Whither Democracy?

Why is it America`s responsibility to ensure that there is democracy in Pakistan? That should be a problem for the Pakistanis to resolve. The United States doesn`t care whether Pakistan has a democracy or not. Its only concern is whether the regime is one that it can do business with. Also, what makes you so sure that democracy is for everybody? If you notice, there is no concept of democracy among most of the countries that claim to have Islam as their state religion. The moment religion gets mingled with politics, democracy is out. After all, if Allah dictates that things should be done a certain way- how can the ``people`` override it? Ascertaining the will of the people, therefore, becomes irrelevant. Ergo, democracy in that situation is irrelevant. That being the case- if the Americans were to support democracy in the region- I can just hear the argument about how the United States is trying to impose its way of thinking upon a highly developed Islamic civilization.

``America and its `democracy loving` allies should make no mistake in

recognising that the long-term peace and stability of the `most dangerous

flashpoint in the world` requires sustained investment in healthy and

secular democracies, not stable dictatorships. And the sooner they realize

this bitter truth, the better.``

Very true my dear, that is why the americans are trainig with the israelis to castrate paki army by removing the bomb. The most` dangerous flash point bullshit will go, and the iraquisation can start in earnest. The a vulgarity of a failed nbankrupt state supporting the taliban having nuclear weapons has to end, and sooner they realise this sweet truth, the better.

Dear Mr. Shah:

The gist of your opinion piece is that promised Democracy has become a Victim of the lastest Afghan war. It is difficult to to come to this conclusion without evidence and you have not provided any.

Local government elections and administration were promised, they took place, even though the administration is still shaky. Police reforms were promised, those reforms are going to take place as funding has been secured. Structural changes, reforms were promised and were delivered, such that the Finance Minister Mr. Shaukat Aziz, has earned international recognition. IMF and World Bank agree that the structural changes promised by Pakistan have been effected with credibility. Similar structural changes in the CBR and in a shift away from a government revenue base of Licenses and Customs duty are setting a foundation for enabling horizontal and vertical economic activity.

Thus the question with regard to you premise, since the Musharraf regime has delivered on these promises, why would it renege on the promised national elections? what would be it`s motivation?

The US once again stuck its head up its behind viz-a-viz democracy. For years it chanted about democracy while cozying up to the dogs in Saudi Arabia. It condemned poor Fidel in Cuba (at least in his country there are no religious police and blashphemy laws and you don`t risk being arrested for having a beer) while coddling that arse King Fahd.

OIL. But that`s OK, it is acting in its national interest, as every country does. But it might consider not preaching to the world, lest the hypocrisy breeds more trouble.

we`ve all seen what democracy under the two bhutto governments, and the two Sharifov governments has done for the people of Pakistan. I for one feel much better in these times with Musharraf at the helm. Our institutions nor are people are ready for a democracy. I`m not saying that we need a benevolent dictator, but given the political landscape I can`t name ONE political leader who could do better than the current set up. Now that is truly sad. Benazir? bonnie and clyde couldnt lead a village of idiots without ripping them off. Sharif? those thugs couldnt spell democracy if all three of them tried (shahbaz, nawaz, and abbaji). the great khan? hah. he has the iq of a garden tool at best. Qazi Hussain? hmmm....considering the jamaat opposed the very creation of Pakistan, and the Jamaat`s interesting views on everything from politics to the economy, I think not. So who`s left?

Again the bridge between theory and practise.....

The article is apt and it still remains to be seen if Musharraf has, indeed, killed two birs with one stone or not.

Ciao

Why is democracy such a sacred cow or dirty pig?

``It does not matter if the cat is black or white as long as it can catch mice``----Chinese Proverb.

The recent events have publicly proven that every so-called value & philosophy is up for review & revision.This is the sign of a nation(US)alive & kicking.Those regurgirating their ``educatedness`` are the ones in for a shock.Laws,systems,theories,philosophies exist to serve a people & not the other way around.When a man-made creation like Law achieves the status of Idol-worship then it is time to do Bamyaan it.

Many of the issues raised were discussed at length in my previous interaction with chowk readers. You can read my replies in addition to other readers` responses to my article on corruption in South Asia. Just a few comments.

I am not assuming for one instance that the Musharraf regime is surely going to renege on its `roadmap to democracy.` My point is that direct Us support for Musharraf, in the absence of commensurate pressure for return to civilian rule, will bolster the military`s desire to embed itself in the constitional set-up, through handing over power to token/pliant civilians on its own conditions. That this would have happened anyway is a strong possibility but post Sept 11, even the token int`l calls for democracy have vanished. The military can become more repressive in its designs on politics, and give us yet another round of guided democracy. Why aren’t political parties allowed to take out rallies when the mullahs can take out million man marches?.

Perhaps there is some truth to the claim that the Yanks will ``exfiltrate`` Pakistan`s nukes. But I thought our nuclear shield was to protect us from India? Why has it become a noose in our neck? That in itself calls for a reevaluation of the military`s hegemonistic role in Pakistani politics and society. Just look at Pakistan`s history and see for yourself how this one institution has played with fire at the expense of all other poles of the state and society. Be it 1965, 1971, Afghanistan (1980s) and Afghanistan 2. Who reaps the benefits of these strategic blunders in the long run? Has any General ever been indicted for any of these follies? Between 1980 and 1987, Pakistan received some 20 billion USD in aid, where did that go? We all know where.

I have discussed at length the pros and cons of democracy, whether we are fit for it, or can become fit through it in the discussions mentioned above. On the rather naïve and somewhat ill-informed view that Pakistani politicos are corrupt, incompetent, ask yourself how Nawaz Sharif became a political entity to reckon with? Why was Nawaz Sharif propped up (financially, politically) as a counter to PPP? Why is the military betting on some of the most corrupt politicians---a la Shujaat Hussain--to deliver the next elected govt? It is this constant engineering of the political process, of choosing who` s good for us, what real democracy is, by the military that has brought us to the current political impasse. That has passed the initiative on to the conservative religious right, and that has weakened all other political forces in the country.

America should not be the one to decide but then whatever America decides for us impacts us for decades. Zia? My point was to publicly raise the issue of American hypocrisy on democracy since I believe the issues was swept under the carpet in the midst of the war euphoria.

Islam and liberal democracy, I agree, are at odds. I think that`s true for all orthdox, scripture based faiths. Liberal, nation-state democracy post-dates Islam. But this paradox has been at the centre of the Pakistani state` s evolution or regression, if you will. We as Pakistanis have to decide who is sovereign: the people or a divine diety? Unfortunately, in a country ruled for most of its independent existence by the power of the gun, directly or indirectly, the question of people power becomes somewhat moot. It is also true that most Islamic countries are autocracies. But that`s a misguided interpration of Islam to justify authoritarianism. We must also realize that most of these countries, specially in the Middle East, are at the hub of global geo-politics. As one reader pointed out, a Fahd, a Mubarak or a Zia suits the world`s only superpower and its allies much better than a democratic govt that might oppose its policies. Democracy, which has its own peculiar dynamics, can throw up anyone into power. Look at Algeria for instance. Democracy swept the Islamic fundamentalist party into power but they were never allowed to take power for obvious reasons by the country`s civil/military elite with foreign backing.

The Musharraf govt`s delivery on its promises. Well, let me just deal with one. Devolution/local governments? If you have been following the events, the illusions of hopefuls, both domestic and foreign, were laid to rest in the way serving army officers kidnapped/harassed union councillors (with the NAB sword) to vote for pro-army Nazims. How can you even talk of devolution to the local level when one General controls almost al the top offices of the country? Don’t delude yourself. Distt election is the first resort of all dictators as they scramble for legitimacy when the political process at the top is suspended. This is how Ayub and Zia gave us real democrats, Mush`s half-baked devolution cake is not likely to be any different.

If you believe what the World Bank says about Pakistan`s performance, God bless us all. The World Bank has been saying the same things about some of the world`s most corrupt, repressive regimes. Just because the military has fulfilled a few harsh conditionalities, at the expense of the common Pakistani, doesnt make it the beacon of good governance. The effect of these changes is yet to be proven, and our future is being mortgaged right at this hour by your illustrious citibanker. Debt rescheduling has only worsened the economic conditions in the highly indebted countries, and this has just come out in a study commissioned by our friends in the BANK.

Let me sum it up. Democracy, no matter how corrupt or imperfect, is the only viable alternative available to us. We can all agree to disagree though.

Friday times Standard is unbeatable! Nice to see the article here...



The New York Times

November 2, 2001

Yes, This Is About Islam

By SALMAN RUSHDIE

Salman Rushdie is the author, most recently, of ``Fury: A Novel.``

LONDON -- ``This isn`t about Islam.`` The world`s leaders have been

repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of

deterring

reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because

if

the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can`t

afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related.

The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn`t true. If

this

isn`t about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support

of

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with

swords

and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some

mullah`s call to jihad? Why are the war`s first British casualties

three

Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?

Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that

``the Jews`` arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon,

with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban

leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological

know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat? Why

does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand

to

be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda`s guilt while apparently turning a

deaf

ear to the self-incriminating statements of Al Qaeda`s own spokesmen

(there will be a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the West

are

warned not to live or work in tall buildings)? Why all the talk about

American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia

if

some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the

present discontents?

Of course this is ``about Islam.`` The question is, what exactly does

that

mean? After all, most religious belief isn`t very theological. Most

Muslims are not profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of

``believing`` Muslim men, ``Islam`` stands, in a jumbled, half-examined

way,

not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one

suspects —

but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include

their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of

``their`` women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a

loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music,

godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of

the

prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over —

``Westoxicated`` — by the liberal Western-style way of life.

Highly motivated organizations of Muslim men (oh, for the voices of

Muslim

women to be heard!) have been engaged over the last 30 years or so in

growing radical political movements out of this mulch of ``belief.``

These

Islamists — we must get used to this word, ``Islamists,`` meaning those

who

are engaged upon such political projects, and learn to distinguish it

from

the more general and politically neutral ``Muslim`` — include the Muslim

Brotherhood in Egypt, the blood-soaked combatants of the Islamic

Salvation

Front and Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, the Shiite revolutionaries of

Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of

their efforts is paranoia. This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders,

``infidels,`` for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed

remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of

modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the

world.

This is not wholly to go along with Samuel Huntington`s thesis about

the

clash of civilizations, for the simple reason that the Islamists`

project

is turned not only against the West and ``the Jews,`` but also against

their

fellow Islamists. Whatever the public rhetoric, there`s little love

lost

between the Taliban and Iranian regimes. Dissensions between Muslim

nations run at least as deep, if not deeper, than those nations`

resentment of the West. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that

this

self-exculpatory, paranoiac Islam is an ideology with widespread

appeal.

Twenty years ago, when I was writing a novel about power struggles in a

fictionalized Pakistan, it was already de rigueur in the Muslim world

to

blame all its troubles on the West and, in particular, the United

States.

Then as now, some of these criticisms were well-founded; no room here

to

rehearse the geopolitics of the cold war and America`s frequently

damaging

foreign policy ``tilts,`` to use the Kissinger term, toward (or away

from)

this or that temporarily useful (or disapproved-of) nation-state, or

America`s role in the installation and deposition of sundry unsavory

leaders and regimes. But I wanted then to ask a question that is no

less

important now: Suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not

primarily America`s fault, that we are to blame for our own failings?

How

would we understand them then? Might we not, by accepting our own

responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for

ourselves?

Many Muslims, as well as secularist analysts with roots in the Muslim

world, are beginning to ask such questions now. In recent weeks Muslim

voices have everywhere been raised against the obscurantist hijacking

of

their religion. Yesterday`s hotheads (among them Yusuf Islam, a k a Cat

Stevens) are improbably repackaging themselves as today`s pussycats.

An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: ``The disease that is

in

us, is from us.`` A British Muslim writes, ``Islam has become its own

enemy.`` A Lebanese friend, returning from Beirut, tells me that in the

aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, public criticism of Islamism has

become much more outspoken. Many commentators have spoken of the need

for

a Reformation in the Muslim world.

I`m reminded of the way noncommunist socialists used to distance

themselves from the tyrannical socialism of the Soviets; nevertheless,

the

first stirrings of this counterproject are of great significance. If

Islam

is to be reconciled with modernity, these voices must be encouraged

until

they swell into a roar. Many of them speak of another Islam, their

personal, private faith.

The restoration of religion to the sphere of the personal, its

depoliticization, is the nettle that all Muslim societies must grasp in

order to become modern. The only aspect of modernity interesting to the

terrorists is technology, which they see as a weapon that can be turned

on

its makers. If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must

take

on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is

based,

and without which Muslim countries` freedom will remain a distant

dream.

Salman Rushdie is the author, most recently, of ``Fury: A Novel.``

VERSA: Text: Interview With Pak Army Spokesman

Major General Rashid Quraishi

Updated on 2001-11-02 03:53:15



VERSA - Web Radio Program

The following is text of an exclusive interview with Pakistan Government`s official spokesman Major General Rashid Quraishi from Rawalpindi Islamabad from his office over the telephone. Major General Rashid Quraishi is also Director of Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR). The interview was conducted by Ms. Aisha Sarwari, producer of monthly web radio program VERSA http://radio.paknews.com



Q: Thank you for being with us on Versa. We really appreciate that you got out some time for us. First I will allow you to speak without the constraints of a question on the September 11th Attacks on America.

A: Well as you know these attacks have shocked us. The people in Pakistan were horrified by these terrorist acts. The president of Pakistan on behalf of himself and the people of Pakistan had conveyed the most profound condolences to the people of the US and to President Bush. And subsequently had offered unstinted corporation to the Government and Administration of US in the fight against terrorism. So these have been our reactions to the horrible crimes and we consider them crimes against humanity.

Q: Pakistan has proved even before the September 11th attacks that it supports a “broad based Government” in Afghanistan particularly when President Musharraf went to Iran last year in December. What does Pakistan mean by the term “broad based government” and could you tell us if this suggestion is in any way imposing or dictating to Afghanistan?

A: Afghanistan has been in a situation of conflict for the last 22 years, for the first 10 years from 1979 to 1989 they were under Soviet military intervention and the Afghan people were fighting the Soviet intervention by the help of the international community. It caused devastations and it produced huge flows of refugees. About three to three and a half million refugees have come to Pakistan alone. Subsequently, after the soviets left the situation regressed into an internecine strife: a kind of a civil war, low intensity, but one that continued, which has been very regrettable. The international community since1985 has been basically asking for a broad based government in Afghanistan so that all the population segments find representation. The idea is that only such a broad based Government could lead to national reconciliation, peace and stability in Afghanistan. So there have been resolutions by the UN and the Organization of Islamic Countries starting from 1990 calling for a broad based Government in Afghanistan. Pakistan has supported this position and also supported the efforts undertaken by the UN in particular for promoting such a government.

Q: The idea that Pakistan has sought leverage against India by securing a friendly Afghanistan. Our late journalist and writer, Eqbal Ahmed and writer Ahmed Rashid render this argument as a mistake of Pakistan. Please explain what this “strategic depth” is that Pakistan seeks.

A: I can’t really comment what Ahmed Rashid may have written unless I know what exactly he meant by these ideas. Let me say that Pakistan naturally has an interest that its western border should be peaceful and the neighbor, Afghanistan, is friendly towards Pakistan. But, we are very confident that any government, which is a stable government in Afghanistan, which can bring peace and national reconciliation in Afghanistan, will be very friendly to Pakistan because the interest of Pakistan and Afghanistan converge. As you are aware there is a long-standing interaction, there is cultural affinity between the people of the two countries. So any government that is representative of its people will be sensitive to the interests of its people and as I said, those interest as far as people of Pakistan and Afghanistan are concerned converge. Therefore any Government that can bring about national reconciliation and stability in Afghanistan will be, we hope, friendly to Pakistan. On our own, we are not suggesting any particular formulae because first, we are not entitled to do that kind of a thing. Any Government of national reconciliation will have to, by definition, come from the Afghans themselves.

As regards the question of strategic depth, I do not know what that really means because Afghanistan in the past has not posed any threat to Pakistan. We have the experiences of 1960’s and even 1971, so we do not see any threat from Afghanistan. As regards strategic depth I wonder weather those kinds of notions even apply to our situation.

Q: Pakistan has gone out of its way to have diplomatic ties with the Taliban. The government has had three rounds of talks with the Taliban in an attempt to stop massive cross-border smuggling of consumer goods and foodstuffs. There are figures of about $2.5 m in 1998 suggesting a massive loss of revenues and industrial stagnation in Pakistan because of the smuggling that has only increased since that time. How detrimental is this to Pakistan and isn’t this a threat?

A: First I think you asked me about diplomatic relation with the Taliban. This has been consistent with our long-standing policy of 50 years that Pakistan maintains relations with whichever government controls Kabul and controls Afghanistan. So in this case it is the Taliban. Apart form that today we do not have presence inside Afghanistan but the Taliban Government has its presence in Islamabad their presence is serving as a point of contact between the Taliban and the rest of the world. And it has a certain utility form that point of view.

Coming to the other question you have raised about smuggling, yes that is a pain across this particular border, which is very pours. It is about 2500 km long. It is criss-crossed with scores, if not hundreds, of mountain trains and it is difficult to completely seal this border therefore there has been smuggling that has been going on as long as one can remember. The Government takes a very strong view of this and has introduced many measures, but the ground reality is such that it is very difficult to completely stop this activity. We also have been trying that the government in Afghanistan should cooperate with us to curb smuggling, which is a loss of revenue to Pakistan. But, I would say that whenever we have raised these matters with the Afghan governments in the past we are only met with partial success in our efforts. But it much has to do with the nature of this border that is quiet unique in terms of the threat that the same tribal populations straddle the border. Also considering the fact that it is one of the most difficult borders to control anywhere in the world.

Q: How successful do you think the Pakistan government been in closing the border at this particular time?

A: At this point we have closed the borders from the established entry points. The only thing we are letting past are is the food items in particular, by the World Food Program into Afghanistan because we have a great interest (and the international community has the same interest) that relief should be provided to the Afghan people who are displaced inside Afghanistan. For us another aspect is that if food is provided to the people inside Afghanistan then there will be less pressure on us to open our borders for refugee flows. We already have more than three million Afghan refugees in the country and it should be understandable that it is difficult for us to accept any additional burden of Afghan refugees. So, this is the situation but there is still a trickle going on. In the last one month or so we have received more than 50,000 Afghan refugees mostly they come form the mountain trails into Pakistan. That is the flow that we simply cannot stop completely. But, as I said that on the established entry points now we are only letting foods go into Afghanistan and only those with valid documents can cross the border.

Q: Could you please briefly comment on the Madrassas (Religious schools) that are along the camps of the Pakistan-Afghan border. President Musharraf outlined that these Madrassas are very large sources of welfare for the refugees and that is the only thing that Pakistan can afford now. Tell us about the Madrassas and the growing concern in the international community that these are harboring points for terrorists.

A: Madrassas are not a new phenomenon: They have been there, again, for as long as one can remember and basically they impart religious education and they serve a very important welfare function. Because, it is in these madrassas poor people who cannot afford to send their children to formal school send them there. They get some food and residence. Many of the madrassas are attached to orphanages so they are doing that kind of welfare work. Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and the arrival of more than three and half million refugees in our area. These refugees were in desperate states the world community and Pakistan was more concerned with providing them with food and shelter. Hence, some of the functions of education were assumed by the mosques and madrassas. These are institutes that have rendered and continue to render an important charity and welfare function.

There may be some that may be imparting the kind of education that is not healthy and gives rise to extremist views. Naturally, the government has become very alive to this issue. They are taking steps, first and foremost to broaden the educational base of the madrassas so that alongside with religious education the madrassa students also receive education in other subjects to learn useful skills. It will naturally require many resources but, this is something the government is determined to do. The other thing is that incase there are any madrassas that are imparting any extremist views, the Government will take a strong view of that. Based on our information such madrassas will be very few.

Q: The Northern Alliance has had an anti-Pakistan rhetoric, blaming the problems of Afghanistan today on Pakistan. Could you please comment on that?

A: The Northern Alliance may be blaming Pakistan for its problems but that is unfair. One of the failures of Northern Alliance is when it was in power in Kabul and Pakistan had relations with them, we were maintaining an embassy and they were maintaining an embassy in Islamabad at that time. The problem was that they were unable to develop national reconciliation and alliances with other important groups of population in Afghanistan. Therefore throughout the period they were in Kabul the internecine struggle and fights continued. In Fact Kabul was devastated during that period. There was a need then also for political initiatives and national reconciliation, but that didn’t happen. The Taliban rose on their own. The world can see that even now they are still there despite very strong military action against them. They are not a creation of anyone outside otherwise they would have crumbled. They represent a certain large segment of population of the county. They controlled 90% of the area. On can differ with the kind of policies and practices they adopted, but there could not be any denying that they were controlling 90% of the area but that would not be because Pakistan was propping them up. No outside power can prop up the government inside Afghanistan.

But the Taliban themselves were also not able to work for National reconciliation or bring about coalitions that could have brought about a government which could bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. Northern Alliance naturally will have to be part of any broad-based government because they do represent some areas and some segments of populations in Afghanistan. Therefore if there is a broad based government which the international community supports in particular the United States then there will have to be part of the political dispensation.

Q: How valid is the threat of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling in the hands of Radicals. And what do you see the future of Pakistan in the next 10 years?

A: There are multitudes of custodial controls of our nuclear assets. There is absolutely no question of any escape of this technology or transfer of this technology to anyone irresponsible. This is a well established policy of Pakistan which has been enforced since we were in possession of these sensitive technologies which has now been more than 15 years of so. So that is a unilateral commitment and a well-established policy that Pakistan will never transfer any technologies, sensitive technologies, which includes nuclear technologies. As far as our assets are concerned we have a command and control system, which was established, and all our assets are fully secure.

As regards the 10 years scenario, I see a good future for Pakistan. We are happy that now US has removed these sanctions which we always regarded as unfair unjust and unwarranted. There have been removed and now we will have a good strong relationship with the US. Personally, I am very optimistic about Pakistan’s progress towards becoming a very dynamic, vibrant, prosperous and stable country in this part of the world.

Q: We thank you very much here at VERSA, and appreciate that you gave us this time.

A: Thank you.

I will call this a case of Misplaced priorities and misplaced Liberalism.

You are damn right there is going to be hung parliament and a lame duck Prime Minister... we need a Prime Minister who is subservient to Pakistan and not the other way around... and right now Pakistan needs a strong figure like Musharraf to embody the Pakistani National Interest.

In other words, Musharraf is a dictator so that there are no more dictators. Its time we got that National security council.

-YLH

Ahh and we see that the Bigot-in-chief Jay is here to promoting his particular brand of Democracy `All that want Pakistan and Islam destroyed say Yay` ....

When people like Jay speak of Democracy, I feel like puking!

-YLH

PS And by the way Jay has found his nth alias.. Socho.

PPS: Honestly if Democracy means electing Prime Ministers who want to become Amir ul Momineens, or

Prime Ministers who declare their `National will` to build temples on mosque sites, or Parties with agenda like Nuclear testing, destruction of another sovereign country, and the propagation of Hindu fundamentalism... I want none of that Democracy. Please keep it to yourself.

shakir69 #5 Seems to me the benefits of democracy start with good governance. Good governance means respect for the law. For the little guy, respect for the law is brought about by an effective system of police and courts and reasonable laws. For the big guy, respect for the law is brought by the ``watchdogs of democracy``, a free and mature press. I think in Pakistan we are now headed on the road to good governance. As long as the road is not too long, and as long as we achieve milestones along the way: First milestone being success of the local governments now in place. Second being changing the constitution to take politics out of religion by changing the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to plain Republic of Pakistan. Third being putting the mullahs in their place as people who earn a living by providing some religious services for those who care to seek their assistance, and not would-be dictators with a Divine Right to Rule. Then we will be fine.

Ref shakir69 #: 5

[Our institutions nor are people are ready for a democracy.]

That statement alone should put to rest any fears Pakistanis may have that India and Indians want an Akhand Bharat (Greater India).

You guys are welcome to dictatorships.

One historian pointed out that most of the economic activity in Northern Areas consisted of highway robbery, since Gilgit and surrounding areas had narrow trails through which traders had to pass.

Today, all of Pakistan enjoys the same geographic advantage.

If the US wants free passage over Pakistani airspace, it needs to pay a toll to the Pakistan government. (Actually, the US could flatten Pakistan in a couple of weeks but they don`t want the Third World condemning them in the UN).

How can you guys lose your heritage?

Keep it up, guys!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts