The USA does not recognise the newly elected President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying the elections were not fair and that the supreme council had the final say rather than the people of Iran and so it wasnt a true democratic process.
So what about the ‘democracy’ in Pakistan where the peoples representitives who have been handpicked by the dictator and yet they dont have much say in the legislative process as all bills are approved by the himself. But the USA doesnt seem to have a problem with this face of democracry in Pakistan. The day we stop helping them in the war against terror, will we seize to be a democratic country?! Will our elected leaders no more be recognised?!
Also they seem to recognise the War lords government of Afghanistan.
How long are we going to be used by the USA?! They used Zia, he wasnt elected thru a fair democratic process and now its Musharraf.
Why these double standards?!
Re: Democracy and the USA
It has all got to do with national interests. USA is a democracy only for US citizens. Such bigotry exsists in almost every nation. They are impelled by their National Interests and (sometimes hate) to invade weaker nations. The theory of survival fits right in as USA fears that Islamic Revolution would jeapordize its exsistence. Hence they use dimplomacy, shock and awe, and media for insinuations.
Unfortunately, people of Pakistan, whether they be under dictorial or democratic regime would continue to be harrased, and victimised by the so-called champion of democracy. We need to stop blaming USA for every thing. USA exploits us and feeds on our illiteracy and ignorance.
Re: Democracy and the USA
There is no democracy in Pakistan. Mushy is viewed as a benevolent dictator, and judged to be better than the elected alternative. When the parties of mass insanity in Pakistan become accountable and responsible, then I suppose we will push harder for the General to put himself up for a real and legitimate vote. No one needs to see the Taliban II with nukes.
Re: Democracy and the USA
Yeah, OK.
Re: Democracy and the USA
OG what would constitue as real and legitmate vote in Pakistan. Would you or your self-righteous regime allow any sort of democracy in Pakistan?
Re: Democracy and the USA
The 'double standards' are part of the policy where 'self interest' over rides the policy of 'spreading democracy'. The spreading of democracy is all good and dandy as long as it brings up a friendly government, if not then at least a workable government .. otherwise 'self interest' always trumps.
This hierarchy isn't any different than what almost all other countries around the world work with, it is just that US's interests are global while Nepal might have a small pond to look after.
Re: Democracy and the USA
^^ Oh my goodness, I think this boy might have seen the light.... Welcome aboard son, you will have a wonderful ride :)
Re: Democracy and the USA
There are theories on the foundations of democracy. Most of these things focus not on the vote, but the infrastructure of the country. Things that need to be in place before a "real vote" would be:
1) A free and fair election commission.
2) Relative freedom from voter intimidation and coercsion.
3) A relatively fair and honest court system to interpret election results.
4) Responsible political parties committed to political change rather than violent change.
5) Freedom from influence outside the country.
6) Candidates who represent responsible leadership, and who respect balanced rule.
7) A national constitution supported by the population as the highest law of the land.
8) A military that will honor the results of the election, and not intimidate or interfere in the political election.
9) A military that will obey the properly elected representatives.
10) A unified military, rather than a fractured military answerable to various commanders.
11) A populous that is ready to vote in large numbers.
12) A political and legal system which does not tacitly allow corruption on a wide scale.
Now there is no saying that all of these things must be in place and perfect, but the country must recognize that a sytem of checks and balances is essential, and that the rule of law is essential. The above list represents the most common reasons democracies fail. Now ask yourself is Pakistan ready?
I think the US would actively push for a Pakistani democracy, if and when the foundations for democracy are in place.
Re: Democracy and the USA
^ Pakistan will never be ready, corruption rules our judiciary, similarly it won't be a possibility for Saudi Arabia or any "dictator regime".... until an unless they are removed and taken over by 'some' democratic country and everything is "restarted".
Re: Democracy and the USA
You see OG selective spread of democracy does not work, either "you are with us or against us". You cannot beat the drum of democracy for Iraqis while helping and supporting dictators in other countries. It just does not work, not to mention it leaves GW looking like a fool when he keeps repeating the same "iraqi people are free" , "we have liberated the iraqi people".
Re: Democracy and the USA
Couldn't disagree more OG. Democracy builds institutions not the other way around
Re: Democracy and the USA
PD, the first US contitution, the Articles of Confederation actually failed. It formed such a weak agreement on the running of the country that it allowed rebellions such as Shay's rebellion. Now no one is saying that each piece of managing the country must wholly and completely be in place to begin a democracy, but some concensus must be there, along with a structure that can be trusted and relied upon.
Afghanistan could fail because warlords refuse to give up militias and power. It could fail because of outside interference.
Democracy in Pakistan could fail because a significant part of the populous believes in Sharia Law as the highest authority rather than the consitution. Corruption could continue to undermine the society. Violence rather than the rule of law may prevail. The military could refuse to relinquish power.
Many historians argue that early democracy is not a natural state, but is rather fragile and easily destructable. Emerging democracy is impossible in conditions of absolute chaos, and that a political resolve among a vast majority of the population is essential. Democracy is not simply a vote.
What history has shown is that Democracies that emerged after the Soviet Unions proceded in fits and starts, and that two steps forward and one step back is a common occurance. Each democracy is highly unique, and reflects the mores of the people. Institutions can be strengthened while building a democracy, but some degree of core cohesion and structure must be present.
Re: Democracy and the USA
[quote]
There are theories on the foundations of democracy. Most of these things focus not on the vote, but the infrastructure of the country. Things that need to be in place before a "real vote" would be:
[/quote]
^^ OG, I totally agree with you but now how would we establish/REFORM this infrastructure. How would we remove dictorial regime and undemocractic government to ensure that all the pre-requisites are there for a successful democratic state when the matter of fact is all dictatorial and undemocratic regimes implanted in Pakistan were supported by US. A dictator is replaced by another dictator when the US considers that some if not most "foundations for democracy are in place". What I am trying to say is that US has constantly been invloved in installing puppet regimes in Pakistan and other countries. If my political party's or any other party's views are not comaptaible with the US vision of democracy,US Foreign Policy and US Interestes , I would probably never see my party or any party get "Domocratically Elected" that is US will call it undemocratic.
Re: Democracy and the USA
I think that fringe political parties thrive on the razors edge because they can take any position, and change their mind in a blinck if they want. It is far easier to be a critic than a participant. Therefore, when a district elects a radical, soon the radical is bombarded with reality of consitutent concerns, jobs, budgets, sanitation, and at some future point the radical is judged via future elections, and he is judged by his "record".
Being a firebrand is easy. Delivering on everyday concerns is a lot of hard work. This is the pattern of co-option into the system. The firebrands seem fairly scary, until they actually occupy elected postions, whreupon they become part of a much larger machine.
The problem is that the first few years of dealing with firebrands can be an adventure. Arafat gets elected, and then crisis after crisis, many self-created, allow him to permanently defer elections until he is basically King-for-life. That is the fear. The Arafat experience is the prototypical Democratic breakdown. The consitution and the structure around him broke down, and he siphoned off billions as insitutions collapsed. He blamed others for the crisis and used it to seize more power. Wouldn't another Kashmir crisis cause an election delay if a dictator wannabe is elected? Better to get Kashmir resolved first, so a further crisis cannot be used to derail the Democracy. Much better to start a long Jouney in calm waters, rather than sailing into the teeth of the storm.
Quite sometime ago, I compared a Democracy to a sailboat. The foundations of the democracy provide ballast. At any given time the sailboat may be knocked flat by a strong wind. Ballast creates a self-righting mechanism that keeps the sailboat from sinking. At any given time, a Democracy may go wrong. Vietnam, Nixon, assaination attempts, challenged elections, any of these can create a temporty crisis. Iraq may be a simlar crisis, time will tell. Eventually the electorate provides a self righting mechanism for wayward politicans and policies.
And, the US will always act in it's own self interest. As does every other coountry. I think the US is desperately searching for a workable "Islamic Democracy" prototype. If you look at Eastern Europe, a prototype for post soviet Democracies emerged, and soon it became a trend. Eastern Europe is very much a template for countries emerging from totalitarian rule.
Re: Democracy and the USA
As long as we let them.
“The fault dear brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves”. Sheik-Spear 
We keep electing corrupt politicians (more like feudal lords) and they keep raping our country. Pak Army being the “supposed caretaker” will keep meddling in. If we elect politicians based on merits not on how many cab schemes they can launch and, whether their political symbol is the “holy book” we will keep getting used by the western powers, corrupt politicians and pak army. It’s time to put blame on ourselves rather than blaming others. Hope that helps.
Re: Democracy and the USA
^^Bravo
Re: Democracy and the USA
We dont elect them, i happen to be gifted with a couple of police guards posted at the gate of my house, who were away during the elections as well as the referendum, they were too busy casting loads and loads of votes for the government-backed candidates and also the dictator during the referrendum. It was a tiring experience they tell me. Shaukat Aziz had more votes casted in his support in Tharparkar than the actual population of the constituency.
Chaudhary Shujaat and company have looted more land from orphans and widows than any other criminal in Pakistan. The ordinary man in Gujarat pees in his pants wen he hears the name of CHAUDHARY WAJAHAT HUSSAIN.
After the referrendum loads of people boasted of casting several voted in support of the general.
As the 73 constitution puts it, a person guilty of carrying out a coup is supposed to be atleast hanged to death. Untill this law is applied by our, should i call it judiciary or circus…there will continue to be military dictators.
Re: Democracy and the USA
To live in Pakistan u need a danda! Mush seems to have the biggest danda, the Pakistan army.
He gives the politicians two option, go to jail or become a minister, not every guy is Bhutto whod die rather than leave the country or resign.
Paki generals live for the 3 W..........Women Wealth Wine
If they can have sexual intercourse with prostitutes dressed up as army nurses during the 71 war, they can fall to any depth!
Re: Democracy and the USA
^Just because you happened to be gifted with a couple of police guards outside your house with a last name Tarar would make you a ...........let me guess relative of an ex-president. That doesnt mean sh1t. Sorry mate. There are only four blood types dont tell me yours happen to be different just because you had two police guards outside your dwelling.
I happened to be gifted as well with the common human blood type, I had more than a couple of police guards outside our house as well. What does that mean.....and I answer Nada, Zilch, zero nothing.
Our political system including the constitution is wrong. We (pakis) put way too much emphasis on religion and not on citizenry, and issues that affect an ordinary citizen. I stand firm on what I said earlier, the fault lies with us not with them...western powers and paki military.
Lets introduce measures legally and stop the military meddling, lets make the president the C-in-C. That solves the problem of military meddling. We tried the parliamentary system from 1947 onwards....didn't work lets scrap it and switch to a different one (its called progress/learning from mistakes/learning from history), whatever that may be.
As far as land mafia is concerned that happens everywhere, in US its called imminent domain. Hope that helps.
Re: Democracy and the USA
P.S You seem to be contradicting yourself. Take a stand, on one end you want democracy, then you state that pakis need danda. I politely dis-agree. Only the rich/self proclaimed elitists with good connections think the danda way. I used to think that way as well but then I met a guru that corrected me and showed me the light. Guru was right.
As far as your inference to prostitutes is concerned. Grow up. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, so what if someone wants to get laid and get drunk. Ex paki presidents, prime ministers even prophets in the past did that, look at jesus and Mary Magdalene....Ishmael son of abraham was not his legitimate son (according to jews)so there was some hanky panky going aorund then as well. I think politics requires a little more than physical pleasures and your references to things that you may personally abhor. I'd rather fancy a prostitute than cheat on my.................