Nawaz Quits Coalition Government

[Cateye]

Originally Posted by |BloodBath|

At least kept the feudal bastards away from the government.



Remember, everyone has an opinion. Learn to respect it.

Read History of Pakistan... you will learn a lot ...

and i like i said leave it.... i can't change your views you can't change mine... what does that tell you about my views??? Live Let live... how much more you want my respect? i am not going to SALUTE your beloved DICK-TATOR or close my eyes and start rhyming about the PROSPER PAKISTAN if the picture is totally opposite...



PS: Kursed do the honours and show him some videos of rigged election 2008...

[abigor]

i am not going to SALUTE your beloved DICK-TATOR or close my eyes and start rhyming about the PROSPER PAKISTAN if the picture is totally opposite...

cut short in the mocking department and you might have a solid argument.

[AhmedKhan]

I think we, subconciously, try to compare Pakistan's democracy to that of (primarily) the US and then other Western nations. What we quite clearly forget is that they have been working at it for not decades but centuries and only some good 50 years ago, women couldn't vote in the US and blacks couldn't sit in the buses.
We have NOT given democracy a CHANCE. Not ONE singly democratic government EVER (except for Bhutto's first government) completed its term. HOW do you expect democracy to GROW, to DEVELOP when you kill it prematurely.
This is what we don't understand because we are too young to remember things and we don't have detailed knowldge of economics (at least I don't). This is EXACTLY what the military does, military government sucks the blood out of the nation like a leech to the last drop until there is nothing left to suck and then give it over to civilian governments and then say oh the civilian governments can not do their jobs. Mushraff had $10 billion pumped into economy. Can you imagine what we could have done in that amount of money? Forgien remittances were at their peak. Money was just flowing into the country but that worthless, scum of earth, pathetic, insult to humanity, Shukat Aziz just fucked everything up. People, he was a lowlife banker, NOT an economist. He did NOT know how to run a country. Bankers can NOT run countries, they are focused on short term, countries are not. Shukat did everything for very short term and guess what, that short term is over. There is not one single "long term" economic policy that you can point out to and say was developed by military government. Military governments KNOW that they are never coming back so this is the first and last chance to make the best of it. Ayub did that, Zia did that and Mushraff did that.
So stop blaming democracy because it never had a chance to prove itself. The 11 some years people keep refering to, no government was allowed to complete its term. Democracy is a PROCESS and a process can not be "implemented", it NEEDS time. You have to have at least 4-5 democratic governments complete their terms before you can even THINK about judging democracy. If you are not going to give it a chance, how will you ever know what it's capable of? We have seen what dictatorships are capable of. Can we not just for once, all stand together, and give democracy a god damn fucking chance?

[Cateye]

Originally Posted by abigor

cut short in the mocking department and you might have a solid argument.

Open your eyes and mind and you might want to think twice about your POV against democracy...

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by |BloodBath|

I don't have to prove my opinion MD. I for one am against the entire concept of this "so called" democracy prevailing in our system.

Are you against democracy at an abstract level, or just the current farce?

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

the so called democracy is actually a tactiacal ploy, popularised in our countries by politicians imediaitly after quaideazam,, since his death, every single person that has ever controlled our goverment, has done so with the sole purpose of HIS benefit, and just to make his/her public profile a bit better, increasd the Govt servent pay by 5-10% at max... that may seem like a lot but the problem is that this increase is on the BAsic pay , and not the total pay. basic pay is upto 35% of total pay..

There are a number of reasons why democracy has failed to take root in Pakistan. Back in 1947, the Muslims League had to rely on the bureaucracy and the military to run the state, constrained as it was by a lack of popular support and coherent mass organisation. Additionally, Punjab and Sindh were completely dominated by large landowners, and the Frontier was similarly dominated by tribal chiefs. Baluchistan never wanted to be a part of Pakistan but when it was finally made a part of the country, the Sardars held political power. As a result of the presence of these traditional elites, and because of the Muslim League's reliance on them to provide political support and legitimacy during the 1940s, the government was unable to move against them following independence.

The initial reliance on the military and bureaucracy paved the way for authoritarianism in Pakistan. The Muslim League's inability to cultivate mass support, and its reliance on traditional elites, entrenched the position of those political actors. In my opinion, these are the two main factors responsible for the clusterfuck we see today.

That's not all, though. Things that happen in the past obviously have a tremendous bearing on the future. When the military came to power, it didn't just rule the country badly. It also made sure that political parties and civil society actors wouldn't be able to oppose its control. So, unions and parties were banned, activists were jailed, repression was used to cow those who stepped out of line, and the loyalties of the elites I mentioned previously were continuously bought to ensure that military governments could also shape local level political outcomes.

The result? Parties and democratic forces in Pakistan didn't just start out at a disadvantage... they never really evolved into truly democratic organisations. Political parties are supposed to be vehicles for interest aggregation and articulation, with mass organisational apparatuses and a coherent ideological framework within which to formulate concrete policy proposals. The only time Pakistan ever came close to having such parties was in the late 1960s, when the PPP and the Awami League were able to use the weakness of the Military regime to strengthen themselves. During the Zia years, however, and even during the latter half of Z. A. Bhutto's government, all such forms of political activity were squashed.

So, after 40 years of being banned, dismantled, and undermined in various ways, you end up with parties that, in the 1990s, didn't have any kind of internal democracy or ideological agenda. Instead, they had quasi-dynastic leaderships and no susbtantive policies. They did not even have a mass party apparatus, and simply relied on... you guessed it, traditional elites to get them votes. To make matters even worse, the military establishment played a very active behind-the-scenes role in the 1990s, deploying the 8th Amendment, via cooperative presidents, to keep the civilian governments in line. When this was no longer possible in 1999, bearing in mind Nawaz Sharif's massive mandate, Musharraf just took power.

The story doesn't end there, though. Our political parties weren't just crippled by years of repression. Some parties/elites were also more than willing to sell their souls to the military in order to get a slice of the political pie. That is why we saw the PML-Q and MMA completely abandon any democratic pretences whatsoever to support the Musharraf regime.

If your argument is that democracy has failed in Pakistan, then I will obviously agree with you. The facts speak for themselves. What interests me is the question of why democracy has failed. I have attempted to provide a brief summary of my views on the matter. What stands out, though, is the role the military has played in fracturing the democratic process in this country. The democratic forces we do have our crippled and hugely flawed, and there are plenty of powerful actors willing to backstab the country by working with the military.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

those assholes chaudries, now in oposition recently gave astatement in live press confrence that govt is not fulfilling its promise of food,shelter, electricity and juges..it was those bastards in the first place who ACTUALLY started the acute shortage of food and electricity, and THEY suported the Musharafs juge issue...so how are they the forerunners of SAVING our nation.??

True.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

THIS IS DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN...Every one has a right of free speech and free un-opposed bank balance and property making...for what benefit it serves to MD, i dont see it...

Democracy makes me horny.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

first 2 paras of yours , aren in sever contradiction to democracy thats in pakistan..3rd and fourth are on the current situtaions thats in the news everywhere anyway..

Next time I'll try to write out posts that aren't also mentioned in the news. I'll make up facts in my head.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and then you ask why democracy is bad for pakistan...just like what hapend in the Anti gay thread, there is NOWHERE in these posts that is implied that democracy is bad for pakistan...the democracy that is CURRENTLY and in the past been APLIED to pakistan is bad,,

Okay..

1) Why is democracy bad?
2) Why is democracy bad for Pakistan?
3) Read my previous points on why democracy has failed in Pakistan.

When you've responded to these questions/explanations, I will defend my position.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and for that matter, the army rule has been far more econmically stable in all history than the soo called democratic rule has ever had..

Not entirely true. Ayub Khan's rule was notorious for increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Zia-ul-Haq's entire government was supported by aid from the US in exchange for supporting the Afghan War (you know, the one that created the current mess in Afghanistan, and introduced jihdis, klashnikovs, and sectarian violence to Pakistan), and Musharraf has also benefitted from over 11 billion dollars in US aid. Also, while all three military governments kept on talking about 'macroeconomic' growth, none of them really did anything to address the severe poverty and deprivation in the country. The rich just got richer. It was crony capitalism at its worst.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and there was no shortage of food and grain ever, infact in ayyub`s time, when the whole nation was litterally starving to death, martial law insured that aal the inflation ended in thematter of weeks..every one who had smuggled ands stocked their wheat and rice and sugar, threw it out of thie godowns and houses in darkness,so they wont be caught and rations system was reinovated..thus proving that your argument against martial law is wrong and democracy has this to its disadvantage since lke ever..

Do you even understand why the food crisis is happening? Do you even understand the impact the credit crunch is having on our economy? The Musharraf government would have been in the mess just as badly as the current government. And what about the untold misery caused by Ayub Khan's decision to ram the 'Green Revolution' down everyone's throats. In a country lacking the ability to absorb the millions of workers rendered redundant by mechanisation, what ended up happening was the impoverishment of an entire generation of people.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

this is what hapens when argument for argument sake happens..i donot suport musharaf,, infact i hate all of themm, but that doesnot mean what someone did right should not be apreciated, musharraf initail five year rule was true harmonious.

The insurgency in Balochistan was very harmonious.
So was the bombing of Wana.
The people who went missing were probably kidnapped by the government harmoniously.
The power crisis was harmonious too.
Increasing economic inequality was the same.
Unleashing the MQM in Karachi on May 12 last year was a truly harmonious decision.
So was arresting thousands of peaceful protestors.
First supporting, and then failing to stop, insurgents in Swat was harmonious.
The Lal Masjid fiasco was resolved harmoniously.
The constitution was butchered harmoniously.

And so on.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

i am against EVRYTHing he id in the last 3 years, cuz thats where he got greedy, and turned himself SADAR, by the SO CALLED DEMOCRATIC sennate elections..the first five years had full food and water, electricity, fee media,stable economy, and plenty of resources, and telecom and industrial growth.., would you imagine that wthout such reforms you cudnt buy a nokia 1600 for less than 5k? no E series, No N series?? a p4d would still be the only TOP affordable processor? mobilink calls would still be in 20 cities ONLY and 9rs/min?? dialup 4kb/s wud the holy grail of internet? broadband in pkaistan took off in ONE year.. it took USA nad UK 4 ears to establish dsl, and we even have wateen wifi right now..

Do you honestly believe that these things wouldn't have happened under ANY government? It's not really very difficult to open your market up to lots of phone and computer imports. Would we be living in the Stone Age if there had been a democratic government? As for the telecom sector. Mobilink etc. set up in this country well before Musharraf came to power, and their expansion was not due to any unique policies implemented by the Musharraf government. As for Wateen and all the Middle Eastern investment... after 9/11, Arab investors simply pulled their money out of the US and Europe, and diverted it to new markets such as Pakistan. Musharraf got lucky. Any democratic government in his place would have done the exact same things. When you see how interlinked the global economy is, you begin to understand how limited the options available to governments are. Any other government would have done the same.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

sooo many international products are IN market right now, which we probably would be salivating over otheriwse, by looking in posters only..

Honestly, what has this got to do with the Musharraf government? Are you trying to say that a democratic government wouldn't have allowed the import of electronics? That's a ridiculous argument to make.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

there are soo many national channels in pakistan right now, that its even gone out of goverments control .. b4 that the best entertainment was the "tractor repair workshop on ptv 2". and current channels are progressing upto CNN standrds..

Except for when they criticised the government. Then they were just taken off the air. Free speech isn't a privilege. It's a right that Musharraf had very little respect for.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

if international investment in a country is not symmbolic of ecomomic growtha nd development for you,then what is?

Let me see... the development of a strong export economy that isn't dependent on primary commodities like cotton. The equitable distribution of wealth within the country, with a relatively large, well-funded public sector providing an economically sustainable level of welfare. The development of indigenous industries capable of producing quality capital goods.

What has Musharraf given us? Investment in Telecom and construction... and? What local development has there been? All I see is a large number of multinational firms, an overvalued stock market driven up by speculation, a bursting housing bubble, and a growing balance of payments problem. And who cares about investment and macroeconomic growth when nothing has been done to allow the common man to share in this growth. Pakistan's gini coefficient grew under Musharraf. The rich got richer and the poor just got poorer. For people like you and me, Musharraf is great because we belong to a privileged minority that gets to spend thousands of rupees on pentium 4s, and McDonalds, and N95 phones. But what about the guy living in Chak 50, district Sargodha, who has to feed a family of 6 on Rs. 2000/month. According to the UNDP, 72% of Pakistan's population lives on less than $2/day. That basically means that in a nation of 150 million people, 108 million live on less than Rs. 3500 a month. Does that look like economic growth to you?

And what about the social sector? Was there any noticeable increase, under Musharraf, in education or health spending? No. What we did see more of was debt servicing and military spending.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

there was no food shortage,

Please don't talk about the food shortage unless you understand the international roots of the problem, and why it's happening now as opposed to three years ago.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

there are faaar more universities and colleges in pakistan with international recognition of their degrees.. before that you could count all of them on less than one hand..value of property rose upto 160% in most areas, due to investment..

Most Pakistani degrees are still pretty worthless, and if you think that Pakistani universities can compete internationally, you need a serious reality check. Hell, Pakistani universities can't even compete with Indian universities. How much research does Pakistan produce? How many quality PhDs? However, that isn't just Musharraf's fault... it's an old problem. But he certainly didn't do much to rectify the situation.

As for land. Firstly, it's pretty obvious that there is a land bubble, and that it is going to burst (if it hasn't already). Land has been over-valued due to rampant speculation, and it will come crashing down soon enough. Also, much of the investment in land has come from expats following 9/11. It's likely that quite a bit of that will dry up as well due to the credit crunch. Finally, investment in land does not serve any kind of productive value. It is parasitic capitalism. It doesn't help anyone except the person who buys it and then sells it at a profit. Investment in land, for investment's sake, does not produce any good and services. It's just another means through which the rich get richer. After all, the average person on the street isn't exactly going to go around buying a plot in DHA.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and the unUrban areas f pakistan like gwadar were made into the next BIG thing in tourisma and international market..

Yeah... when Japanese and German tourists plan their summer vacations this year, I'm sure they'll be thinking of going to Gwadar. Also, what of the thousands of Balochis who were displaced, without compensation, to make Gwadar? What about the fact that the project is completely dominated by non-Balochis, with the population of Balochistan getting almost no benefit from the project? Don't you think it would be a good idea to give the Balochis a greater share of the benefits? Especially given the insurgency?

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

you cud argue that import expost ratio in pakistan was almost nill..its still is.. why ? cuz china won the global market war.and the TRUE democratic and republican countries themsleves are atumped over this chinese invasion....how? you wud definatly know more than anyone,ofcourse..but you DO also see all the cottage industry, the milling industry, iron,coal, oil,industry, the sugar industry, copper mining association,metallurgy departments, all protesting and threatening to close down,. cuz ther is o relief.. and the biggest culprits of BILLIONS of dollars have their cases removed by NRO..

Firstly, are you trying to suggest that if China hadn't been around, Pakistan would be the world's leading producer and exporter? My friend, Pakistan only makes COTTON! We have a bad import/export ratio because we don't produce anything worthwhile to export. And that has nothing to do with China and a lot to do with shortsighted economic planning. Again, this isn't just Musharraf's fault but he certainly didn't do much to reverse the trend. As you yourself said, he didn't exactly help out local industries. All he did was ensure his friends in business made mega-bucks from all this foreign investment. The rich got richer, and the poor just got fucked.

The NRO, by the way, was done by Musharraf...

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

petrol was 56.xx paisa a few moths back.. now its 70rs.. i agree that its global rise,and NO One can help it.. but remember that in that time, when petrol was still rising eerywhere, our petrol dropped from 55.54 to 53rs?? good governing and proper planning.. ayone who reads internationl affairs, will kow that INDIA has last week reduced petrol prices by 3rs/litre... why is it?? is some country SPECIAlly having India`s Ass? so they get cheap petorl?? no, i dont think so..

Petrol prices are still low in Pakistan due to government subsidies and cheap oil from Saudi Arabia. The point is, as you said, that Musharraf and all have little control over oil prices. They would have risen under any government. Subsidising petrol was not a particularly insightful thing to do, and it could have potentially been done under a democratic government as well.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

how is restoration of free judiciary going to help??

all judges were dismissed by musharaf.. they protested,, mush made new PCO juges.. so the new juges will DEFINATLY have all thier sympathies for Mush for promoting them and securing them.

Yeah... that's a problem, no? I refuse to discuss the judges in this thread. Go see the this thread for a very detailed discussion on the judges issue, and why it is important. I'll answer questions there.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

zardari came with anouncement of juges and all his cases were dismissed, and he was CLEAn,, since he doesnt need the juges now, why should he restore them.. after all, YOUR democracy has shown that only self serving and satisfacion is the right way of DEMOCRATIC goverment.purpose fulfilled..

Zardari's an opportunistic asshole. No denying that. He has betrayed the nation, and has squandered another opportunity to bring real democracy to Pakistan. I agree... what we have right now is a sham. Does that mean democracy, as an idea, is flawed? Does that mean democracy can never work in Pakistan? Of course not.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

what wud be the role of the new judiciary if zadari even does restore them?? same as PCO juges?? they would forever be in debt to him, and thus they will obey his comand and thus QUOTING YOU Md """"I think its important, in the long-run, to have a working democratic process that prevents one man from imposing his will on an entire country.""" where is the democracy now???

Please go read the other thread. We can discuss the issue there. But, very briefly, what we had right now was a chance to have real democracy. As Cateye said, and I reiterated in this post, democracy has never really been given a chance in this country, for a number of reasons. Immediately after the February elections, I said that nothing would change overnight. Holding elections is not enough for democracy. Democracy requires institutions, and a process. These need time to evolve. What we had right now was a chance to take steps towards creating a proper democracy. Those steps were not taken by Zardari. An opportunity has been lost, and we're headed for yet another episode of democratic failure.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

there is NO DEMOCRACY IN CHINA.. most succesful country in the world right now..

No liberal democracy in China. They do have communism, though, which has its own variant of democracy. And are you suggesting that Pakistan should be communist? Because if that is what you're suggesting, then I agree 100%. I am, after all, a Marxist.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

Iran is the biggest threat to every country , and has no democracy but Khiafat system..and worst than Democracy is the badshahat system in saudia.. but none of them is dwindling on the thin thread of suport we are hanging on..

So you want Pakistan to be ruled by religious fanatics like the ones in Iran? Or do you want Pakistan to be like Saudi Arabia? Ruled by a corrupt monarchy getting rich of oil and American aid? What about Nigeria? They have a military dictatorship. Burma, perhaps? Sudan? North Korea? Turkmenistan? Equatorial Guinea? Gambia? Eritrea? Yemen?

Are those the countries Pakistan should emulate? None of them are democracies? All of them have extremely low levels of human development. Even Pakistan, after eight years of the Musharraf 'miracle' is ranked 136 out of 177 countries in terms of human development (accordingf to the UNDP). That really isn't much of an improvement, if an improvement at all, over what the ranking was in 1999.

Or should Pakistan be more like the democracies of the world? The countries of Western Europe, for instance? Sounds far-fetched? How about Brazil? Or India? Haven't they been doing extremely well under democracy? Within the literature on the subject, there is an almost unanimous consensus that democracy leads to greater levels of human development and even economic growth in the long run. The value of democracy, as a system, is often taken for granted simply because the evidence of it being a better system than dictatorship is pretty overwhelming.

If you wanted to fight for a system, which one would you want to support?

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

the TRUE democratic contries have ACTUALLY TRUE DEMOCRACy... how can it be implemented in pakistan is not the purpose and beyyond the scope of his thread...

It is possible, though. We can discuss it if you want.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

but why current democracy is in favour of pakistan, i donot know.. maybe you could shed some light on it MD??? pretty please ...

I have never said that this government would be different from previous governments. What I have always said is that democracy needs time, and that this government represented an important first step towards realising what you call 'true' democracy. Of course, we've now taken two steps backwards thanks to Zardari, but my belief was, and remains, that democracy, even in a flawed form, is preferable to dictatorship because a flawed democracy can lay the foundations for a better democracy at a later point in time. If the judiciary had been restored, for instance, the judiciary as an insitution had been strengthened at this point in time, it would have had important effects in the future. Later judges might, for instance, have refused to give legitimacy to military interventions. This is speculation, but I don't think anyone can deny that it would have been an important move towards democracy.

Democracy needs time. It only emerged, in its current form, as a system of governance in Western Europe after almost 300 years of conflict and bloodshed. Even in places like India and Brazil, it didn't just happen. Brazil went through repeated instances of military dictatorship, and the Indian electorate has only recently started to show ideological maturity despite six decades of voting. I have never believed that one election, or even two, would change things in Pakistan. What I have also spoken in favour of is a process that will build on itself as it moves towards creating a proper democracy in Pakistan. Why does noone have any patience for this process? Why does noone even seem to recognise that democracies aren't built in a day? Why is there this perception that things can be fixed by a magic wand?

Unfortunately, the current regime and Zardari seem to be busy pursuing their own narrow agenda, and are not really supporting the democratic process. I can't say I support what they're doing and honestly, it just makes me feel very, very sad. Having said that, I can recognise the role played by history in causing this outcome. I can also see that while it may be a defeat for democracy at this point in time, it is not a defeat for the idea that democracy is what Pakistan needs. And as long as any steps are taken towards strengthening the process of democratization in Pakistan, I will support those steps.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

cuz again
Quoting you"""Don't expect me to just take your word for it when you say that democracy is GOODfor Pakistan.Baseless assertions are meaningless.""

thankyou...

Bloodbath said that democracy is bad for Pakistan. Period. Meaning that even democracy in it's 'true' form is bad. That statement is very different from saying that 'democracy is bad right now'. To clarify further, I do believe that democracy can be achieved in Pakistan despite the massive odds against it. I also believe that true democracy must be achieved in Pakistan. I also recognise, however, that it is not going to be an easy process at all. It is going to be extremely difficult, and things will probably get a lot worse before they get better.

Originally Posted by |BloodBath|

At least kept the feudal bastards away from the government.

Firstly, I thought you said you wouldn't be playing with us in this thread...

Secondly, your point about feudals is completely and totally untrue. The historical evidence speaks for itself. Every military government in Pakistan has relied on 'feudal bastards' for political support. Ayub Khan's BD system was dominated by feudals who were willing to work for him. The elections Zia held in 1985, on a non-party basis, brought more feudals into power, and Musharraf made liberal use of feudals in the Assemblies (What do you think the PML-Q was made up of?), and in the local level elections. Feudals have historically been the key source of support for military governments in Pakistan, and have been instrumental in providing electoral legitimacy to them.

MD

[Kursed]

Doesn't Pakistan army, being the single biggest land owning institution of Pakistan, follow feudalistic tendencies themselves? Cases in point being Okara and Khanewal farms.

[Dr.Farhan]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

Are you against democracy at an abstract level, or just the current farce?



Democracy makes me horny.


Okay..

1) Why is democracy bad?
2) Why is democracy bad for Pakistan?
3) Read my previous points on why democracy has failed in Pakistan.


The insurgency in Balochistan was very harmonious.
So was the bombing of Wana.
The people who went missing were probably kidnapped by the government harmoniously.
The power crisis was harmonious too.
Increasing ....And so on.


Zardari's an opportunistic asshole. No denying that. He has betrayed the nation, and has squandered another opportunity to bring real democracy to Pakistan.

As Cateye said, and I reiterated in this post, democracy has never really been given a chance in this country, for a number of reasons.Democracy requires institutions, and a process. These need time to evolve. What we had right now was a chance to take steps towards creating a proper democracy. Those steps were not taken by Zardari. An opportunity has been lost, and we're headed for yet another episode of democratic failure.


I have never said that this government would be different from previous governments. Of course, we've now taken two steps backwards thanks to Zardari, but my belief was, and remains, that democracy, even in a flawed form, is preferable to dictatorship because a flawed democracy can lay the foundations for a better democracy at a later point in time.

Unfortunately, the current regime and Zardari seem to be busy pursuing their own narrow agenda, and are not really supporting the democratic process. I can't say I support what they're doing and honestly, it just makes me feel very, very sad.

Bloodbath said that democracy is bad for Pakistan. Period. Meaning that even democracy in it's 'true' form is bad. That statement is very different from saying that 'democracy is bad right now'. To clarify further, I do believe that democracy can be achieved in Pakistan despite the massive odds against it. I also believe that true democracy must be achieved in Pakistan. I also recognise, however, that it is not going to be an easy process at all. It is going to be extremely difficult, and things will probably get a lot worse before they get better.


MD

first of.. hats off to you for coming up with
Democracy makes me horny... hahaha heheh ROFL ROFLING ROFLING..

and for your 3 questions...
just ad CURRENT beofre the word democracy, and try answering them yourself..it will all be a BIG yes...

and the bad things you quoted about Mush govt... i may DIRECT your EYES to my previus post which you butchered by multiquoting that i said FIRST 5 YEARS.., all you quoted was in the last 3 years..which i myself said i am very very against...

about your 2 points about your zardari and democracy requiring time....
hmmm......
every one has already said that zardari is an asshhle, not just an asshole , a BAWASEER wala asshole(translation : bloody asshole).. who was elected by democratic process and came out showing his true colours.. on the other hand, gelani has prooved to be a far better and logical person, by reading his press conference and the matters, HE is allowed to handle himself by the puppet master...

no one has said democracy is bad..i have always Used the BOLD CAPITOLS for the word CURRENT b4 every democracy typed.. so that my point becomes clear, which due to visual impairment has still not..

and then comes the TRUE democracy,. yes it requires times, yes it requires structure, yes, it requires maturing, and yes it requires the most IMPORTANT component.. Devotion to job and country.. by our way of CURRENT(again) democracy, every who has ever come, and is here is only to fill his pockets.. so that shows our CURRENT democratic procedure has faults.. and it does require time, but unless there is a hordcore devotee to the cause.. there aint gonna be any use for such democracy...

"following the footsteps", is a term that refers to fllowing the path laid by someone who is better than u, not lesser or inferior. so any dumbfuck will always try to follow the path of TRUE succesfull democracy, thats the US and Europe..failure to do so, either results from less resources, or less skill, or less determination.. we may hve less resources than US, but we require less too, we have moore skill than anywhere in the world, and only problem is determination.. which brings me to the conclusion

You and me debting against eachother by true and partial valid arguments, over an issue soo simple is NOT going to bring the mega revolution we are all drwaming to magically happen..
democracy is the way to go for any succesfull nation..
our current democratic system is highly flawed.. we DONOT need democracy reforms...we need Democracy rebuiding..who is going to take tjhat initiative is yet to be seen, .. by our history and current standards, its a very far fetched thought,, but prayers never go unanswered..

by the way,, may i ask you Md, what do you do for living? studying? job ? and what type of job...??

and still the democracy makes me horny is the sentence of the day.. ROFLINGINININGGG MFAO...

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by KuRsEd

Doesn't Pakistan army, being the single biggest land owning institution of Pakistan, follow feudalistic tendencies themselves? Cases in point being Okara and Khanewal farms.

I have always been hesitant to call the Pakistani military 'feudal'. When we talk about feudalism, in the traditional sense of the term, we are talking about a particular configuration of agrarian social and economic relations. The military, despite controlling a large amount of land, is not really the same as a feudal landowner, largely because control of the land is greatly dispersed and is rooted in a different sort of ownership than that which you find in traditional feudalism. You can't really point to a general, for instance, and claim that that general is equal, as a politial actor, to a Leghari. The latter is likely to have owned the land for two centuries, and is also likely to be deeply enmeshed in a network of local level social relations. The landlord will probably play an important role in resolving disputes and providing favours to the peasantry, and will have been a part of the calculus of local level social interaction. The military, on the other hand, has a more management-oriented role. One way to describe the difference would be to say that the military is more like a set of British administrators of the type that existed in the colonial era, overseeing economic production and benefitting from it, but not really getting absorbed into rural social life.

Thus, while the military as an institution or an organisation has a tremendous economic interest in controlling land,it doesn't have the same kind of local level social power that landlords generally enjoy. A Jutt zamindar owning 250 acres of land in a village will probably be held in higher esteem than a colonel, from outside the village, who owns the same amount of land or oversees its management. The concept of feudalism entails a fusion of economic and social power at the point of production, and that is lacking when it comes to the military.

What you do have, however, is a lot of economic and coercive power. The military does have a special relationship with land, but its a qualitatively different relationship from the type that traditionally characterises feudalism. It's a very academic difference, in some respects, but it raises interesting theoretical questions. Can state elites constitute an independent class? Can the military be considered to be an autonomous social and political actor? How does the military's use of power distinguish it from a feudal landlord?

There are probably answers to these questions, but they require more thought than I'm willing to give them right now...

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and for your 3 questions...
just ad CURRENT beofre the word democracy, and try answering them yourself..it will all be a BIG yes...

Fair enough. However, as you say in your post, the argument that democracy requires time is not an unfair one. It is pretty obvious to anyone who gives this question any thought that systems do not change overnight. Neither do people. Unless there is a complete revolutionary break with the past, in which the system is completely overturned, change is only going to take place in an incremental fashion. Even during revolutions, things do not change suddenly. Systems have to be built, and change has to be sustained.

If the argument is that the current democratic dispensation in Pakistan is seriously flawed, then I would like to counter by asking how it could be otherwise. After all, if the belief is that democracy needs to be nurtured, will there not be birth pangs? I don't understand why there has ever been the impression that things would magically change thanks to one set of elections. Especially when considering the quality of the leaders and parties contesting the elections. Having said that, while the current democratic government might be deeply problematic, can it not be used to sow the seeds of future democratic consolidation? As I said in my previous post, the restoration of the judges today can lay the foundations for the independence of the judiciary tomorrow. Voting a corrupt party into power in 2008 can lead to a better alternative being selected by wiser voters in 2012 or even 2016. Bad as it may be, the current democratization process has to be supported simply because it represents a crucial starting point from which to develop democracy for the future.

In the past few months, lawyers, students, rights activists, the media, and other members of civil society used their power to remove a coercive military government. This was, in my opinion, a positive step. It showed that no regime can claim to have absolute power, and that no man can hope to rule endlessly in the face of popular opposition. The movement last year has strengthened democratic forces in the country and, in the long-term interests of democratization in Pakistan, it makes sense to support these tendencies. If we were to start opposing democracy now, we would go back to square one. Remember... all this has happened before. In the late 1960s, Ayub Khan was toppled by a movement of students, trade unions, lawyers, and political parties. As a result, the country's first ever democratic elections were held in 1970. Yet, less than 8 years later, there was a return to military rule. Part of the fault lay with mistakes Bhutto made. But a lot of the problem also stemmed from the way in which many, out of dissatisfaction with Bhutto, did not protest when Zia took power. A lot like what happened when Musharraf seized power in 1999.

What was the fallout from the Zia era? Political parties were banned and unions were dismantled. The media was ruthlessly repressed, and state-sponsored religious outfits came to dominate Pakistan's political space. Because of measures like these, taken by Zia, there was next to no radical politics in Pakistan for almost thirty years. Democratic forces were so decimated in the decade of his rule that they have only now begun to recover.

A setback for democracy now will be serious and potentially deadly. I do believe that it is necessary to criticise our democratic leaders, and even oppose them when the fuck up (which they do, and will continue to do so), but this should not be done while thinking that dictatorship is a viable option. Dictatorship has done more to harm this country than anything else. A return to it will not solve Pakistan's problems. We must all resolve to ourselves that if Pakistan's issues are to be confronted, it must be done within a democratic framework. Failure to do so could lead to yet more decades of repression and inept governance under military regimes and inherently weak, quasi-democratic governments. Things may get worse before they get better, but at least we know that allowing democracy to develop will yield tangible benefits for Pakistan. The same cannot be said for dictatorship.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and the bad things you quoted about Mush govt... i may DIRECT your EYES to my previus post which you butchered by multiquoting that i said FIRST 5 YEARS.., all you quoted was in the last 3 years..which i myself said i am very very against...

First of all, you need to stop complaining about multi-quotes. I have not butchered your post. I have only separated it into its constituent elements. If you look at every quote I have used, it contains a single point that can be analysed as part of your broader argument. It makes it easier to read my response in the context of what you've said.

Secondly, a lot of the problems that Musharraf faced in the last three years were rooted in things that happened long before then. The crisis in Balochistan had been brewing for years, and the economic failings of his regime were also pretty obvious from the start. The same goes for the insurgency in FATA. First, the Musharraf government refused to take action against extremist groups in the area, either through diplomacy or force. Then, when the problem got out of hand, it went in blindly with guns blazing. The same happened with the Lal Masjid crisis.

I do believe in giving credit where it is due but in my opinion, very little of what happened under Musharraf would be worthy of a such an assessment.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

about your 2 points about your zardari and democracy requiring time....
hmmm......
every one has already said that zardari is an asshhle, not just an asshole , a BAWASEER wala asshole(translation : bloody asshole).. who was elected by democratic process and came out showing his true colours.. on the other hand, gelani has prooved to be a far better and logical person, by reading his press conference and the matters, HE is allowed to handle himself by the puppet master...

Zardari, if he goes ahead with his betrayal, deserves all our abuse and more. However, the solution to his actions does not lie in a return to dictatorship. Alternative democratic mechanisms for solving the current political crisis should be sought and supported.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

and then comes the TRUE democracy,. yes it requires times, yes it requires structure, yes, it requires maturing, and yes it requires the most IMPORTANT component.. Devotion to job and country.. by our way of CURRENT(again) democracy, every who has ever come, and is here is only to fill his pockets.. so that shows our CURRENT democratic procedure has faults.. and it does require time, but unless there is a hordcore devotee to the cause.. there aint gonna be any use for such democracy...

We're unfortunately going to have to put up with bad democracy before good democracy develops. Nothing is going to change overnight and unless a truly inspirational leader emerges who successfully creates a mass-party on a platform for change, any transition to democracy is going to involve the same old corrupt politicians and fractured parties. What needs to be done, under such circumstances, is to pressurize these 'democratic' leaders while, at the same time, supporting the democratic process. It needs to be made clear that further military interventions will not be supported and will, in fact, be opposed. If there is a political crisis in Pakistan, the solution will be sought in the light of the constitution, and at the ballot box. Pakistan isn't, after all, the only country with problems. India has political crises all the time yet, because the military would never be supported in government, because the judiciary is independent, and because parties respond to the demands of the electorate, democratic solutions are found to resolve even the most intractable issues.

We must start to have some faith in the logic of electoral competition. Even now, we can see hints of how democracy can work. Zardari has taken an anti-judiciary stance. Nawaz Sharif has taken a pro-judiciary one. In the wake of last year's movement, and judging from popular sentiment, it seems as if Nawaz Sharif is likely to gain support for his stand. Regardless of what his motivations may be for adopting such a stance, the PML-N will make electoral gains because its agenda happens to coincide with the aspirations of the electorate. The PPP, on the other hand, will lose out. Simply speaking, democracy can often force parties to take sides on different issues, and the party that correctly reads the public mood is the party that will win an election. There is, of course, often room for negotiation, but that is the essence of electoral competition. You win votes due to the impact your decisions or policies have on the people.

My advice at this point? Let that fucker Zardari stay in government. Let the current government complete its tenure. Spend some time protesting against it, and raising the general level of awareness about its failings. And then let it be destroyed in the next elections. Hopefully, the PPP will be made to pay for its treachery and a more democratically inclined party will be brought into power. That is how you strengthen democracy. That is how you develop it. Not by supporting dictatorship, but by letting the process work.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

You and me debting against eachother by true and partial valid arguments, over an issue soo simple is NOT going to bring the mega revolution we are all drwaming to magically happen..

In the grand scheme of things, this argument and this thread will probably not accomplish anything. However, if it plays a role in increasing awareness of even one person, that is a positive thing.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

democracy is the way to go for any succesfull nation..
our current democratic system is highly flawed.. we DONOT need democracy reforms...we need Democracy rebuiding..who is going to take tjhat initiative is yet to be seen, .. by our history and current standards, its a very far fetched thought,, but prayers never go unanswered..

We, as citizens of this country, need to take that initiative, and the first thing we can do is not support dictatorship. There is a logic that underlies the democratic process. Let that logic run its course. That is how we will strengthen the system. There will be setbacks, but they must be borne for the greater good. If we agree that democracy is ultimately the answer to Pakistan's problems, then we must not succumb to the temptation of letting the military back in.

Originally Posted by farhan_ds

by the way,, may i ask you Md, what do you do for living? studying? job ? and what type of job...??

I'm currently studying for a PhD in Sociology.

MD

[Dr.Farhan]

Phd in sociology.. wow.. this forum is an excellent base gorund for your thesis i think ,right?

and please read my posts again and you will not find a single time , i have said that dictator ship is good or bad.. and i have never said thatdemocracy is bad...these are two difrent POV and extremely oposite in proper implementation.. it would take two independent threads just trying to contain the amount of material that both of us and everyone else could come up with to debate alog...

Dictator ship is the best thing personally, i feel a true dictatorship doesnot mean that if i say to nuke lahore, it be done..case in point""the SUPER MOFO BADEST ASS dictator ever.. HITLER the great...running a goverment is not a pasttime hobby, and its less of a job and more of a responsibilty.. being a PM or president is not a money making scheme,its a liabilty of the 16carore nation of ours and of every other country.. whether it is successfully run with a dictator, or a democrat,or republican, or a fanatic, or a king..no matter what is the pathway, the ultimate goal of such an establishment is the refinement of a gud system and improving a faulty system system,and removing the flaws.... hitler was the best dictator ever. Khumeni and maozetung were the greatest fanatics/reformers,.. abrahm lincon was a great democrat...they took their natins on a path of dominance and improved the hell out of their countries... their pathways are diffrent, but their goal is the same...

i am no pro mush.. i dont like him,NOW..but i am also not dpriving anyone o their acomplishments..i am just giving the devil his dues...his first 5 years were really really great, probably the best our country might have ever seen...and thats pathetic in its own sense..his last 3 were not consequence of his previous 5 years.. those were due to his greed of goverment rule hat lead to his political downfall..and the steps he took in that time was only to save his prime minister ship...and thus he be dammed to hell if what we think he did is actually true...only acknowleging his gud points..

and only point i disagree with you MD is that only in the military rule have the establishments made such an influence on the international level, that such tremendous grants and funds heve been given .. in every dictator time, there were soo many organizations and countries giving millions and billions of dollars that our country`s economy became stable..i donot know why that happens but that happened everytime.. what became of that funds is totally diffrent story.. and that again brings me to the point that a selfless aproach to running a country has always been our only MAJOR weakness..

zardari came by democracy and turned into a dictator.. nawaz sharif always had such a strong opposition that he cudnt be dictator,,otherwise he tried everytime...and benazir was a tool to the US goverment who became dictators to our country indirectly.. the orignal bhutto was hanged.. and liaqat ali khan was shot...if this is the democracy that our country is following , then i wud welcome a dictator any day..

true democracy we need, desperatly..
true democracy that we aint got...

bitch democracy is implemented here..
what to say next,??shit, i forgot..

[Kursed]

Originally Posted by MummyDaddy

I have always been hesitant to call the Pakistani military 'feudal'. When we talk about feudalism, in the traditional sense of the term, we are talking about a particular configuration of agrarian social and economic relations.

There is a reason, I mentioned Okara and Khanewal farms in my post. Try reading the following links, and see if you find it hard to disregard similarities between Pakistan military and feudal lords.

The New Land Barons?
The peasants' revolt | Comment is free

[Dr.Farhan]

light went out, so i just updated my previous post now...

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by KuRsEd

There is a reason, I mentioned Okara and Khanewal farms in my post. Try reading the following links, and see if you find it hard to disregard similarities between Pakistan military and feudal lords.

The New Land Barons?
The peasants' revolt | Comment is free

Kursed, please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say viz, feudalism. I am obviously aware of what the military has been doing on its farms. I even know people who have been involved with the movement in Okara. I am not denying that the military owns massive amounts of land, nor am I claiming that it doesn't use force to maintain its control. Doing these two things does not, however, mean that they are feudal. As a theoretical concept, there is more to feudalism than simple land ownership and control. Feudalism entails a certain degree of social power that is often only attainable through a deep entrenchment within local networks of kinship and exchange. In classical European feudalism, you had a single landowner who would have a number of serfs working on his land, receiving a share of the output in return for their work. Additionally, the landlord would normally have complete legal jurisdiction over his holding, possessing the right to enforce the law and punish any who crossed him without question. It was a fusion of economic, political, and coercive power at the local level. More significantly, any individual feudal lord could essentially act independently of state influence, or the influence of his contemporaries. When capitalism developed, feudalism was gradually dismantled.

Feudalism of that description has never really existed in this part of the world. Part of the reason is that until the British arrived, private ownership of land was extremely rare. While individuals did control massive amouns of land, at the behest of the Emperor, there was no hereditary transfer of holdings. What was similar to the European system was the way in which regional and local level zamindars could use force to establish their own writ, or that of the state. But, due to their limited rights over the land, there were limits to the economic surplus they could extract. At the end of the day, the state played the principal role in determining the exact share of the economic produce they could retain. This also happened in Europe, where feudal lords paid tribute to their rulers, but the difference here was that while a single Feudal lord in Europe was directly connected to one superior (a regional lord or king), a chain of intermediaries connected local level cultivators and zamindars to the Emperor, with each link in the chain laying claim to some of the agricultural produce.

When the British came to Punjab in 1849, and then spread to the rest of modern-day Pakistan, they introduced private ownership of land in the European sense of the term. They had done so previously in other parts of the subcontinent. Under the British colonial government, you began to see structures similar to classical feudalism except for a couple of key differences. Firstly, the power of individual landlords was extremely restricted by the presence of the British as rulers who maintained a legal system and set of laws that were rigidly enforced. While parallel legal systems did exist, landlords did not wield absolute control in their areas. Secondly, landlords no longer had access to coercive force. Gone were the private armies and militias that were present under the Mughals, and were a hallmark of European feudalism.

What were present, however, were networks of biraderi and local level exchange that were dominated by these landed elites. While they might have lacked actual militias, landlords could still use their economic dominance to force the compliance and subservience of the peasntry. More importantly, in my opinion, the landed elite could also use their position within the village biraderi hierarchy to completely dominate village panchayats and other informal institutions aimed at regulating village life. Bolstered by a British emphasis on using customary law while governing present-day Pakistan, landlords, who by definition (and the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900) had to be from high-status biraderis, could use their social power, in tandem with their economic power, to exercise control over villages. That is why they became politically significant... they could use these sources of power to mobilise votes, either through economic coercion or by employing their social authority. This continued to be the case even after 1947.

Why do I argue that the military isn't feudal? Well, let's look at the characteristics of the military's land ownership. You have a general who owns, say, 250 acres. This general potentially has access to coercive force, but any use of that force is manifestly illegal. The general in question will also not have any of the social power that is available to traditional landlords, and this is obviously because the general will be from outside the village, probably not from a high-status biraderi, and will also not be from a family that had played an important role, over the course of the last century, in the village's social life. This general will not be able to use social power to mobilise votes, for example. He will, under such circumstances, be bound to employ economic coercion or force. Most importantly of all, the general's activities will be cicumscribed by the military. At the end of the day, the landowning general will be part of a much larger landowning entity, and his independence will be limited by that fact. This is not true for retired army personnel, but the other criticisms apply with even greater force to them. Also, retired army personnel lack a lot of the potential coercive force available to serving personnel.

Like I said, it's an academic distinction. Does the army own lots of land, most of it illegally? Yes. Does it repress the peasantry where it owns land? Yes. Is it only interested in making loads of money through this land? Absolutely. But does that make it feudalism in the classical sense of the word? I'm not to sure about that, and the articles you've cited don't really show otherwise. While we often use the word 'feudal' to refer to anyone who owns more than the average amount of land, the fact is that as a concept, feudalism entails a lot more than simple land ownership.

MD

[Kursed]

MD - now that was a thorough explanation of an issue, that has been eating my mind for a while. Thank you!

But I've got a couple of more questions for you.

1. Hasn't the 'traditional' land owning class, furthered it's roots within the ranks of Pakistan military as well? Just like it has amongst industrialists and bureaucracy.

2. While the use of power, in order to yield control over peasants is 'illegal', has it ever stopped the military from employing such means? I don't believe, that they care about laws and regulations governing this country, when employing coercive means against peasants.

[MummyDaddy]

Originally Posted by KuRsEd

1. Hasn't the 'traditional' land owning class, furthered it's roots within the ranks of Pakistan military as well? Just like it has amongst industrialists and bureaucracy.

That really depends on what you consider to be the 'military'. Under the colonial government, Punjab was instrumental in providing troops to the Indian army, a lot of whom were granted land by the state following the completion of their service. However, these grants were not really very big. More pertinent to your question is the traditional landowning elite. Under the colonial government, members of these families would join the military at higher ranks than regular Indian troops. There was a certain prestige attached with military service. However, while your claim may have been true, to an extent, back in the 1940s and 1950s, I do believe that there has been a demographic shift in the military. While it is still overwhelmingly comprised of Punjabis and Pathans, how many of its members are likely to be members of the traditional landowning elite? After all, in an army of half a million men, it is likely that only a relatively small percentage will be members of the traditional elite. This is especially true when given how army recruitment is seen as a means through which to escape poverty. By and large, the majority of recruits will come from the lower economic strata of society.

Which leaves the question of where the upper brass comes from. Again, if your officers are drawn from your recruits, and if they in turn aren't members of the elite, you're not likely to see too much of an overlap between the traditional elite and the military elite. While there may still be instances where such an overlap exists, I wouldn't really say that there's an overwhelming trend. What is more likely, in my opinion, is that the military creates a new elite through its access to state resources and land. But this elite would obviously be qualitatively different from the landed elite.

Then again, I could be wrong. I'd have to take a look at actual data to categorically confirm or deny what I'm saying. But, at an intuitive level, I think that what I'm saying is probably accurate.

Originally Posted by KuRsEd

2. While the use of power, in order to yield control over peasants is 'illegal', has it ever stopped the military from employing such means? I don't believe, that they care about laws and regulations governing this country, when employing coercive means against peasants.

You're absolutely right. The military doesn't really care about the legality of its actons. The law certainly hasn't stopped them from employing force in Okara or elsewhere. However, my highlighting the illegality of their actions was intended to make a more symbolic point. Under traditional feudalism, the status of the landowner is recognised and accepted. It's part of the reason why feudal lords are able to wield so much power... in addition to their economic power, their position within the village hierarchy is often accepted by the peasantry. This is often contested, resulting in coercive responses, but you're only going to ask your Rajput landlord to head a panchayat if you accept his social authority. And that is what happens. Also, in order to maintain their social position, landlords have to provide certain services themselves. In Pakistan, this could include sitting on a panchayat, resolving disputes, giving agricultural credit, and even providing access to the bureaucracy or politicians. If you want a phone or gas in Chak 50, you don't go to a government office. You go to your landlord.

In the literature, this is what you call a patron-client relationship. The villagers work on the landlord's land and give him votes. In return, to keep them from rebelling or fleeing, he does them favours of different varieties. If rebellion happens anyway, he will punish them with force, but any intelligent landlord would recognise that as being a last resort.

Feudalism is a brutal and oppressive system premised on exploitation, but there is a social component to its economic brutality. I'm not trying to defend the social role of landlords by saying they provide important services. After all, a landlord could refuse to provide a person with such services in order to punish that person. In an ideal world, landlords would not have the ability to wield this kind of power. I only make mention of it here to illustrate how there is a lot more to feudalism than land ownership. The role played by landlords in providing services serves as a means through which they legitimise their position within the agrarian hierarchy while establising further control over the peasantry.

The Pakistani military, as a landowner, does not enjoy that kind of symbolic status. It is often recognised as an usurper, and performs none of the social or political functions that have traditionally been part of the landed elite's repertoire. As such, it is forced to use coercive means to keep the peasantry in line. As a class, the feudal elite have an interest in maintaining a certain social structure within which they can continue to exercise the types of power that they have had in the past. They have an interest in holding on to huge amounts of land while making sure that people in their villages continue to need them for employment and other services. They also have an interest in making sure there is no change in their social status, and that their authority continues to be accepted. The military has no such interests. It doesn't care who cultivates the land, or how. It doesn't care if people come to it for services or not. As an organisation, it is just interested in extracting more resources.

MD

[Dr.Farhan]

the day i meet MD, i will shoot him in his head..

just kidding.. sleep easy..