Re: Of political parties, monarchy, dictatorship!
i would love to see a democratic process that you have in the western world where there is alarge element of civilisisation when they vote etc. if that can be achieved - accountable politicians whose power rests with the people then i am all for it.
People who have knowlege about existing laws can correct me, but from what I know people cannot challenge a minister in court when he is in government. If public cannot hold minister accountable for their actions, how can they get what they were promised during elections?
[quote]
in this present climate i do believe that some army interventiion in politics is necessary but i dont believe they should control the political process and start supporting one group against another. they should be their to make sure politicians donot get outof hand and that to applylaw andorder.
[/quote]
Army presence should only be required when there is turmoil in the country, their job is to defend "borders". "Police" is required to defend country from inside (enforce law, ensure security etc).
We should have some sort of joint organization where heads of powerful institutions like police, army, navy, airforce, parliament, senate, judiciary should be members. If there is a govt action which is objectionable should be discussed there, they can force PM to change the decision or something along those lines to ensure that everyone is on same page.
[quote]
i dont hve any objections with complete armycontrol **too IF the army leader does not start attacking his **checksand balances. to have complete control centred in the hands of one leader is suicide. pakistan isalargecountry and for the power to be centralised i believeit would cause resentment.
[/quote]
This is sort of against human nature. Just like Nawaz Sharif tried to gather all powers in his chair and attacked SC as if he was the king shows once you have power then you disregard everything. Take recent CJ saga where CJ was ousted because he disagreed with Musharraf. So if army has complete control then it is highly unlikely that the person incharge will care about checks and balances.
[quote]
if there is justice, fairness, equality before the law in anyof those political systems then i am alll for it. i would rather support agood dictator than a bad democrat.
[/quote]
The biggest risk in supporting a "good dictator" is that you are killing long-term evolution of nation, system. When the "good dictator" dies/unseated what do you get? Chaos.
[quote]
for shhort term period the mush government was good for pakistan as a whole but now quite frankly he is past his sell-by date. he has shown political bias and favouritis within political groups - a fair person would not have done that. the pakistan army asa whole has this way of propping people up to suit their own interests - it should let politics take its own natural course andlet the people decide who they want too.
[/quote]
Thats exactly what happens when you support a "good dictator". He stays good for sometime, but then he gets surrounded by idiots, corrupts, crooks and his vision gets distorted and he is then assured that nothing can stop him, he is doing all the decision perfectly etc.
[quote]
in the final 5 years of zia ul haq's martial regime crime apparently increased quite alot - i have read that in a book somewhere - the same problem is now happening with musharaf.
[/quote]
Zia's regime saw rise of MQM because he wanted to break JI's strength. He let Afghan refugees let go any place in the country instead of containing them in a place. Afghans may not have been all criminal by themselves but circumstantial ones probably. We all got flooded by arms, drugs and what not.
