Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

Be it military men like in case of Pakistan or party leaders like china/iraq or clergy.

I have realised that perhaps no one leaves the power voluntarily, its so intoxicating and addictive.

I doubt that Musharraf had plans to be President 10 years ago, but once he has become, he won’t let go. Perhaps the same is true of all types of people in power. Nawaz in his last days acted like any other dictator, he removed army chiefs, removed judges.

Now one may argue that in democratic societies prime ministers and presidents leave. But i think even in those cases its not really “voluntary”. Its just that laws of land are upheld to the extent that they know they don’t have a chance to keep on clinging to power.

Hence i guess none will relinquish power unless they have to.

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

No one relinquishes power unless there is a need to whether the realization of that need is from inside or because of external factors.

when you say in democratic societies pms and prez leaves, and it is due to the laws of the land. I would like to take that a step further, in those countries people who are leading the political parties step down as well..now ehethetr its because they think that they have not been successful so give soemone else a shot or because the party expects that leaders who have not been successful as candidates walk away, either way ppl walk away.

In our political parties what does it say? that the top dog wants to stay the top dog? and/or the people in the party dont think thatthey ahve anyoen else in the party who is equal to or superior to the current top dog to replace them? I mean I am sure there are smart ppl in PPP or in TI etc, or JI and JUI, but what is preventing them to be the leaders oftheir parties?

That is a pretty sad state of affairs, is it not?

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

You are right about Musharraf, but in the beginning he was dependant on many factors to stay in power. Those vanished once he knew he had Uncle Sams backing.

A few days after the coup of 1999, Brigadier Rashid Qureshi declared with great emotion, “Others may have tried to hang on to power, we will not. We will make history.” In January 2000, General Musharraf told a television interviewer, “I am not going to perpetuate myself.” He said while he could not give a certificate on it, he was giving his word of honor.

It’s been an adage as old as time icon, that do not judge people when they are weak, judge them by when they have real power.

I’ve always argued on this forum: that Pakistan’s biggest problem is not economic ..it is moral. It is not about the size of the economic pie, it is about how fairly it’s sliced.

The main problem is a certain mentality of people who worship the lathi and don’t look at the ordinary Pakistani as a human beings.

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

Well, most third world politicians (or politicians anywhere) do not want to leave power. Unfortunately, their power base is people and they rely to hold to power using people (that includes armed forces). Normally, if they lose their power base amongst people, they can be kicked out of the chair by the chaukidaar of the prime minister or President house.

When GIK sacked Prime minister NS from office and court reinstated him, army decided to take resignation from both NS and GIK, as they feared that both in office would only going to make the country unstable (as both GIK and NS stopped trusting each other).

I am told that, when Army decided that Ghulam Ishaq Khan should resign, they went to President’s office and asked him to sign on the resignation paper. GIK started pleading to the army generals. He told them that he was part of establishment and thus their man. But unfortunately, Nawaz at that time had good support in the army. NS agreed to resign on condition that GIK also resigns. Thus, army wanted that GIK along with NS should resign too.

Thus, when GIK kept insisting that he is establishment man and should not be forced to resign, one general in anger told GIK that old man (well, what I heard he said, O Buddhay) are you going to resign or not, because if you are not, I will throw you out of the window and you will die just in front of the President’s house with all your bones broken (exact words could be more abusive). Thus, GIK was forced to resign.

When Yahya Khan was ousted and Bhutto took over as Martial law administrator and Gul Hasan (the real person behind forcing Yahya Khan to resign and brining Bhutto into power) took over as chief of army staff, Bhutto told Gul Hasan that with intellectual like him that can control the Pakistani donkeys and you having control over army, now we can rule this state of donkeys forever (what I am told that Bhutto said these words to one of the generals, I believe was Gul Hasan).

Gul Hasan did not agreed and result was that Bhutto when found opportunity, sacked Gul Hasan within few months of him taking post as army chief. Thus, probably Gul Hasan became the shortest general that served as army chief in Pakistan (probably 3 to 4 months).

Ayub Khan wanted to become King of Pakistan, but could not find enough support from the army and when unrest happened in the country; he left after handing power to the army (Yahya Khan). If army had agreed for Ayub Khan to become King, today we would have been seeing King Ghoar Ayub on the throne of Pakistan.

Even though there is no story or rumours about Zia in this respect, but with his action, it seems that Zia probably wanted to become Khalifa for life, wallah Alaam.

As for BB, she and her husband had different dreams. They were more after wealth then life time power. She can do anything for money. BB had experience of her father and knew that desire for life time power could not work in Pakistan, especially with very strong army in the country having mostly middle class officers, holding balance of power.

Thus her (BB) priority became exploiting power as long as in power, and thus to do corruption as much as possible, gathering as much wealth by looting and plundering this unfortunate poor country (Pakistan), transfer the money abroad, so that when her time finishes, she can move abroad and live as the riches woman (rather couple) in the world.

Nawaz Shareef in the beginning was amazed on his luck, pondering how this ganja lohar became Prime minister of Pakistan. What I have heard that in marriage function, one general saw him, liked him, then put his hat on the head of NS and declared that he would be future PM. Some laughed, while NS was astonished, but general told them that not to worry, all can happen in Pakistan, and he (general) would nurture this duffer, and eventually would grant him the post of PM.

Well, after becoming PM, in the beginning NS tried to do something as he was amazed, but power of PM got into his head and he started learning from BB that PM seat may come and go, but when time would pass, only money could help. So, this ganja also started doing mega corruption and gathering wealth. Then later, when army kicked GIK because of his demand, he started seeing himself as man from whom army is scared, and thus he can do whatever he likes.

Thus, when this Ganja became PM second time, he started thinking that why just do corruption, why not become the owner of whole Pakistan. He decided that he would never lose power again and would rule Pakistan forever. Thus, he thought of starting a new era Shareefa Khalaffat in Pakistan, in the footstep of Umayyad Khalifat, Abbasid Khalaffat, Ottoman Khalafat. If he had succeeded, Pakistan would have Shareefa Khalafaat now-a-days :)

Nevertheless, Ganja being uneducated, did not knew that never in history a dynasty was established by those that did not had military background or commanded a fighting force to grab power. Further, never in history a dynasty survived when their generals got upset with them.

Z A Bhutto was cleaver. He wanted to start a dynasty knowing that he had no military background, so he wanted to buy Gul Hasan loyalty. But this idiot Ganja kept a bad relation with generals and in the end, got kicked badly on his A*ss.

This Ganja idiot also did not realised that in a country like Pakistan where army is mostly from middle class background, such venture of humiliating army and trying to start a dynasty could not work. However bad, it is unfortunate that Pakistan army might overlook corruption, overlook abuse of power, overlook victimisation and oppression of opposition, but would not over look attack on them as institution.

*

In other established democratic countries, things are different. In these democracies, politicians as individuals are not ruling the country but it is political parties that are ruling the country. People along with armed forces (as individuals) are part of political parties and thus are stake holders in power, ruling the country indirectly. The strength of political parties comes from people (that includes armed forces).

So, when these democracies are not ruled by individuals (like Ayub Khan, Z A Bhutto, Zia, BB, NS, Musharraf) but political parties, and nation (that includes armed forces) being member of political parties are stake holders in power, there is no need (nor possibility) for army to take over.

In these democracies, if a politician changes party, even if that politician is the most popular politician in the party, that politician becomes zero for the party and no supporter of party would vote for that politician. For instance, if Bush change his party and become democrat member, no republican would vote for him. Thus, even if people (including army) can go against an individual because that individual is corrupts (BB and NS), party would still rule.

In Pakistan, there is no political party but politics are based on individuals. In Pakistan, individuals are party and people support individuals. Thus, loyalty of people (that includes army) could not be guaranteed, as they are not stake holders in the party, but individual politicians are stake holders and the supporters are donkeys working for those individual politicians.

In Pakistan, if BB joins TI, many of her supports would join TI. If BB shaves her head and start living bald, most pippilay would shave their head and would become proud to live with bald head. If BB starts walking naked on the road, many pippilay would start walking naked on road, and would feel proud of that.

This is what it is Pakistani political support. It is based on, no ethics, no morality, no principle, no honesty, no accountability, but Pakistani political supports is based on worshiping personalities and has mostly taken shape of cult, where people can kill others for their cult they follow and person they worship.*

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

Saleem,

"Well, most third world politicians (or politicians anywhere) do not want to leave power. Unfortunately, their power base is people and they rely to hold to power using people (that includes armed forces). Normally, if they lose their power base amongst people, they can be kicked out of the chair by the chaukidaar of the prime minister or President house."

Wrong, India being biggest third wold country is also biggest democracy in the world. Their leaders honorable leave the highest post whenever they lose in election. Bengladesh which was founded in 1971, following the same principle. It is only Pakis, mostly militar dictators do not want to leave seat of power unless some disaster takes place.

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

The guy who led the military coup in Mauritania seems on track to leave power willingly.

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

[quote]
mAd_ScIeNtIsT: The guy who led the military coup in Mauritania seems on track to leave power willingly.
[/quote]
Bhai, read before commenting :) I used the word ‘most’ and not ‘all’. Both have different meaning. What I wrote: ‘Well, most third world politicians (or politicians anywhere) do not want to leave power.’

Nevertheless, as far as India and Bangladesh is concerned, situation is same there as much as in Pakistan. Even in Pakistan, if a political party looses election they do leave power, though they would love to cling on power. Most election in India is also rigged and support of personalities rather party is there as much in India as in Pakistan. Most people in India also worship individual politicians same way as in Pakistan.

As for Bangla Desh, you should remember that there was army coop there too and army rule was there for many years.

Normally. army takes over when politicians in power give excuse. Unfortunately, Pakistani politicians (being from feudal background) are always ready to give excuses.

As for military takes over and then deciding to leave; that does happen (that is why I used the word ‘Most’ in my sentence, not ‘All’).

Re: Do People In Popular Leave Voluntarily?

Poor econimic state of any country for that matter, reflects poor management. Many Pakistanis ahve become so used to it that they refse to let go.