What will happen to Pakistan if Musharaf is no longer in power for one reason or the other? Will Pakistan come crashing down? That is the notion which being hammered into everyone’s head and especially by Mushy’s govt. since day one. Pakistan govt. has used Bush’s policy of scaring people into submission.
If it is true that we are dependent on one individual, which I seriously doubt, isn’t it pathetic that we as a nation have come to depend on one individual to run the country and we are not capable of producing leaders who can lead this nation. So then it is just a matter of time, he is not immortal, he will be gone one day then what? I don’t see what his govt. has done to strengthen the political system in Pakistan. May be it is by design so people will support him so he can stay in power for as long as he can.
May be that schmuck Sheikh Rasheed was right in saying we should call Musharaf, “Syed Musharaf” for what he has done for this nation…
Well i dont think anything will happen even if Musharraf's not on the center stage...people have come and gone, but things go on...Musharraf's trying to portray as if Pakistan is nothing minus him, and for that he's created that sort of fear in the mind of pakistanis and those living in other countries...he's created the MMA, and helped them secure seats in the last polls by banning benazir/sharif from taking part in the palls...nominated fazal ur rehman as the opposition leader to show the world that if he's removed, mma will take over...and for the domestic audience he's created the nuclear issue...and poses as if something bad will happen to the nuclear issue once he's removed...as far as sheikh rasheed is concerned, he's just musharraf's chamcha, and he and his likes know that their polictics sans Musharraf is zero...they depend upon musharraf and his uniform to remain in power...america also feels confident in the present scenario cuz they have to deal with one person to have their demands fulfilled...
the current situation might be good for musharraf and his ministers, but certainly it isnt good for Pakistan...as one person has weakened almost all institutions of pakistan...the institutes should be powerful not a person...
Musharraf had the chance to change the political culture of pakistan...but unfortunately we see the same corrupt faces in the cabinet...and now by ignoring his promise to shed his uniform he's started to follow his predecessors...
India and USA owe a lot to Musharraf. No other leader like NawabSharif or Bhutto could start a campaign against terrorism so easily.
I do not know about Pakistan but we need him at this post so far.
Well actually, so dose Pakistan… Just look at some of the ordinances he has passed, women’s rights in the workplace, captial punishment for Honour Killings, ohh and the Freedom of Information Act.
Nothing will happen. VCOAS will take over and depending upon what he wants, elections or referendum may be held. He may even declare himself Amir-ul-momineen if he feels so.
There will be a vacuum, which will also lead to confusion, and the political parties will start racing to get the power with no care of what is in pakistan's best interest. MMA will start posturing as if pakistan is some untouchable superpower that can get away with anything.
The current works and projects thata re taking place, will stop, and then re-open with the new government's names (u thinki jest. remember what happened to nai roshni schools when BB came in power)
all types of crooks, trouble makers etc will take advantage of the confusion and the political mess caused by the selfishness of the parties, BB and nawaz will probably fly right back in the country.
Musharraf def needs to do more in sorting the systems and making sure that his legacy includes leaving a good system in place.
What was Pakistan in 1999? A total chaos.
I admire him for his words of Feb 2001 speech....'Pakistan ne jihad ka thheka nahin lya hei.'
No other leader come up so boldly.
And he is a very good actor. For this reason citizens of Pakistan do not see that he has surrendered on all steps towards India while keeping his own spirit high.
My what come India needs him at this post for some more years.
Nobody is indispensable in politics...the problem distinct to Pakistani leaders..is they work extremely hard to ensure if something happens to them..the whole system collapses..that way they can market themselves as indispensable..consider the entire army leadership was wiped out with Zia..yet Pakistan survived.
** I admire him for his words of Feb 2001 speech....'Pakistan ne jihad ka thheka nahin lya hei.'
No other leader come up so boldly. **
Poor choice of words by the general. He belittled the word “Jihad” and its true meaning in Islam by making a statement like this.
And he is a very good actor. For this reason citizens of Pakistan do not see that he has surrendered on all steps towards India while keeping his own spirit high.
How do you know that majority of Pakistanis think what you stated. I can make a statement completely opposite to what you said but neither you nor I have the proof. You can’t tell these things until you have a true democratic system in place..
** My what come India needs him at this post for some more years.**
I am sure they do… and I hope he and his gang can create the environment where this kind of sentiment is kept alive and becomes a norm instead of associating these things with individuals…
Nobody is indispensible anywhere. we have a person focused approach, not unique to musharraf, or the military rule, but also the civilian governments. Survival is not an issue, but the conditions after someone is gone are an issue.
The situation is quite critical and taking chances into the unknown may not be the best thing for the country right now. We need a system in place which is an ongoing, effective and proper system. t son Mushy’s plate to make it happen, because everyone else failed in getting it done, I just hope he gets it done and then moves.
Exactly my point …. Where are the reforms he promised in the political system? If he is gone today same old crap all over again. His priority # 1 should have been and should be in tune with you last statement. General perception is that he needs to be in place to ensure stability and progress and once he is gone we are back to where we were.
His priority changed based on the external threat that Pakistan was facing. Pakistanis need to really go and read Maslows heirarchy.
among these what is the best and what is the worst option
1) musharaf ensures stability and progress (per your email) and when he is gone things are bacl to square one
2) musharraf ensures stability and progress and implements the needed reforms so when he is gone, things continue to improve
3) musharraf should leave because he has not fulfilled all the needed reforms, and we will deal with the arising crises somehow.
Consider what the crises arising from his departure could mean.
Why remove him, why want him to leave, why not pressure him to implement the reforms in a fast and effective manner, while balancing that work with othr national interests.
I dont think a system in place should be his #1 priority, but to stabilize the situation and the country. once that is done his #1 priority should be the refroms, or rather the reforms can be run in parallel as long as they dont take away the focus from the #1 priority, gradually more attention gets diverted to the #2 priority as #1 priority is satisfied or well on its way to be satisfied.
I am not advocating his removal immediately. All I am saying that there are no checks and balances in place to hold him accountable and he is not paying attention to the single most important item that I think is critical.
There are long term and short term goals here. Short term goal is/was to stabilize the nation and he did a good job of doing that but the most important goal is to change/improve the current political system. We are heavily relying on an individual for the future of Pakistan and that is not good.
If you were to take an example of a mega critical project and you had one individual running the show the stakeholders should immediately raise a flag and demand a change in the status quo to ensure that the project is secure and is not a one-man show and depending on the criticality the project might be temporarily halted to mitigate much greater potential risks.
I dont disagree with you on anything except these 2 items
1) short term goals have been met
2) country has been stabilized
and then borrowing your own words
"depending on the criticality the project might be temporarily halted to mitigate much greater potential risks"
I think the project of reforms and all has not ben halted but has significantly slowed down to mitigate much greater potential risks of national security and interest.
Short term goals, there will always be plenty, it is a never ending pool of issues ...
Having a solid and stable & sustainable "Political System" is the best thing that can happen to the security and stability of a nation for the long time to come. It has to be treated as the most critical issue along with other immidiate risks.
chachoo, you cant make everything as #1 on the agenda. You have to have #1 -#9 for example. and if #1 is mission critical then #8 may get delayed or not addressed right away.
a stable and sustainable political system is def a need, but yet again I refer you to maslows hierarchy, lets handle level 1 first.
