I hail from the country that has no written constitution. We have the Monarchy - the Queen opens the parliament every year, she is the source of many executive powers in the country including the power to dismiss the PM and reject a Parliamentary Act.
Yet Britain is arguably the greatest democracy in the world (at least in practice, and in my eyes).
So what exactly is the definition of democracy, how does it look and feel like in practice if a country with Royal Prerogative and no Constitution is far more democratic than let’s say Pakistan.?
There has to be lot more to democracy if the United Kingdom is more democratic than the Republic of Pakistan. No?
The reason I am asking this question on Pakistani forum is because there is simply no intellectual narrative on democracy. In Pakistan - whether you are an uneducated average Joe or an educated Tom - your basic understanding of democracy doesn't go beyond the usual 'democracy means no martial law' or democracy means civilians control the foreign policy. Nothing more, nothing less than that.
That's it - this is how Pakistanis and Muslim world in general has dumbed down such an expansive and in depth concept of democracy. In the West - democracy became synonymous with emancipation of bourgeois and the working class, it translated into system of accountability, making of great laws and building of institutions, devolution of power, rights of people and making of citzenship, formation of great justice systems and coming of welfare state and start of industrial revolutions.
In Pakistan - even electoral rigging is considered part of democracy, yup part of the 'system', and so is corruption. That's how totally messed up your country's understanding of democracy is?
This is all due to education and
12 Pass never ruled there
Maybe because Jinnah had no idea what he was doing!
The British Parliamentary system only made sense to Jinnah because he made a living and a great career out of practicing the British Justice System. He as an individual was a product of the Western intellectual traditions - can the same be said for the people he was leading or creating the country for?
The fact that he blindly copy and pasted an ever so complicated British Parliamentary system on uneducated, diverse and volatile post colonial country just shows how little his understanding of the Pakistani society was at that time.
Maybe because Jinnah had no idea what he was doing!
The British Parliamentary system only made sense to Jinnah he made a living and a great career out of practicing the British Justice System. Otherwise the fact that he blindly copy and pasted an ever so complicated British Parliamentary system on uneducated, diverse and volatile post colonial country just shows how little his understanding of the Pakistani society was at that time.
Because there was no National army , It was British Indian army later called Pakistan army .
I can tell you a thing
All of them ie Ayoub , Yahya and Zia were with an oath to the thrown of United Kingdom , and they never took an oath with Pakistan as army officer . This was actually army of East India company . Jinnah the great perhaps never thought about these .
Because there was no National army , It was British Indian army later called Pakistan army .
I can tell you a thing
All of them ie Ayoub , Yahya and Zia were with an oath to the thrown of United Kingdom , and they never took an oath with Pakistan as army officer . This was actually army of East India company . Jinnah the great perhaps never thought about these .
Army or no Army - the one immediate and lasting effect of Pakistan is that it placed landed elite and feudals into a prominent position of power whereas in India - their roles started to reverse. Jinnah had no concrete vision for Pakistan post partition whereas Nehru took the painstaking task of ending feudalism and princely states in India.
It seems like Pakistan in spirit was only made to preserve the interests of the landed elite.
Since Jinnah knew he was dying - I really don't think it was a very good idea to still go for a new country in such extreme circumstances considering he was very well aware of the quality of people around him, and knew that there will be no one after him to take a care of young country which will be baptised in the river of blood.
Ataturk lived long enough to give Turkey a much celebrated secular and modernised system: unlike the mystery and the debate the surrounds Jinnah, there are no ifs and buts on what kind of Turkey Kemal wanted.
Nehru also lived long enough to give Indian democracy bit more structure and legislative base.
Israel - well they just absorbed best of the best Jewish minds from all over the West, and created an advance modern democracy in the heart of Middle East.
So what happened with Pakistan? Why is there this deep sense of intellectual bankruptcy when it comes to discussing the ideas related to governance and quality of democracy?
2008-2013: Of Zardaris, By (read bye bye) Zardaris & For Zardaris
2013-now: Of Sharifs, By Sharifs and For Sharifs
Well I'm interested in knowing Pakistanis' general and intellectual understanding of democracy as we know it in the West. i.e system of fairness, equality, transparency, accountability, justice, liberty, rights, freedom, reforms, service delivery, change of turns, etc etc.
To what extent and what percentage of Pakistanis believe that this is what democracy is supposed to be all about - not a periodic elections where everything from rigging and corruption is part of the 'system' as long as there are elections and generals are not the head of states.
It looks like the whole intellectual and academic narrative on democracy in Pakistan doesn't go beyond the civil-military binary.
2008-2013: Of Zardaris, By (read bye bye) Zardaris & For Zardaris
2013-now: Of Sharifs, By Sharifs and For Sharifs
Zardari period , Passed facing conspiracies of Kiani & Pasha like memogate and much more
Look one Kazab TuQ unable to win a provincial assembly , come to Pakistan and reaches from Lahore to Islamabad with few thousand hired men and wins whole attention . That drama with other daily bases conspiracies continued , Role of CJ Iftekhar sacking a PM was a full action comedy during the whole Zardari period .
In Shareef's time you saw IK & TuQ show on a script . Even innocent people killed in Model Town to make the show successful .
It is very diffcult to live with these conspiracies .
Democracy has an ugly side too. Its called 'Tyranny of the majority'. Google the term and you will realize that how democracy can be abused. That is what we do in Pakistan.
What is 'democracy'? When you form a government showing 'election' as a game, make people think they voted for them. Its called democracy. When the ruling party is in danger, it is an automatic danger to "Democracy".
Democracy is democracy and will always be Government of the people, by the people, for the people. I however doubt there is a consensus globally as to how to define democracy, but yes I would like to think that legal equality, political freedom and rule of law should be cornerstone of any democratic set up. Different regions then manipulate these fundamental democratic principles to suit their cultural norms and we start to seeing a manipulated version of an ideal democracy.
I dont know but somehow I feel that in subcontinent, masses are deeply emotional and still have a strong tribal sense and therefore always tend to follow and worship personalities above any democratic ideology whatsoever. Their version of religion, their version of political leader, and their version of caste/bradari/community system will supersede any democratic principle.
Once they commit to a certain political personality, they fantasize him or her to be a supernatural creature who is not capable of making any mistakes and everyone else on this planet is plain evil in their eyes. They will love their leader forever and yes there may be few years when passionate followers will sit quiet as they are disappointed from their leadership but sooner or later they will come back for their beloved leader or his party.
That is why ghandis, sharifs, bhuttos, altaf hussains, hasina wajids always remain in picture. No democratic lecture will change their loyalties and they really dont care. For example, once zardari dies and balawal takes full charge, you will see PPP's rebirth in punjab especially in janoobi punjab. It is same cycle in india for congress.
Democracy is democracy and will always be Government of the people, by the people, for the people. I however doubt there is a consensus globally as to how to define democracy, but yes I would like to think that legal equality, political freedom and rule of law should be cornerstone of any democratic set up. Different regions then manipulate these fundamental democratic principles to suit their cultural norms and we start to seeing a manipulated version of an ideal democracy.
I dont know but somehow I feel that in subcontinent, masses are deeply emotional and still have a strong tribal sense and therefore always tend to follow and worship personalities above any democratic ideology whatsoever. Their version of religion, their version of political leader, and their version of caste/bradari/community system will supersede any democratic principle.
Once they commit to a certain political personality, they fantasize him or her to be a supernatural creature who is not capable of making any mistakes and everyone else on this planet is plain evil in their eyes. They will love their leader forever and yes there may be few years when passionate followers will sit quiet as they are disappointed from their leadership but sooner or later they will come back for their beloved leader or his party.
That is why ghandis, sharifs, bhuttos, altaf hussains, hasina wajids always remain in picture. No democratic lecture will change their loyalties and they really dont care. For example, once zardari dies and balawal takes full charge, you will see PPP's rebirth in punjab especially in janoobi punjab. It is same cycle in india for congress.
You knew nothing , Shareefs are only N$ , you will see them away very soon . Altaf has no family , Gandhis are Nehru family ,
Popularity of Nehru and Bhuttos are due to assassinations . Hasina also got benefit of murder of Mujeeb .
Don't kill them if you wanted democracy in real .
What is 'democracy'? When you form a government showing 'election' as a game, make people think they voted for them. Its called democracy. When the ruling party is in danger, it is an automatic danger to "Democracy".
Simple, isn't it?
Muslim societies' basic understanding of democracy doesn't go beyond periodic electoral exercise. What happens before, during and after that electoral exercise doesn't matter. Democracy begins and finishes on elections day.
No wonder likes of Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Zia, Nawaz Sharif, Hasina Wajid were/are able to abuse their countries with impunity because they got the 'votes'.
The concept of sanctity of vote became the cornerstone of modern Western democracies, in Pakistan I dare you to educate an educated person that it is irresponsible and dangerously undemocratic to justify or at least, trivlise electoral rigging.
I've had great 'democrats' telling me how rigging is part of the system, and any investigation or reform to call for free and fair elections is a threat to democracy.
You knew nothing , Shareefs are only N$ , you will see them away very soon . Altaf has no family , Gandhis are Nehru family ,
Popularity of Nehru and Bhuttos are due to assassinations . Hasina also got benefit of murder of Mujeeb .
Don't kill them if you wanted democracy in real .
that is the point.... political killings happen all over the world....but we are emotional bunch of people and when a politician is killed in our part of the world, he or she leaves a forever legacy for his or her generation to exploit...but when Abraham Lincoln, JF Kennedy, Bobby Kenndy or Marthar Luther are killed in the US, it doesn't create any legacy for their families.
