Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

**Its not only Imran’s hawis-e-iqtidar …

yh Jhangir Tareen , Shah Mahmood Qureshi , Shireen Mazari and above all Sh.Rasheed ki hawis hae …

76 Lakh vote lene wali party ko Pakistan aur puri Dunya mai Tamsha bna ke rkh dia hae ! **

Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy

Editorial : Financial Times
September 14, 2014 5:40 pm

 Cricketing hero’s anti-Sharif campaign is overstepping the mark

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/2c7bd280-e593-4dc7-a855-f391f476513a.img

Imran Khan was a true cricketing hero for Pakistan. He was an exceptional all-rounder, a graceful batsmen and a formidable fast bowler. But as a politician – **seemingly hell-bent on becoming prime minister **at whatever cost to his country – he makes a far less edifying spectacle.

Mr Khan has spent the past month camped out in a shipping container next to a parliament whose legitimacy he has questioned in fiery speeches. With Tahirul Qadri, a moderate cleric, he is calling for the resignation of Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister whose election last year marked the first democratic transition in Pakistan’s 67-year history.

He has, however, taken his protest too far. In his stubbornness, he threatens to tear the very democratic fabric he claims to be protecting.

Mr Khan may well be right that last year’s elections were marred by irregularities.**

However, given the easy margin of victory, it is simply not credible to claim that Mr Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party stole the election.
**

Mr Khan is also right to bemoan the poor performance of the government, which has failed to address a worsening energy crisis and pursued a confused policy towards Pakistan’s terrorism. Mr Sharif, who has been prime minister twice before, appears almost bored with the job, taking long trips abroad and rarely bothering to show up in parliament.

None of this, however, justifies Mr Khan’s determination to force Mr Sharif’s resignation and plunge the nuclear-armed country of 200m people into political crisis.

Indeed, the campaign has caused** significant damage**. Xi Jinping, China’s president, cancelled last week’s visit to Islamabad, adding insult to injury by spending an extra day in India, Pakistan’s arch rival. It is not as though Pakistan does not have enough to contend with. **In some areas, 20-hour power cuts are the norm. Floods have killed hundreds of people. **

While the political elites tussle for power, the economy, which had been marginally improving, shows signs of sinking back into malaise.

The stand-off also risks bringing the military back into politics. The army has been able to present itself as a neutral “third force”, a mirage in a country that has been under military rule for almost half of its independent years.

Mr Khan has vehemently denied suggestions that he is being manipulated by the military, which is angry with Mr Sharif for pursuing the prosecution of Pervez Musharraf, a former military ruler, and for trying to seize control of foreign policy. Yet Mr Khan’s actions are playing into the hands of those who would bring the whole shaky democratic edifice toppling down.

At least Mr Sharif, unlike Mr Khan, has shown some appetite for compromise. He has agreed to several opposition demands, including a judicial inquiry into last year’s election and discussion of electoral reforms.

He must not sully this by resorting to arbitrary arrests of opposition forces or violent suppression of demonstrators. Above all, he should concentrate on re-energising his lacklustre government and tackling the country’s urgent problems.

**There is much riding on a peaceful resolution of this crisis, and not only for Pakistan. In too many Asian countries, from Afghanistan to Thailand, democracy has been jeopardised when those who contest elections refuse to accept the result. **

Cynics will argue that this proves many countries in Asia lack the institutional foundations on which to build a stable democracy. There is some truth in this. But what is the alternative?

**Rule by the military or by unelected technocrats installed by force? It is the duty of Pakistan’s warring political elites to show that democracy can be better than that.
**

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Bhai jaan ... Where is democracy in Pakistan that Imran would threat democracy?

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

I don't really give a fudge about what leftists or western publications have to say about Imran Khan and 'democracy'.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Democracy in Pakistan means rape of country with consent.

شریفوں کی خیرات خطرے میں ہے. جمہوریت کا تو بہانہ ہے.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

**Agr koi waqai PML-N se acha Alternative ho tau bnda sochta bhi hae PTI ko support krne ke lye

In ki shkle dekhi hai jo hr roz raat ko Imran ke side pr khre hote hai container pr !

Establishment ke Pitte hue Mohre Mashallah ab Inqlabi bn gye hae .... Dur Fitte Moo !**

**
* Shiekh Rasheed**

*** Khurshid Kasuri

  • Jhangir Tareen

  • Ishaq Khakwani

  • Shah Mahmood

  • Azam Sawati

  • Aleem Khan

  • Roedad Khan

  • Pervez Khattak**

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Democracy lulz](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=Lulz)

Which democracy

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Imran is a threat to none but himself and his derh inch ki party.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

**Ab 1 week se jo 'Container Speech' hoti hae 9:30pm onwards , wo Election Rigging pr ni hoti ...

Poverty , Child Labour , UNICEF , Children not going to School, Malnutrition, Professionals leaving Pak blah blah

Bnda puche Election Rigging ke jo Proofs hae wo Supreme Court ke samne la kr Sharifo ke chutti krao !

Yh Bad Governance ke Bhashun dene ka kya tuq hae ?

Election 2018 mein log Sharifo ko utha ke bahir phenk de ge if they not perform** !

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Mods,, please chang the title to

Imran Khan is a threat to Pakistan's nepotism.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

More, not less

         By [Umair Javed](http://www.dawn.com/authors/498/dawnumairjaved)
         Updated about 16 hours ago

[TABLE=“class: media media–left one-whole palm–one-whole”]

                           ALMOST like clockwork, the ‘fake democracy’ crowd is  back. Those claiming that the era of dictatorships and coup-mongering  was over utterly failed to take into account the intellectual and moral  bankruptcy of the well-heeled and the well-fed of this country. 

Apart from the usual Twitter warriors and Facebook philosophers, a group of supremely talentless yuppies have even come out with a song denouncing Pakistan’s procedural democracy and its accompanying rhetoric.
Predictably, their desire for instant stability and an insulated, unfettered existence is being couched in the language of national salvation and uplift. How terribly original.

All who harp on and on about the value of representation and inclusion through democratic government — basically, people such as myself — have clearly failed to make any intellectual progress.

Democracy as an end on its own holds little to no value for the urban middle and upper classes, hence giving ideological, morality-based arguments is largely useless. We’ve (d)evolved too far into an ideologically impoverished society, where authoritarianism is celebrated, and the danda is given as an answer to every problem.

[HR][/HR] Forcefully displacing one set of individuals will not automatically produce angelic democrats.

[HR][/HR]

To make matters simpler, let’s reduce the format of government as the means to get to more exalted goals.
Let’s say those goals are firstly, improvement in the lives of poor people, and secondly, the accumulation of more wealth for those with some already. (Let’s temporarily leave aside the fact that these two are by and large mutually exclusive).

For the first goal, you need a government that plans, makes rules, and delivers. You need those rules to be protected over multiple decades, and delivery to be accountable. Built somewhere into this format of government should be a mechanism to throw out those who fail to deliver on Goal 1 with minimum fuss.

If helping poor people doesn’t tickle your fancy, accumulating personal wealth probably does. So to achieve Goal 2, you need protection of whatever you own through law. That’s to stop people (or the government) from arbitrarily stepping in to take what you own.

To make long-term investments, you need to feel secure through the knowledge that governments and their accompanying agendas won’t change without due notice. Finally, if you’re even remotely considerate, you’d want your children and your grandchildren to live similarly decadent, secure lives.

Throughout modern history, societies have attempted to tackle these very basic goals and have found some imperfect mechanisms to do it.

The common factors underscoring each of these imperfections — from 17th-century England to 21st-century China — have been the removal of arbitrariness, the introduction of some form of representation, and instilling accountability.

Leaving aside questions of legality, the biggest problem with the pro-dictatorship demographic is that it’s too addle-brained to come up with a sophisticated enough format which deals with these questions of arbitrariness, representation and accountability.
Their answer for the past 60 years has been to give control of the country to the COAS and the armed forces.

Let’s say we magically turn our clocks back to a time where nobody had heard about democracy or the 1973 Constitution; what would happen if the COAS-cum-Benevolent-Despot suddenly dies? What would happen if he were not like ‘liberal’ Uncle Musharraf and more like fascist Uncle Zia?

What would happen when the armed forces fail to deliver to a particular subset of the population? The frustrating thing is that we’ve already been through each of these scenarios, and yet after a few years, we’re back having these tiresome drawing room conversations about how the only defined (and largely untested) mechanism of holding and transferring power ‘doesn’t work’.

Those with (only) an ounce more of nuance claim that a few years of complete authoritarian rule, backed with the noblest of intentions, could potentially make Pakistan ready for democracy.
This formula entails ridding the country of corrupt party bosses who’ve monopolised electoral power.

Again, it takes some serious ignorance of history to not realise how forcefully displacing one set of individuals will not automatically produce angelic democrats in their stead.
If we’re currently experiencing the rule of a few major political dynasties, rest assured there are many hundreds waiting for their turn through the back door.

Keeping all these abstract arguments on one side, we need to contend with the reality that military dictatorships cannot get rid of the many groups who have a stake in civilian rule and procedural democracy.

Smaller ethnicities, political parties and civil society groups, for reasons noble or selfish, know that elections and increased participation are the only way of getting what they want.
It is no coincidence that we’ve seen outbreak of agitations and extreme instability in the smaller provinces during each period of military rule.

It is also no coincidence that despite all their claims of using the danda, dictators have had to co-opt and cut deals with sections of the political class.
Pakistan’s democracy is and has historically been problematic.

No reasonable democrat in this country can claim otherwise.

It is embedded with serious autocratic tendencies, incompetence, venality and a heavy elite bias. It is largely procedural — limited to electoral and some parliamentary activity — and is representative in the narrowest of senses.

Yet history everywhere tells us it is the least imperfect way through which the primary principles of governing a state can be fulfilled in perpetuity. It is also the only format that allows for some pressure from both inside and outside and provides some space for those who wish for something more progressive.
The demand for a ‘reset’ and the ‘umpire’ in this time of instability and general wretchedness is supremely short-sighted and counterproductive. If anything, we should be demanding more democracy, not less.
*

The writer is a freelance columnist.*
[EMAIL=“[email protected]”]
[email protected]

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

FT states that IK has taken his protest too far and Nawaz Sharif won the elections without a doubt.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

I can now imagine IK moaning about the respectable FT (which is read by intelligent and affluent segment of society) and how NS has bribed it to publish the story, in his next speech.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

agr democracy nahi hay, tu KPK key hakomat dramay kernay kay liya lee hay???

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Jehangir Tareen head of sugar-mafia in Pakistan: Salman Shehbaz | Pakistan | Dunya News

LAHORE: (Dunya News, Web Desk) – Chief Minister Punjab Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif’s son Salman Shahbaz Sharif has said that Secretary General Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Jehangir Tareen is the head of sugar mafia in Pakistan. He said that Jehangir Tareen is the biggest manipulator of sugar prices in Pakistan. Talking exclusively to Dunya News, Salman Shahbaz said that ‘Pakistan’s sugar-mafia head’, ‘Lahore’s land-mafia head’ and ‘a third class person in Imran Khan’s words’ stand alongside Imran Khan on his container.
Responding to Chairman PTI Imran Khan’s allegations on Sharif family, Salman Shahbaz said that there was no bride being made in Jhang and Sharif family had no sugar mill in Jhang. “What has bridge got to do with sugar mill?” asked Salman Shahbaz. He said that there is only one bridge under construction and that is in Chiniot. “Chiniot is the only district in Punjab which has no bridge on Chenab River for 100 kilometers, why shouldn’t there be a bridge”, asked Salman.
“Jehangir Tareen is No. 1 Sugar exporter, biggest sugar contractor and the biggest manipulator of sugar prices in Pakistan. How can Imran Khan allege others when Jehangir Tareen standing by his side?” said Salman. He alleged that Jehangir Tareen was involved in corruption worth billions of rupees in Rural Support Program when he was federal minister in Pervez Musharraf’s cabinet.
CM Punjab’s son said that Imran Khan uses bullet-proof car worth Rs. 30 million and pays Rs. 150000 as tax only. “We have been paying taxes since Imran Khan was playing cricket and attending parties in London”, he said. “People are dying of Polio in KPK and they are celebrating in Islamabad”, said Salman.
Criticizing Imran Khan, Salman said that Imran calls himself as Nelson Mandela but Mandela did not live in a 300 kanal palace. “Mandela did not sit eating mangoes in Bani Gala”, said Salman.
Salman said that Lahore’s land-mafia head stands on the container along with Imran Khan, sugar-mafia head of Pakistan also stands alongside him. “Imran called Sheikh Rasheed as a ‘third-class person’. Now he is standing along with him on the container”, said Salman.
“I challenge Imran Khan for a one-on-one debate”, Salman Shehbaz said.
Responding to Dunya TV anchor Imran Khan’s question that if these people are such big criminals why government didn’t catch them, Salman Shahbaz responded that the government will catch all these mafias for sure. Salman Shehbaz said that the government was given to PMLN when all the institutions were in tatters. He said that these mafias will be dealt with an iron hand in the days to come.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Wait till the cult followers comes out here saying FT has been bought by NS....and Mubashir Luqman would conduct complete program showing papers proving FT belonged to NS.

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

Hina Butt‏@hinaparvezbutt](https://twitter.com/hinaparvezbutt) 42m

Contrary to their TALL claims, CM Khattak not only moved to CM house but uses same protocol enjoyed by CMs before him pic.twitter.com/lbtP35nuF5

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxmA9vJCIAAVWup.jpg

Re: Imran Khan’s threat to Pakistan Democracy:FT

No he is not, he proved it in KPK, when he let his ministers practice it in full swing...