last post, it is not a contest to name more names.

You don't know any names, do you?

Originally Posted by Nee

If there is substance, you may post it.

Why? You've already told me that you know more than any scholar could ever tell you.

Originally Posted by Nee

Look at China's ridiculously high economic growth. If it continues at this rate, it will overcome world's second largest economy-- and Asia's largest of course-- Japan in 3,4 years. But China is not a democracy at the federal level. People don't have the vote to choose the president.

Yeah. China's communist. Which is better than democracy. Haven't I already told you that I'm a Marxist?

Originally Posted by Nee

I don't know how that is related. Nor do I understand why you have to again mention what I don' know, rather than simply make a point (if you have one). What I was doing, and is done with arguments and judgments, is to take a particular logic and apply and test it in different situations.

In your entire posting history, I think I've only encounterd about two or three minor points that merited a response. If you have, as you've said, used arguments, I certainly haven't seen them.

Originally Posted by Nee

If the results are fairly consistent, then it is a point well made. I merely reapplied your logic in a different situation and showed you the inconsistency. Of course, if your response or claim wasn't merely a one-worded allusion -- and without an in-depth analysis, so to say, India is a democracy and it seems there is prosperity so take India, rather than an in-depth analysis or points supported by good sources-- I'd refrain from testing the logic or showing you the flaw in it. I'd be a lot more convinced if you were a bit more convincing--- which means concrete information which explain things as a process, not random examples which come about in mind when looking at countries with only two things in mind, such as, 'democracy' and 'prosperity', without analyzing either's impact on the other or even if one necessarily leads to the other.

No. I know more than you. Nyah nyah.

Originally Posted by Nee

Hmm.. I realize now how you are trying to exempt Musharraf and Benazir from the party. I wish you were a bit more articulate. What you are saying is, if I understand it correctly, that the republican party, for instance, has all the people in the house locally, and the senators, elected through a democratic process. So, an arbitrary person, X,Y, or Z cannot contest within that party.

That is one of the myriad pearls of wisdom strewn across my last post.

Originally Posted by Nee

Except that the idea of democracy is that anyone, independently, or through a party, can compete for elections and ask the people to vote for him.

Except a party platform allows for a greater degree of popular interest aggregation.

Originally Posted by Nee

Furthermore, 'Republican' is not inherently a party, but it is just that senators and the officials in the house 'identify' themselves as republicans (which is a particular thought of governance regarding state intervention and the conception of freedom). Thus, replucianism is a value structure. What happens is that the more the people identify with this structure of governance, the more they support it, whether morally or monetarily. Now, suppose, Nader understands the concern of these senators who identify themselves as republicans and vice versa. In other words, they agree that the party is going to support Nader, morally and monetarily, in winning the elections as president. That is perfectly reasonable and legitimate, as any person can be elected in a democratic country. Those senators, or 'members of the party', simply agree to support a candidate. He need not necessarily come from the party for him to be supported, morally and monetarily, by the 'members of the party'. This would be the equivalent of Musharraf striking a deal with Benazir, that is, both would be supported by the party. It is fair that the party may support those candidates. Another way of looking at it is that the people elected in the party don't want to become president and they support other individuals who want to become president. What is wrong with that?

While Nader has nothing to do with the Republicans, I agree with what you said about one of the roles of a party. What stupefied me was the absurdity of your comparison between the Republicans and Benazir's PPP. The Republicans have primaries. A presidential candidate has to conest elections against other candidates before getting a party's ticket. Before that, the candidate has to already have won elections to Congress. Even before that, the person has to be a member of the party and, in many instances, rise through the ranks through lower tier elections to win local nominations.

The PPP does not work that way. Decisions made by Benazir and her cronies are not democratic, and the PPP itself is too institutionally weak to censure her for what she does. It is a party that she controls as her personal fief. The assumption that the PPP as a party suports Musharraf is a very flawed one. And that's aside from the problems inherent in having a uniformed president.

Originally Posted by Nee

That is in fact the problem with the party system. While moral support from the people back there to the parties thru voting at the grass-root levels will always remain dubious (as people really don't know who to vote for and are largely uneducated, at least in lesser blessed areas, to understand the issues at stake),

So how come the PPP won in 1970 when Bhutto ran on a pro-poor platform. Were the people stupid?

Originally Posted by Nee

monetary aspects will be the determinant of the support garnered and the outcome at the local level as well as the national level. Suppose in interior Sindh zamindaars own land. Zamindaars will support a candidate as long as the candidate is corrupt, as long as he will give them something back in return when he is elected. Once Zamindaars will give their support, the subjects of their lands will give support. Zamindaars of course will in turn give monetary support with the expectation of corrupt deals in return. So, the moral support through voting that people are giving is flawed. The monetary support that officials are receiving for their election bodes for a corrupt official in the future. From bottom to top it is the same story.

I love examples from Interior Sindh. I worked there. Researching local level politics. Seriously.

I have two things to say to this point:

1) Refer to my earlier point viz. the PPP. The PPP won in 1970 by bypassing zamindars etc. They were able to do this because of the way they campaigned and because of the organizational strength of the PPP.

2) Of course Zamindars influence votes. Does that mean that is something that shouldn't change? One of my own areas of study is the way in which the military has strenghtened zamindars in order to stay in power. By keeping zamindars powerful through state patronage, the military has been able to ensure that those zamindars continue to use their power to get people to vote for the military and its cronies in 'elections' etc. Your 'solution' to the problems with democracy in Pakistan has only worsened the situation.

Now let me make something clear. I only responded to your post to show that I could. Having done that:

Originally Posted by Nee

I admire the fact that you 'humbly' ask me to read it. Nevertheless, I will not.

Then fuck off, because I'm not repeating myself again and again. I've been more than accommodating, answering the questions you and Suffyan have raised again and again and again. You accuse me of not substantiating my arguments and then, when I tell you where to find the substantiation you crave, you tell me you won't read it. Support Musharraf. Do whatever the fuck you want. I've wasted enough time here.

MD

[Kursed]

MD - didn't we reach an agreement that it's a waste of time to argue with Musharraf toadies? They're not here to discuss or to argue instead to give opinions that they'd just like you to believe anyway.

[Digital Jedi]

deleted

[Filthy Fish]

Originally Posted by Suffyan Asad

Exactly, it's very difficult to change MD's opinon, specially by ridiculing him.

The only difference is that he has Facts, while you pull stuff out of your ass. Perhaps if you substantiated your claims he would be more receptive. But no, its all ifs and buts and what ifs

[Digital Jedi]

The only difference is that he has Facts, while you pull stuff out of your ass. Perhaps if you substantiated your claims he would be more receptive. But no, its all ifs and buts and what ifs

I do not like personal stuff. Mods, delete the last post please

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

Anyone else who has read this thread, or others like it in the past, will testify to the fact that I have given counter-arguments. You just fail to see them. You've reduced me to having to ridicule you because logic has clearly had no effect on you.

As for being childish... yeah. So?

In this paragraph, you have simply repeated what I said and then said the form of mobilization doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? Where is your 'argument'? What am I supposed to rebut here?



That is why most political parties reach decisions democratically... to allow for debate. You are merely stating the obvious. I ask again... where is the argument?



Parties like the PPP today, or the PML, are parties with no internal debate. They are not internally democratic. You oppose the very parties you're supporting.



How? Why? Isn't this just a random example you pulled out of your ass?



In a real party, the 'stakeholder' is the party's constituency i.e. the people who vote for it. After all, a party is supposed to represent people and articulate interests. Why should I give a fuck if Benazir's 'stake' is being safeguarded with Musharraf's. Throughout this discussion, you have missed the point I have repeatedly made about the Musharraf-Benazir deal i.e. they have, before an election, decided how to divide and share power amongst themselves. In exchange for the premiership (allowed through an amendment in the constitution enabling BB to be prime minister a 3rd time),Benazir has decided to drop opposition to Musharraf. Is this a democratic decision? Where is the will of the people being represented? Is this how political parties operate?



Blow me.



I said that you had lost your mind because you said that Nazi Germany was essentially the same as any democracy.



There is a correlation between economic well-being, social provision, and democratic rule. Since you didn't believe me, I cited literature. Now if you're expecting me to summarize a few thousand pages of detailed research because you're lazy, guess again. Go visit a fucking lbrary.



Please do because you, at least, have not made any arguments that would support the claim that democracy is flawed.



You know, that has got to be the stupidest fucking argument I have ever read. Please, by all means, believe what you want to believe. I, for instance, like to think that I'm a princess and there is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise. What do scholars know compared to us, eh? Newton was a prick... gravity... pah!



A more plausible explanation is that issues of welfare took a backseat to issues concerning traditional values and war. Remember that the 'swing vote' in the 2004 elections was decided on questions like abortion. Besides, the last round of elections was won by the Democrats because of mounting opposition to the war. Finally, a party fighting to defend the rights of the poor is hardly going to win an election in a society where the middle class has far more electoral strength than the poor. Not that the democrats are likely to properly fight for the rights of the poor, but that's a much longer discussion that I will not be drawn into here.



Are you familiar with the argument concerning liberalizing markets once the markets in question are ready for it? Since you probably aren't, let me spell it out for you... having a closed, 'socialist' economy allowed Indian industries to develop to a point where it could handle competition in a global market. The Indian economic miracle of the 1990s would not have been possible without that base. Similarly, extensive state involvement in the economy, and a recognition of the perils of globalization, led to legislation that made it mandatory for MNCs in India to be partially owned by Indians (thereby allowing for a greater investment of profit within the Indian economy itself). Similar arguments are made for China.



I have never argued that democracy wouldn't take time. What I have said, instead, is that the army doesn't give it time.



You don't know any names, do you?



Why? You've already told me that you know more than any scholar could ever tell you.



Yeah. China's communist. Which is better than democracy. Haven't I already told you that I'm a Marxist?



In your entire posting history, I think I've only encounterd about two or three minor points that merited a response. If you have, as you've said, used arguments, I certainly haven't seen them.



No. I know more than you. Nyah nyah.



That is one of the myriad pearls of wisdom strewn across my last post.



Except a party platform allows for a greater degree of popular interest aggregation.



While Nader has nothing to do with the Republicans, I agree with what you said about one of the roles of a party. What stupefied me was the absurdity of your comparison between the Republicans and Benazir's PPP. The Republicans have primaries. A presidential candidate has to conest elections against other candidates before getting a party's ticket. Before that, the candidate has to already have won elections to Congress. Even before that, the person has to be a member of the party and, in many instances, rise through the ranks through lower tier elections to win local nominations.

The PPP does not work that way. Decisions made by Benazir and her cronies are not democratic, and the PPP itself is too institutionally weak to censure her for what she does. It is a party that she controls as her personal fief. The assumption that the PPP as a party suports Musharraf is a very flawed one. And that's aside from the problems inherent in having a uniformed president.



So how come the PPP won in 1970 when Bhutto ran on a pro-poor platform. Were the people stupid?



I love examples from Interior Sindh. I worked there. Researching local level politics. Seriously.

I have two things to say to this point:

1) Refer to my earlier point viz. the PPP. The PPP won in 1970 by bypassing zamindars etc. They were able to do this because of the way they campaigned and because of the organizational strength of the PPP.

2) Of course Zamindars influence votes. Does that mean that is something that shouldn't change? One of my own areas of study is the way in which the military has strenghtened zamindars in order to stay in power. By keeping zamindars powerful through state patronage, the military has been able to ensure that those zamindars continue to use their power to get people to vote for the military and its cronies in 'elections' etc. Your 'solution' to the problems with democracy in Pakistan has only worsened the situation.

Now let me make something clear. I only responded to your post to show that I could. Having done that:



Then fuck off, because I'm not repeating myself again and again. I've been more than accommodating, answering the questions you and Suffyan have raised again and again and again. You accuse me of not substantiating my arguments and then, when I tell you where to find the substantiation you crave, you tell me you won't read it. Support Musharraf. Do whatever the fuck you want. I've wasted enough time here.

MD

'In this paragraph, you have simply repeated what I said and then said the form of mobilization doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? Where is your 'argument'? What am I supposed to rebut here?'

Read your language again and maybe you will see that there was nothing to rebut in the first place. In my very next post I was still guessing at what your point really was or how you were trying to exempt Musharraf . You didn't make any sense at all, it seemed like some random rubbish (sorry). I elaborated further because I was, again, trying to guess at what you meant by 'vertically'. One thought that arose was that with vertically you meant that the party embodies rigid views amongst its stakeholders. Thus, the elaboration (and, yes, stakeholders can equally be the members of the party).I didn't say that the form of mobilization mattered or not, I said parties are structured in various ways. It is obvious, if you read it again, that one structure maintains more solidarity in the party while the other sustains more independence.

'Parties like the PPP today, or the PML, are parties with no internal debate. They are not internally democratic. You oppose the very parties you're supporting.'

I am advocating for the party structure 'I' find more valuable. That doesn't mean that I can't understand the right of people to form parties-- and maintain its structure-- in a different manner. That, too, is valid.

'How? Why? Isn't this just a random example you pulled out of your ass'

Please read the description again. It is in the same paragraph I mentioned that. Now maybe if you'd 'fucking' understand that the example followed the theory, then maybe you'd 'fucking' see it a lot better.

'In a real party, the 'stakeholder' is the party's constituency i.e. the people who vote for it. After all, a party is supposed to represent people and articulate interests. Why should I give a fuck if Benazir's 'stake' is being safeguarded with Musharraf's. Throughout this discussion, you have missed the point I have repeatedly made about the Musharraf-Benazir deal i.e. they have, before an election, decided how to divide and share power amongst themselves. In exchange for the premiership (allowed through an amendment in the constitution enabling BB to be prime minister a 3rd time),Benazir has decided to drop opposition to Musharraf. Is this a democratic decision? Where is the will of the people being represented? Is this how political parties operate?'

Are you a fucking nut? People make fucking deals all the time. Where is the will of the people being represented? In the fucking vote! Two people decide to share power whichever way they want, people have a fucking right to choose them! And the two people equally have a right to fucking stand in elections!

'I said that you had lost your mind because you said that Nazi Germany was essentially the same as any democracy'
I didn't say Nazi Germany was the same as holy fucking democracy! I said, wasn't the law implemented in Nazi Germany? That was the point, whether the law was implemented or not!

'There is a correlation between economic well-being, social provision, and democratic rule. Since you didn't believe me, I cited literature. Now if you're expecting me to summarize a few thousand pages of detailed research because you're lazy, guess again. Go visit a fucking library.'

The correlation has not much impact on the debate. If you observe that countries are democratic and economically prosperous, it is not sufficient knowledge to conclude that it is 'because' of democracy. It could be because of a stronger past, stronger military, and other millions of reason. Which is (fucking!) why I asked you if you could describe the effect of democracy as a (fucking!) 'process' in various countries?!

'You know, that has got to be the stupidest argument I have ever read. Please, by all means believe what you want to believe. I for instance like to think that I'm a princess and there is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise. What do scholars know compared to us, eh? Newton was a prick... gravity... pah!'

Firstly you should know that that is not an argument. That is a flaw in your 'logic' that I point to (which is not 'necessary and sufficient' to become in itself an argument). You were saying that scholars have written 'this' so believe this. Well, then, scholars have also written 'that'.

'A more plausible explanation is that issues of welfare took a backseat to issues concerning traditional values and war. Also, a party fighting to defend the rights of the poor is hardly going to win an election in a society where the middle class has far more electoral strength than the poor.'

That is the finest piece of utter drivel I have ever heard. The war in Iraq, if anything, made the republicans much weaker.What guarantee is that it is going to be any different in Pakistan, that traditional values wouldn't be the primary concern? What further guarantee is that the majority of the poor will vote (without being influenced by the rich)? Where does it say that democracy is a form of governance for the poor? If that were the case, then wouldn't Marxism, Communism, or Anarchy would be the ideal form of governance rather than democracy? America and Britain are relatively capitalistic societies, with lesser social equity than other social democracies in western Europe. Doesn't that mean that democracy is relatively indifferent to social equity as there can be less or more social equity in equally democratic societies? Isn't the concept of social equity a value structure rather than something intertwined with democracy?

'I have never argued that democracy wouldn't take time. What I have said, instead, is that the army doesn't give it time.'

Perhaps, then, I can equally say that dictatorships, and military rule, take time?

'You don't know any names, do you?'

If names meant so much to me, then I'd Google search them (just to clarify this DOES NOT mean, as you mistake things, that I don't know names). Names don't matter to this debate. Like I said, if there is substance you may post it. If you feel redistricted by time (or whatever), you may not. I'll leave that to you.

'Why? You have already told me that you know more than any scholar could ever tell you.'

I didn't say that.

'Yeah. China's communist. Which is better than democracy. Haven't I already told you that I'm a Marxist?'

I don't care what you are. I was showing you what is significant...and which is...China is not a democracy, yet a thriving economy.

'No. I know more than you. Nyah nyah.'
(fucking) (Applause).

Here's a link to China's constitution:
http://english.people.com.cn/constit...stitution.html


Note:
'Article 59. The National People's Congress is composed of deputies elected by the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and by the armed forces. All the minority nationalities are entitled to appropriate representation. Election of deputies to the National People's Congress is conducted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The number of deputies to the National People's Congress and the manner of their election are prescribed by law.'

In other words, the 'armed forces' have a direct influences on the NPC.
I also suggest that you look over the role of the NPC, the 'highest organ of state power'. On the other hand, the communist party exists because of its control over the historical People's Liberation Army. In other words, the role of the army in governance is quite significant in China as well.

[MummyDaddy]

I ignored much of your post because it was the same bullshit you've posted here again and again. You didn't even change your language although you did say 'fuck' a lot. You have a potty mouth.

1) Communism is premised on democracy you stupid dickwad. Who ever said that Communist countries didn't have elections or voting? That extract from the Chinese constitution says as much. Additionally, you had more than a wikipedia-based knowledge of China, you would know that the armed forces report directly to a State Central Military Commission whose members are all chosen by the NPC. Additionally, the military also has to report to a the Party's Central Military Commission. The military in China is subservient to the Comunist Party at every level of its organisation, and can't so much as twitch without the party's consent. The military has no role in 'governance'. At best, you can just say that it is used by the Communist Party to maintain order. LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING MILITARY IN THE WORLD THAT DOESN'T SEIZE STATE POWER ON A REGULAR BASIS.

Furthermore, if you had paid just a *bit* more attention in that English class you mentioned earlier, you would know how to read sentences with commas properly. Article 59 of the Chinese constitution is NOT saying that the military is part of the NPC. Rather, it is saying that members of the armed forces also vote to elect deputies. Moron.

2) Yes. I would prefer Communism to democracy. But the latter is far more likely in Pakistan, and is better than a dictatorship.

3) The Republicans felt the fallout of the War in the elections last year. In 2004, Kerry's flip-flopping over Iraq was part of why swing voters chose to stick with a president who claimed to provide decisive leadership. As for welfare in the US... I have no doubt that a party fighting on a welfarist platform would win the working class vote. But how will that win you an electoral majority when the middle class, being the largest group in society, is the most important electoral constituency? That is why issues of Welfare took a backseat in the US in 2004. Middle class swing voters are not going to vote on the basis of Social Security. They're only going to do that if you have a Social Democratic Party like the one in Sweden, but that's another story. So stop pulling arguments out of your ass. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

MD

[Nee]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

I ignored much of your post because it was the same bullshit you've posted here again and again. You didn't even change your language although you did say 'fuck' a lot. You have a potty mouth.

1) Communism is premised on democracy you stupid dickwad. Who ever said that Communist countries didn't have elections or voting? That extract from the Chinese constitution says as much. Additionally, you had more than a wikipedia-based knowledge of China, you would know that the armed forces report directly to a State Central Military Commission whose members are all chosen by the NPC. Additionally, the military also has to report to a the Party's Central Military Commission. The military in China is subservient to the Comunist Party at every level of its organisation, and can't so much as twitch without the party's consent. The military has no role in 'governance'. At best, you can just say that it is used by the Communist Party to maintain order. LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING MILITARY IN THE WORLD THAT DOESN'T SEIZE STATE POWER ON A REGULAR BASIS.

Furthermore, if you had paid just a *bit* more attention in that English class you mentioned earlier, you would know how to read sentences with commas properly. Article 59 of the Chinese constitution is NOT saying that the military is part of the NPC. Rather, it is saying that members of the armed forces also vote to elect deputies. Moron.

2) Yes. I would prefer Communism to democracy. But the latter is far more likely in Pakistan, and is better than a dictatorship.

3) The Republicans felt the fallout of the War in the elections last year. In 2004, Kerry's flip-flopping over Iraq was part of why swing voters chose to stick with a president who claimed to provide decisive leadership. As for welfare in the US... I have no doubt that a party fighting on a welfarist platform would win the working class vote. But how will that win you an electoral majority when the middle class, being the largest group in society, is the most important electoral constituency? That is why issues of Welfare took a backseat in the US in 2004. Middle class swing voters are not going to vote on the basis of Social Security. They're only going to do that if you have a Social Democratic Party like the one in Sweden, but that's another story. So stop pulling arguments out of your ass. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

MD

1) Communism in NOT premised on democracy. You might see China in which officials are elected incrementally and conclude that communism is premised on democracy. But China is barely a communist state anymore. It is more like a socialist state and the communist party has no more influence whatsoever. The sole reason that it survives is because its control over the historical people's Liberation Army. Why was I saying army has a role here? Suppose Musharraf's party exists because of the support from the military, everyone would admit that the military has a role here. Otherwise I can easily refuse to accept that Pakistan is not a democracy, Musharraf is elected. But it is the support from the army that puts him there and everyone recognizes here that when the army supports a certain party, the role of the army is very apparent. You state the other way around and I suggest you get a grip on current world politics.

Neither is China a democracy. Your reasoning falls apart, and just because you may see provincial and local autonomy in people's vote, don't jump to mindless conclusions. That way Pakistan is also a democracy, people have the right to elect local leaders and so on...The second thing is about the comma.You have any sense of logic or reasoning?I'll quote the point in question again,'The National People's Congress is composed of deputies elected by the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and by the armed forces'.

Now the armed forces are directly responsible in such elections in which they are voting with the 'provinces' and the 'autonomous regions', not as 'individual persons'. Something like the electoral college in America when they vote for the president. Now, if you'd help me understand how the role of the armed forces is not significant here, I'd understand your concern about what you perceive as a comma dilemma in my mind? Don't bullshit me that I have wikied this or that, you have no clear knowledge here and your comments are very shallow even assuming there was a basic google search.

2) I am glad that you mentioned that. This debate is worthless now....the premise of the debate really was on ideological grounds on your part, while, on my part, the argument was, whatever works is right, whether dictatorship or communism or anarchy or democracy and so on. In my view Pakistan is most suited to dictatorship at this particular point in time and I have my opinion and you may have yours. I admire your confession and the fact that you had the strength to retract your point after so much debate. And, believe me, I am not flat erring myself by making myself believe that I have convinced you that democracy is not necessarily inherently right.

3) It becomes really irrelevant. Besides, democracy is people's 'power', but with liberalism it can entail an uneven distribution of wealth. In other words, democracy has not much bearing on wealth....and logically speaking if all the people were to vote for the candidate they believe promotes the most welfare, then democracy is simply an ideal system for orators that can make people believe so...Again, in essence (and may you lock this in your mind), democracy is people's 'power', not people's 'wealth'. It is not communism, like you again argue in the first point.