..... the day you have gun totting terrorist from BJP and RSS shooting and killing people in Pakistani cities, that day you can equate it with LeT ... ...
That's really fair analysis. Good one.
Democracy means what it means everywhere in the world ... people elected government ..... to simplify for you .... people go to polling station ... they vote for the candidate of their choice .... he gets elected ..... no role for army in this !!!!!!!!! simple.....
Right on the money. And to keep this system going for decades is an achievement. Many countries (including Pakistan) can have elections like you describe, but then after x number of years, the system breaks down.
However the rules of this system are different for each society / nation / country.
Read below for more info.
......Any time you need lessons on democracy , you can count on your neighbours for some lesssons !!!!!
By now you can tell this response is not to flame you or India, so read on.
We in Pakistan must learn from Indian example. And the lesson is "not to copy" this system in Pakistan at all.
One of the reasons we have had trouble with civilian government is that we tried to copy Indian model of political parties.
We forget that one of the core reasons for the Idea of Pakistan was that Indian model of 1940s was not deemed suitable for the areas under Pakistan and BDesh.
Unfortunately Islam-toting Pakistanis forgot that essential reason and started copying Indian model of political parties. And the more we failed, the more we copied Indians, and the vicious circle of political failures continues till today. I am sure you have heard about the voices in Pakistan demanding "mid term" elections.
Here is a bit more detail. Indian political system is a deformed copy of British political system. While British political system offered a smooth and "complete" change of leadership (on regular intervals), the indian version is based on "syasi jageers" (Political feudalism), where one family or one small group runs a party like an old Indian prince. Where sons and daughters automatically qualify to get the top position.
In India it worked for many reasons (too numerous to list all of them). One reason is perhaps that a huge number of Indian people were used to living under subdued conditions of princely states. Secondly India is so vast, that no regional ethnic party like BDeshi Awami league, or MQM or ANP could claim a large enough chunk of the country.
Thus the geography and social conditions of India forced the jagiree parties to survive, and if necessary they formed coalitions.
In Pakistan, geography dictated a system totally different from Indian system. For example East Pakistan should have been given (from day 1) major autonomy in a federal system and under "truly" national parties.
What we got instead was an ethnic party with dimwit leadership who had almost 0% presence in the West Pakistan. Thus the true democracy was absent from this system from the very foundation of this malformed Indian-style political party.
And the result was a horrible separation of the country and loss of so many precious soldiers and civilians.
Post 1970s, PPP and ZAB were as much vicious as Indira when it came to using jagiri party to run the country. Again it was only possible because of Pakistan's geography. Were India of the same size as Pakistan, there would have been a major upheaval if not military rule during or after Indira's emergency government.
A stable and a bit longer term party coalition forming in Pakistan has been a recent phenomenon and even that has been due to "HUGE pressure" from the army. Otherwise ANP, BNP, and MQM would have chopped off chunks (like Awami league) and gone their separate ways.
BTW India too has seen the ill effects of a pathetic political system in Punjab and Kashmir.
Anyways, our intellectuals must come out of the copy-Indian-political-system mode, and Pakistan too will have a good civilian system that changes peacefully and without army's intervention.
