What ails Pakistan?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

What ails Pakistan? Why is the ‘democratic’ process derailed so frequently? Some people question, if ‘Democracy’ can flourish in India and other neighbouring countries, why not in Pakistan? The readymade answer is that the Pakistan Army doesn’t allow democracy to flourish.

This argument is not wholly correct. In the first place the Army comprises of half a million men. OK, so it the Chief of Army Staff who is ambitious. One could agree with this argument if it is one person or one family involved. This is not so. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, General Zia and Musharraf took over the reins of the country at different stages. They did not join the army to become President of the country. Then, many political parties and politicians of the Opposition have approached the Army Chief to intervene and over the country and get rid of the government. So, personal ambition by the ‘Army’ can be ruled out.

Another observation is that civilian Presidents have dismissed ‘elected’ governments. The number of governments dismissed during Governor General Ghulam Mohammad’s tenure cannot even be counted. Nehru once remarked that “Pakistan changes its government as often as I change my pajamas”. Then in our ‘Decade of Democracy’ three out of four governments were dismissed by civilian presidents. One of them was from the party in power. When the Army intervened to oust Nawaz Sharif’s Government it was welcomed by most of the politicians and the entire public. So much so that sweets were distributed. Commenting on the army take over, one politician said that “the people had lost all hope (in Nawaz Sharif’), now they have hope”.

So the problem of derailing ‘democracy’ cannnot be attributed to the Army alone or to the civilian presidents. Therefore there must be something wrong some where else. Could it be that the people cannot stomach the political system? If Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, then why are we following the British system? We do call it the Islamic Republic. We have introduced the Shariah Bill in the Constitution, which says **“The Shari’ah that is to say the Injunctions of Islam as laid in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, shall be the supreme law of Pakistan.” ** Then why do we have the House of Lords and the House of Commons (under different names)?

Any sane comments please?

2

Pakistans most basic problem is a fundamentally unfair power structure, the result is a society which is mult ethnic and incredibly diverse but denies that it is multi ethnic.

A society which favours authoritarianism, yet rejects it once its established is a recipe for disaster, you often read about and hear Pakistanis say how Military dictators are betetr for the country and it's economy, yet few remember the consequences of those military interventions.

Worst of all is how often a discriminated faction of our society ends up discriminating others when it gets the chance.

3

Democracy no doubt has failed in Pakistan and so have a lot of other things. Even dictatorship seems to have failed in this country, because nothing has ever produced long lasting positive results. People always find it easy to blame the military and the generals who ruled, for everything that has ever gone wrong. the problem actually seems to lay in the thinking and perception of the society as a whole. we are a sleeping nation not incharge of our own good or bad. the declining streak began for Pakistan the day Quaid-e-Azam died literally leaving this sacred land an orphan. only a few of his close companions may have been competent or sincere enough to actually run the country with the love of nation in mind instead of love for power. those few were convenently removed within a few yrs by the elements who were very active during the independence struggle and after Pakistan's creation thought the country to be their forefathers property rightly inherited by them and everyone wanted to be in power all of a sudden. Liaqut Ali khan was murdered in 1951 and when he died the police found just a Re.1 coin in his pocket and a few hundred rupees in his bank account. this was the man who once was a nawab and heir to fortunes. after he died certain ppl among whom Iskandr Mirza, Ghulam Mohammed, Ch. M. Ali, Kh. Nazimuddin are the main names began the tug of war. these very ppl were among the prominent freedom fighers once and Quaideazam held them in high esteem but they lost all focus when each began considering his own self to be the rightful heir to the throne of governor general or PM once the Quaid and Liaquat Ali were out of the picture. From there began the political instability from which Pkaistan has never recovered. Ayoub Khan was compelled to take over in 1958 because thse few men mentioned above were creating a game out of the country's politics. if one reads the history of the daily events from those days we realize what a comic situation it was. under those circumstances it was very good that Gen Ayoub took over. He may later have made political errors himself but there was reason he 'seized' power. it's true no soldier actually has any political ambitions at all, but it's certainly a soldier's duty to defend the country from all threats external and internal. unfortunately our nation has always faced equal threats from outside and inside and one just has to agree to the fcat that the forces are the only reason we still exist as a strong nation today.
the hunger for power has been the only reason for trouble. Bhutto came to the scene toward the end of Ayoub Khans tenure. he designed Ayoub Khans departure from the scene and had Gen Yahya installed. the elections took place and his hunger for power made him reject the results declaring Mujeeb's victory. that amputated Pakistan. again the army was blamed. then came gen Zia at the right time and hanged Bhutto. the whole scenario chnaged but his dictatorship didnt deliver results as he was neither too stiff Fidel Castro, Saddam, Hitler style nor was he too liberal Gen Musharraf style. he hung on to power withoput making future plans and was one day eliminated. hunger for power?suddenly came to scene Bhutto again in the form of his daughter benazir. she wanted revenge and power, that she got, but the nation suffered. as i said, we are a sleeping nation and dont oppose the ill wishers openly. living room discussions do no nation any good. then began a decade of benazir nawaz tag and suddenly to Pakistans relief came Gen Musharraf who really had NO ambitions to rule the country. anyone having doubts about that may refer to news papaers from OCT 99. his arrival could be made into a hollywood block buster, with a few action packed hours full of troops jumping buildings, running runways, planes declaring emergencies and generals declaring national emergency. today gen Musharraf is making a few political mistakes too inbeing a bit too liberal and letting go of those who are clearly enemies to the state. but it has to be agreed that he is the most competent man after Quaideazam to evere to have ruled over pkaitsn. he is a man of great qualities and he is not a 'seaoned career feudal politician' nor does he make wealth by oppressing the poor.
the few civl influentials have been controlin politiocs since the begining and they keep coming to power regardless of what their competence or sincerity or past records because they have the right tools to play the game. the can kill at will, they can loot, they can do whatever they want and the common man lets them do it all. we need a revoultion and we need it bad. and revoultions are spun by common men who feel the need to change the situations and get rid of the oppressors.
thats what i think...

4

Simple. The government's goal is not progress for the country but to stay in power regardless. They'll do whatever it takes including lying to the people (eg: Kashmir, KArgil), selling out to west (eg: CIA/FBI ops offices within pakistan), double dealing (eg: N.Korea deal).

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomSawyer: *
Simple. The government's goal is not progress for the country but to stay in power regardless. They'll do whatever it takes including lying to the people (eg: Kashmir, KArgil), selling out to west (eg: CIA/FBI ops offices within pakistan), double dealing (eg: N.Korea deal).
[/QUOTE]

Simple: India External terrosrism : Sri Lanka , Pakistan, Nepal
Internal terrorism : Kashmir, Punjab
Double dealing : understanding with aterrorist state like Israel

6

hah look at the irony of life, of all the GS members, Tomsawyer is among the very first to respond to threads discussing pakistan.
Mods, is there any way you can upload such stats for us to marvel at...?

7

Mr. Haris

TS and Degas were telling the truth. Why are you surprised and wants to ride on the back of moderators?

8

Guys, listen to this Musharraf’s 4 yr tenure review and you will get an idea what ails us:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/rams/wusatmush.ram

Forward this link to your friends too, so that they can enjoy it as well! :smiley:

9

i think we are fine frankly

which country doesn't have problems?

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zarif: *
Mr. Haris

TS and Degas were telling the truth. Why are you surprised and wants to ride on the back of moderators?
[/QUOTE]

Zarif do you even know what you wrote? or did you not understand my post...? i was trying to negate Tom and endorse Degas' views. that means i was against Tom and with Degas.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by irem: *
i think we are fine frankly

which country doesn't have problems?
[/QUOTE]

yeah Irem, i think so too, now that gen Musharraf is our commander. i have faith in him. atleats much much more than those 'seasoned politicians' that we have so many of...

12

Rift with India ails Pakistan and vice versa.:kaboom::rocket:

13

I would simplify it even further.

1) power structure as mentioned earlier..number of clans and families runing the show in many cases

2) people's impatience... they want a 180 degrees in year 1, otherwise teh govt is nto doing its job..

3) when govt knows theat one way or they other they would be kicked out..their cronies start stuffing their own pockets making the situation even worse.

4) illiteracy of ppl and inability to make informed choices...ask anyone on the street in Pakistan what the social, education or health plan id of the party they voted for. much of the voting is on personalities and rhetoric.

5) not a true democracy- I personally know people whose families were forced to vote for someone because the vadera of the area said so.

14

Fraudiya, I was intrigued by your second point about "instant gratification". What I don;t get is that why is a dictatorship awarded such things but civilian gov'ts are not. I say this because everyone here was jumping up and down wiht glee when Musharaff ousted Nawaz. Wouldn't it have been better for the country in the long term scheme of building institutions to out Nawaz through the electoral process then to take 10 steps back into another military gov't, which in all essence hasn't really done much other than go against the wishes of the people, as one would believe reading this BB.

If the goal is to have democratic processes in Pakistan, there has to be a decisive and collective will among the people and the admonishment for any usurption of the democratic process. I also find it amusing that people say that because of high illiteracy rates people are not ready for democracy. Well, didn;t Musharraf win a plebecite through this very mechanism? Why isn't that wrong? It is not necessary for the population to be educated to be democratic. But, it is far likely that the population will be educated if democratic.

15

Matsui

I dont think that military govts are the only ones who get such benefits from the population. when Nawaz had ousted Benazir, there were celebrations because ppl were sick and tired of her regime. and Nawaz did some great work intially.

Same goes for when parties like MQm had election victories. I was not there btu have seen home videos made of people partying in the streets.

the challenge then is point 3...there are always peopel who are in these power positions who go for a money grab..such things escalate..and people start seeing that change slow down, come to a standstill or even regress..thats when they are impatient with the govt..

..further more, when they are sick of the govt, they would have anyone else but this person...explains why Benazir won her first election with a platform which basically was less pro-people but more anti-Zia..

as far as education goes, its more of an issue of making educated choices, as well as understanding the issues. You cant just vote a person in because they hate the current govt as much as u hate it..and then expect that this person will change all the bad associated with the previous regime. the same crap continues under the diff regime.

Other aspect as I noted was large rural populations in many cases vote as they are told..so there is an issue with the system.

the plebescite could have the same issues as the elections, sure. the question than becomes what is being done in the country and what is the person doing. No matter which way he/she got into power.

I was a big Nawaz supporter, and in many ways I think he did a lot for Pakistan, but then things changed.

as far as your last point about population being educated if democratic, I agree with it in principle, thats how it should work, but that is if the govt is sincere about serving the people, and not ruling them. The situation with elections in pakistan is that you have a few set of evils that u have to pick from..they take their turns robbing u..the country needs grassroots level reforms in electoral process..even to a point that the number of seats allocated be revisited because of the changing population growth patterns, urban areas are now under represented from what I have been told.

in a real democracy, one would try to serve the people well, be concerned about what theya re thinking if for nothing else than tone's own political career, in pakistan unfortunately, one can rob teh country, and gets booted out, and then comes back in..case in point Benazir.

These few ppl in politics ahve polarized the political scene very well. you will run into rabid supporters who will only vote for their party no matter what..caught in the middle among the polarized supporters are the ones that try to find the best option..or the lesser of two evils.

16

But this does go back to the point of Instant gratification. democracy is earned not given. People and leaders have a collective responsibilty to improve the system. You cannot simply push it aside simply because the results haven't been there.

People vote for who they like. Whether it be america or Pakistan or India. It is simple as that. As far as people being told to vote, we have trade unions who follow similar if not same formula of acting as a collective bloc.

When people talk of lofty things as freedom, democracy, voting rights, equality etc..it is not a watershed event. It takes time, it takes pain, sometimes blood even to get their. It is an evolutionary process not a panacea. But this is for sure..if it is not there...there are more problems than not.

17

Mat

agreed, its an evolutionary process..but looking at the leadership and political parties, and what has been taking place..its been a vicious circle..and not an evolutionary process..

do you let a country fall into total chaos? from my perspectibe it seems like this vicious circle starts with the political wrangling and money grab..it detriorates until it starts going downhill very quickly, at that point someone grabs it and tries to build it up..back to where it was and right about when he is there or getting there..things look good..and the same people same faces take over power again. and the downward spiral begins..

I for one would not see how low they can go in that downward spiral..the conditions present in pakistan late 80's to mid 90's were horrendous.

The simple solution for that is sincere..or somewhat sincere leadership. term limits, accountability etc etc..

because as much I value democracy, if i had to vote in an election in pakistan, there is no one around that I would vote for. there are very few ppl in leadership that would earn it.

it has to be done right, and the only way to do this is to finx it grounds up..

18

madhnee

lack of entertainment and options is one thing, but then there are other aspects of it as well..if i cant get a job, or get education..or get justice..entertainment options are probably the last thing on my mind.

There are plenty of people who get out on the streets not because they dont have other things to do, but because they are having problems just surviving.

Religion is not the problem, politicizing it for own use is the problem, and I dont know of anyone who has not used it, Bhutto, Zia..the lot of MMA..the list goes on

19

^ Mats I agree with you, but Pakistan's situation is different because a democratic system has never been allowed to mature, either by it's political leaders or Military ones. To use India as an example, when Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency in the 70's she became very dictatorial but even then when she held snap elections the system did not allow her the opportunity to rig the elections.

The other problem is very basic, the Judicial system in Pakistan has no credibility, it has only rarely defied the Executive and always paid the price for opposing the government.

More importantly, the people usually have no outlet, in most Democratic countries there are other avenues of expressing ones feelings, like through the press, Trade unions or Student unions, or through local governemnt or provincial/state elections. To Musharrafs credit he changed that to a certain degree, he allowed the press to operate freely to an extent unheard off since the 1950's, he replaced the old colonial Commissioner system with a local government system, the LG system especially created the unique situation of opposing Parties in different tiers of government, in the past tolerating opposition parties at a provincial or local level was unheard off....still despite all thos e moves in the end, people in a position of power have to deliver and pleasing everyone is not easy.

20

madhnee i assume u meant content and not contempt people? kinda changes the message there a wee bit.

sure employment could be provided by having a stronger recreation industry base, no doubt at all, but that can not be the only base to end the economical and survival issues faced by many.

so could having a better tourism/recreation type base have a positive impact. definitely... but that is just one part of the solution