Which one do you think is best for Pakstan?Both have prons and cons.But I believe dictatorship rules have given Pakistan more grace and international credibility.For ex:You had Ayub and during his rule only,Pakistan’s `historic’ journey with China started and a war in which Pakistan also could claim victory.Zia successully embarked on Mujahidden’s side in war against Soviets and Pakistan was the epicenter of international attention.It was during Zia only Pakistan had received it’s massive U.S helps and even U.S changed it’s policy also during that time(Carter’s overnight U-TURN).Again Musharaff successfully sided with U.S and it’s allies and fought terrorists.He could also put India under tremendous pressure on many occassions.
Whereas democratic elected governments have only managed to get some International recognitions,International applauses(which do not even have mud-value when it comes to countries like North Korea or Iran).Though dictactorship rules were not devoid of corruptions,one can easily see that,atleast in the context of recent developments ,dictatorships were far better than Democratically elected governments.
Moreover law and order,by and large was good under dictatorships.But during Democratically elected governments,one can see how terrible it was/is.
So which one do you think is best for Pakistan?
