The Day Of All Days

Ref arjun_m #38
[Ah..what`s this i read? Ahmadiya muslims being discriminated against in the Islamic republic?]
Ah! Ahmadiyyas are NOT Muslims according to Pakistan law. Calling themselves Muslims, calling their place of worship a mosque or reciting the kalima can all lead to charges of blasphemy.

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

Re: Urstruly # 44

Where was the sovereignity of the Pakistani people, when ZAB amended the constituion to give him powers at the expense of the national assembly in 1973? Where was the sovereignity of the Pakistani people, when ZAB refused to hold elections and forced the riots, which finally led to ``Operation Fairplay`` on July 5, 1977 in Pakistan? Where was the sovereignity of the Pakistani people, when ZAB refused to share power with Mujib-ur-Rehman in 1960s and caused the breakup of Pakistan?

Where was the sovereignity of the people of Pakistan in all these noble and selfish acts of ZAB? When, and where, was ZAB really interested in the sovereignity of the pakistani people?

Where was the sovereignity of the people of Pakistan, when ZAB was jailing, killing and intimidating his political opponents, who also were representing the sovereignity of the people of Pakistan?

Would you agree that since 1947, Pakistani people had no sovereignity and if they were under colonial subjugation, as you claimed, then what sovereignity of the Pakistani people was represented by ZAB?

Can you please give an example?

Please correct me, but I am of the opinion that Pakistan always had a flawed dictatorship and a flawed democracy since 1947. After partition, we adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 as our consitution; a document more designed to supress than reprsent, in your words, ``the sovereignity of the people.`` Pakistani civilian goverments were dismissed under its stipulations and democracy was never allowed to take root long before Ayub Khan arrived with his first martial law.

You mentioned that democratic institutions of the government already exist. Could you please identify those democratic institutions of Pakistan?

You also mentioned that it was the failure of the corrupt people, and not the institutes themselves. Granted. I will accept that argument.

What does that imply? If the institutes are fine, but it is the politicans and the bureaucrats responsible for the mess in Pakistan, then what should happen? Do we let them contest the elections and repeat and complete their rot of Pakistan? If these politicans are guilty of ruining the political/democratic institutions of Pakistan by their corrupt practices, should we restrict them from competing the elections or we should let democracy prevail and let them continue with their past practices?

If the sovereign people of Pakistan elect them, then who is finally responsible and who should be held accountable for future misdeeds?

The politicans or the sovereign people of Pakistan for the mess the nation is in?

If the sovereign people of Pakistan elect them and they end up by not representing the sovereign rights of the sovereign people of the sovereign state of Pakistan, who should, then, the noble, blameless sovereign citizens of Pakistan blame for a lack of their sovereign rights of representation?

Who is against the system of checks and balances in Pakistan?

It is the politicans, who do not want any restraint on their power; it is the political and democratic institutions of Pakistan, which think they are the successor of the British Raj and are not accountable to the people; it is the bureaucracy that wants to rule over Pakistan without being accountable to the ruled and does not like its power challenged by a system of checks and balances. It is the military, who considers itself as the self appointed savior of Pakistan and does not wish to be checked in its messanic authority over Pakistan.

Who in Pakistan, pray tell, wants their power checked and be held accountable to some one?

Urstruly, anarchy was the issue, when this regime took over. Corruption became a cause celebre later. Ending corruption was never a major concern of this government, because if it was then why is corruption still striving in Pakistan?


Urstruly, how is democracy in Pakistan supposed to check corruption, when there has been no real democracy in Pakistan in the first place?

As a clarification, do you consider the tenures of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shairf as ``true democracy in Pakistan?``

Urstruly, since you know so much about true democracy in Pakistan and have all the right answers to Pakistan`s problems, you should seriously think about running for elections in Pakistan and help in the process of bringing true democracy in Pakistan. You insights and suggestion on how to make Pakistan democratic would be invaluble to the sovereign people of Pakistan, whose sovereign rights you will serve beyond any measure. The sovereign people of Pakistan will owe to a debt of gratitude if you would stand up for elections. I will vote for you!

Ciao




There has to be an accountability in Pakistan.

urstruly #44, Well said!

[I wouldn`t lose hope in Mushy. The democrat that he is, he has soundly denounced indian elections in J&K as rigged. It`s only a matter of time before he likewise discovers what a sham the october elections are... ]

You cannot be serious!!!!!!!!!

You said:

As to your reply, I would have to disgree with you on your comments about Z. A. Bhutto`s rule in Pakistan. ZAB did more to damage Pakistan than the combined period of the military rule, when he nationalized the economy of Pakistan. That was the worst coup d` etat in the history of Pakistan and it has never recovered from it!

Reply:

The issue under discussion wrt Bhutto was the sovereignty of people of Pakistan and not his economical policies. The setbacks that we endured due to his policies are independent of the influence of colonial powers.

You said:

Secondly, I agree with you that Pakistan needs to create a political framework/process to resolve its political problems. The only question is how? Realizing that there is no subsitute for democracy, the problem is how do we, as a nation, get to that point in our national-political institutional development?

Reply:

This is one of the most arrogant responses I hear from the apologists of this despot. The institutions of democratic institutions of government already exist. We do not need to create new ones. If there is ever a need to create new institutions then as a matter of principle we should let democracy create new democratic institutions.

You said:

Do we work with a system that is malfunctioning and attempt to make it workable, or we simply replace it with a new system? What happens in the interim? What happens if we get rid of the old system and new system does not work, or we get rid of the old only to discover that there is no feasible replacement for it?

Reply:

The pretext under which this regime took over was not that the democratic institutions have failed but the corruption of the people who run those institutions. We do not cut our heads off because we get headaches. We try to cure the headache. Among the people of Paksitan and the politicians, the system of governance has never been an issue, the issue always have been to install proper system of check and balances. Even the debate on federation versus confederation exists because there are not proper system of check and balances in place. I give you an example. Suppose you have a property and you appoint a person to look after it- would you rather create a system to keep a check on your curator or you just appoint another person to keep an eye on that person- what if you need another person to keep an eye on both……that is how at least military regimes think and political governments in Paksitan do. Military wants it because it thinks that because it is at the end of the chain and it is not answerable to anyone. Military governments therefore love it. In civilized democratic societies, instead of appointing watchdog after watchdog people try to cure the system and only watchdog is the people themselves.

You said:

Prudence and caution would suggest that we work with the old and existing system instead of pinning our hopes on an utopian ideal. Also, do we reform the system or the politicans? Shall we break the mirror, because we do not like the image it is reflecting?

Reply:

We just discussed that above.

You said:

With a strong believe in the idea that there is no subsitute for democracy, I would opt for anarchy and simply let the system iron out its wrinkles in Pakistan. In a real sense, politically, that option might not work, because though politics is generally akin to a state of controlled anarchy, it is considered to be better than anarchy without any control. Hence, the paradox of politics in Pakistan and an oxymoronic state of our present political situation. The biggest hurdle in this is the politicans, who like a framework of rules and a lack of rule unverves them, because they are not sure of their own political interests or the direction and limits of their own political powers.

Reply:

Anarchy was never ever an issue when this regime took over, corruption was. Anarchy and corruption are two different things. Corruption may create anarchy but it didn’t. Corruption did lead to the anarchy when NS attacked Supreme Court. But he did have to bear the political consequences then. Democratic system keeps both anarchy and corruption in check. Absolute authority doesn’t. Absolute authority corrupts absolutely instead.

You said:

This is what Musharraf is trying to do, with his reconstituted plans for Pakistan and why everyone is neverous; the rules have changed and the players are confused!

Reply:

What Musharaf is trying to implement is a permanent role for autocracy, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. And that is what making people nervous. In this day and age there is no place for such things in any society. If it is a path to ``true democracy`` then US and Western colonial powers should try it in their countries first.

You said:

Lastly, what happened in Iran had more to do with the economic disparities than it had to do with the violent nature of Shah`s regime.

Reply:

Please re-think your answer. Do murder of Dr. Musaddiq by CIA and adventures of Savak ring any bells.

Re: Urstruly # 39

As to your reply, I would have to disgree with you on your comments about Z. A. Bhutto`s rule in Pakistan. ZAB did more to damage Pakistan than the combined period of the military rule, when he nationalized the economy of Pakistan. That was the worst coup d` etat in the history of Pakistan and it has never recovered from it!

Secondly, I agree with you that Pakistan needs to create a political framework/process to resolve its political problems. The only question is how? Realizing that there is no subsitute for democracy, the problem is how do we, as a nation, get to that point in our national-political institutional development?

Do we work with a system that is malfunctioning and attempt to make it workable, or we simply replace it with a new system? What happens in the interim? What happens if we get rid of the old system and new system does not work, or we get rid of the old only to discover that there is no feasible replacement for it?

Prudence and caution would suggest that we work with the old and existing system instead of pinning our hopes on an utopian ideal. Also, do we reform the system or the politicans? Shall we break the mirror, because we do not like the image it is reflecting?

With a strong believe in the idea that there is no subsitute for democracy, I would opt for anarchy and simply let the system iron out its wrinkles in Pakistan. In a real sense, politically, that option might not work, because though politics is generally akin to a state of controlled anarchy, it is considered to be better than anarchy without any control. Hence, the paradox of politics in Pakistan and an oxymoronic state of our present political situation. The biggest hurdle in this is the politicans, who like a framework of rules and a lack of rule unverves them, because they are not sure of their own political interests or the direction and limits of their own political powers.

This is what Musharraf is trying to do, with his reconstituted plans for Pakistan and why everyone is neverous; the rules have changed and the players are confused!

Lastly, what happened in Iran had more to do with the economic disparities than it had to do with the violent nature of Shah`s regime.

Ciao

I wouldn`t lose hope in Mushy. The democrat that he is, he has soundly denounced indian elections in J&K as rigged. It`s only a matter of time before he likewise discovers what a sham the october elections are...

[Pakistan in its life has been free only twice. First time it was in `70s during Bhutto era, when we were walking on our own legs free of the crutches of colonial powers and second time from October 1999 to the time when Musharaf took over the office of President of Pakistan. ]
mujhe kuch kehna hai...mujhe bhi kuch kehna hai...pehle tum, pehle tum, pehle tum, pehle tum...oof bahut ho gaya ye, kuch kaha nahin ja raha hai, aisi baat ka jawab kaise doon. Chalo, choRRh deti hoon, nahin ek chota sa observation...bus ek. Yehi na, ke free is a relative term? O naiyo papa ji...ye nahin...ooooof...ye `free` wali baat mere samajh se door hai...chalo, inko apne haal par choRRh dau, tum bhago. . .

asif Naqshbandi: It is foregone conclusion that Sarkari League will be pronounced winner in elections. Don`t you see that writing on the wall? Before 9/11, Musharraf toyed with the idea of Tahir-Ul-Qadri, Imran Khan, Leghari, Soomro, Chaudhry alliance but Chaudhrys turned out to be a group not falling in line behind minor leaders and past losers. They promised more in exchange for getting more, simple. Without Chaudhrys, Sarkari league is no bigger than Leghari or Imran Khan parties. You know how poular Musharrah is? People line up both sides of the roads with garlands and flowers in their hands in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad whenever he walks or rides on the streets of these cities. Haha! Recently farmers in Okara were so anxious to see him that they have to be fired upon. Whenever he visits Lahore, all the businesses shutter their shops to celebrate and welcome the arrival of this Ranjha to their Takht Hazara. His motorcade of 12 Mercedes has to maneuvor through the well-wishers, loving and celebrating masses with great difficulty everywhere he goes. Just recently he wanted a gallon of milk and all the cows from all over the country lined up to have the honor of providing milk to his excellency.
All he has to do is to nod for Sarkarl League and people will be lining up to vote for them as they did on April 30, 2002 during referendum. Haha....now heeeeeeeeere comes field marshal!

Ferozk

You said:

``Would you like the looters and plunders of Pakistan back in power if that saves your noble constitution? ``

Reply:

This is not only a threat but a shameless blackmail that this despot and his chamchas are using nonstop against people of Paksitan. What they don`t want to tell people is that, with a constitution they had a choice to choose the lesser evil; and with the rape of constitution they are stuck with one and the only the greatest of evils for an undetermined period of time.

You said:

``Do you really consider Pakistan as an independent sovereign nation with a debt of nearly 38 billion dollars and its economic, military and foreign policy directed and dictated from Washington?``

Reply:

Pakistan in its life has been free only twice. First time it was in `70s during Bhutto era, when we were walking on our own legs free of the crutches of colonial powers and second time from October 1999 to the time when Musharaf took over the office of President of Pakistan. Which proves that we can live and prosper independently without crutches. And that is the reason Bhutto is a Shaheed and Musharaf is a schmuck.

You said:

Pakistan has merely exchanged its British masters for American ones, when Ayub Khan agreed to support CENTO and SEATO. Pakistan is a colony of the United States.

Reply:

I have been saying that for ages only if someone listens to it. But it does not mean that we accept our subjugation. Neither a man nor an animal likes a cage. Those who do are below man and animals.

You said:

Musharraf had offered hope and now it seems that hope was just a mirage and it is now business as usual.

Reply:

The hope was not a mirage. Someone had to kick our ass to get us to stand on our own feet.

You said:

Temperoal was right, when he said it nearly four years ago that ``the whole rotten structure needs to be torn down and burned and a new one created...``

Reply:

Temporal`s wishes have come true. Paksitan is being broken down to create a new one. But this change is not good. Countries are not like pajamas, you tore off old ones, and get new ones. Institutions of a country grow up with time if they are let exist.

You said:

Maybe, you are disappointed, because the Talibanization of Pakistan was halted by the events of September 2001. Are you? Are you still waiting for Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Ladin to led a Wahhabi indoctorinated revolution in Pakistan and make Pakistan a theocratic state? Were you disappointed that your self-resurrected emperor Nawaz Sharif could not enforce his 15 amendement? Maybe, you yearn for Zia and his dream to make Pakistan a pure state existing between the heretic state of Iran, and the devious Hindus and the infidels of west? Maybe, you were born 1400 years too late?

Reply:

This is where you and your ilk is wrong. Violence against people is the sure way to Talibanization. Don’t you know what happened in Iran? Violence is being used to solve political issues. Violence begets violence. If ideologies could be ``killed`` by violence the world would have been a really boring place with one creed, one religion, and one ideology. It is not in the nature of man to accept the tyranny of other. Only a political process is a sure guarantee to curb extremism whether it is religious one or one that wears a garb of ``reforms``.

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

Here`s a question to those who know more about pakistani politics than I do:

In the event that the religious parties` alliance (chaired by Mawlana Noorani sahib damatbarkaatahum) or the other religious party of Tahir ul Qadri sahib gets the most votes and wins--what then? Will Pres Busharraf allow it to form the govt or not? Or will he do a Turkey and force it out of power (like happened with the Refah party)?

Pankaj

Here is a little story from the columns of Cowasjee in Dawn that will educate some people about the relationship between the Army and the state.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

Let us take the attitude of another army man, a man from our neighbour India, a fellow Zoroastrian, the highly respected Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw. When in Delhi last year I had the privilege of meeting him.

Now almost ninety, he stands as straight as an arrow, and like a good soldier can look down over a belt that does not sag, over a flat stomach, and see his shoelaces. And, like a good soldier he does not dye his hair or his bristling moustache. They have grown into a natural, distinguished and becoming grey.

Over lunch at his charming daughter`s flat, I asked him whether in his experience as a soldier there had ever been any danger of the army stepping in to take over the government of India. He laughed and said, never - it could never happen. But, there was one odd occasion when he was heading the army and Indira Gandhi was prime minister, when matters in India were not going too well, there was much unrest, and Indira was apprehensive that the army may step in.

So one day, she asked if she could call upon him at his headquarters. When he naturally said she should not, and that he would come to her, she put her foot firmly down and insisted that it would be she who would go to him.

Her problem was that she had heard on the grapevine that the field marshal was contemplating stepping in to sort out the messy political situation. She asked him whether there was any truth in the rumour. His answer to her : ``Little girl, I have a big and long nose, as do you. You keep your nose out of the affairs of my army and I will keep my nose out of the affairs of your government. Now run along, and try and sort things out.``

Re: Urstruly # 33

Would you like the looters and plunders of Pakistan back in power if that saves your noble constitution?

Do you really consider Pakistan as an independent sovereign nation with a debt of nearly 38 billion dollars and its economic, military and foreign policy directed and dictated from Washington?

Pakistan has merely exchanged its British masters for American ones, when Ayub Khan agreed to support CENTO and SEATO. Pakistan is a colony of the United States.

Musharraf had offered hope and now it seems that hope was just a mirage and it is now business as usual.

Temperoal was right, when he said it nearly four years ago that ``the whole rotten structure needs to be torn down and burned and a new one created...``

Maybe, you are disappointed, because the Talibanization of Pakistan was halted by the events of September 2001. Are you? Are you still waiting for Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Ladin to led a Wahhabi indoctorinated revolution in Pakistan and make Pakistan a theocratic state? Were you disappointed that your self-resurrected emperor Nawaz Sharif could not enforce his 15 amendement? Maybe, you yearn for Zia and his dream to make Pakistan a pure state existing between the heretic state of Iran, and the devious Hindus and the infidels of west? Maybe, you were born 1400 years too late?

Ciao

SameerJB:
You got it right. The people of Pakistan through their elected representatives are the masters of their own destiny. The military is a paid servant of the people. Any misunderstandings and conflicts between the two have to resolved in favor of the people. It is quite simple.

REVERSAL OF ROLES

This article is just another reiteration of recycled facts. It does not give any new insight. The only difference in this article I have found is the role reversal of the author. Not too long ago Ferozk used to write articles about the same regime in the tone that suggested that he is about to commit suicide in depression. That was the time when Musharaf was a man of honor. He was nabbing the culprits who stole from the Paksitani nation and returned the money to its rightful owners. At that time he saved the nation from the scourge and tyrrany of BB and NS. That was the time when Musharaf, put Hindus in the place where they belong. And not only that he had the courage to stand up to the so called champions of democracy. And that was the time when he was leading the nation through thick and thin and nation knew that sooner or later it would make it. And that was something that was driving the likes of Ferozk to suicide.

And now when same Musharaf has sold his soul to the devil; turned the country into a colonial outpost; Pak Army is once again shooting Paksitani men and women in the name of `hunt for whatever`; our soveriegnity has been lost; and the global colonial powers have turned Mushsraf into another despot and they pat his back and they have guts to tell us that `this is the democarcy`; constitution has been raped; people like Ferozk are showing us the avenues of hope in this new ``system``. They have found guts to use such phrases as ``constitutional reforms`` to descibe the rape of constitution and institutionalization of colonial subjugation.

This is quite a role reversal.

Re: Romair

I think that you have stated the dilemma of the Pakistani society well, but the point still is, where does that ignorance stems from and how can it be corrected? The National Security Council? Is that the answer to the problem?

Re: Faruk # 21

Democracy cannot be implemented by the army in Pakistan. It has been tried in the past and was discovered to be problematic.

In a utopian sense, the best thing would be to allow anarchy in Pakistan and let the process evolve a self-correcting mechanism for itself. Realistically, that cannot be attempted, so the alternative is to tailor a safe approach to democracy, with the army mid-wifing the process.

The problem is how do we, as a nation, learn to distrust the good judgement of the politicans with their past mistakes creating a strong historic memory? Do we forgive them their transgressions and hope for the best? The same applies to the army`s past historic record also.

The best compromise, and I am not sure, whether this is a bargain with the devil or not, would be to have a Turkish style military-civilian infrastructure ruling the country.

If you are assuming democracy in Pakistan to resemble a western style democratic setup, you are whistling a wrong tune! Pakistan has to evolve its own version of democracy, which in the final analysis is good for Pakistanis. That is all that matters and if Musharraf can do this, the final verdict on him will be positive.

Pakistan has never been a democracy, because neither the politicans or the armed forces have allowed democracy to flourish in Pakistan; they are both to be blamed for the lack of democracy in Pakistan!

Ciao

``Huzoor kya baat likhi hay, wallah [..the need of the hour - is the reform of the Pakistan Military by the civilian politicians - not the reform of the civilian politicians by the Army…] ...janab the civilian politicians that your are pining for are no good either…they have blackened their faces from the same pot````

My dear temporal saheb -- if not the politicians -- then who and what -- why we say these things about the politicians -- why are we redefining the politcians -- they are same everywhere -- they are corrupt everywhere -- only difference is of the degrees -- at the same they are indispensable everywhere -- show me one politician who is a mother teresa and I will show the evidence that Atilla the Hun was a Nun

if not NS and BB -- then who -- Imran and Shujaat? -- you have to use what you got -- for better or worse Pakistan has a two party system (a pretty stable political system if not killed by coup detaitis) and NS and BB are -- like it or not -- the ones who represent the majority.

these sinners minus their ill-gotten wealth -- are still hundred times better than an `extremely democratic` divinely-sent gunslinger who stole a government at gunpoint -- who NOW `promises` to return the stolen good as a pot of gold -- as a true sustainable democracy – and this he is doing by making a one-man ‘bhujia’ of Pakistan Constitution -- through his amendment factory shredder.

Now tell mere huzoor temporal saheb -- in the long distinguished history of thievery, robbery or burglary -- WHEN a burglar, or a thief or a robber -- has stolen a copper pot and returned it as a pot of gold?

Khair sirf aap kee khatir yeh turmeem -- ``the need of the hour - is the reform of the Pakistan Military by the civilians - - not the reform of the civilians by the Army``:-)

nasah #15
``the urgency -- the need of the hour -- is the reform of the Pakistan Military by the civilian politicians``

Yes, and the question that people who think that way had better be pondering with equal urgency is, how?

In my opinion, no one (I repeat no one), in any country, can stand up against an honest leader who has the common folk behind him. The military cannot stand up to him. Neither can the press. Nor the beaurecracy. Nor the feudals. Pakistan will not have democracy, until such a leader makes it to the top. The coming elections are now a good opportunity for the Pakistani voter to elect such people.

Unfortunately, I think we may see the same cycle of events re-occur. PML or PPP will win the elections, since they are the only two true feudal parties in Pakistan. Within these parties, generally the exact same people will win again.

It is incorrect to state that Pakistanis have not had a chance to elect their representatives. In the past twelve years, this will be the fifth election. Pakistanis have thus had more of a chance to change the leadership than probably 90% of the countries in the world. No one holds a gun to their heads (at least not in the urban areas), and forces them to vote for the PPP and PML, again and again. They do it thru their own free will. There are even some idiots in this elections calling for BB and NS to come and rule over us again. Am I the only one who thought these two bafoons robbed Pakistan dry? What can one say about a country where educated people want the same robbers to return? Such people must have a vested interest with the BBs and NSs of the world. I think the biggest threat to democracy in Pakistan are the people who want BB and NS to return.

If the BB brigade or the NS brigade comes into power again, then who should one blame? The Army, the beauracracy, India, the ``establishment,`` Jews...Shouldn`t the blame be put on the voter (at least the powerful urban voter, if not on the enslaved feudal voter?)

We need to get out of this tendency of blaming everything on America and India and the, ``establishment.`` There will be elections on Oct. 10. With the number of international observors in Pakistan, they are bound to be fair, or at least fair enough. It is true that the military govt. has assisted in forming a PML(QA) faction. Big deal. It cannot force people to vote for it. And the PML(QA) politicians themselves did not have to join this new party. They could have refused. There are 67 other registered political parties participating in this election. The voters are free to vote for any party they want (I am voting for Tehrik, because I don`t want PPP and PML(of any flavor) back). If the voters chose to vote in, themselves, the exact same people whom the voters themselves blame for the terrible 90s, then shouldn`t the voters finally start blaming themselves for the problems of Pakistan.

In my opinion, anyone who votes for the exact same PPP and the PML leaders loses the right to then complain about all the problems that the PPP and PML have caused to Pakistan, over the past decades. Such an individual should then only blame himself/herself when Zardari is appointed the Minister of Investment and sets up his off-shore companies again, and the Sharifs start locking up anyone who says anything against them, and start passing their Shariah Bill.

The other option is, of course, to criticize everyone. I wouldn`t be surprised if the same people who are singing the tunes of BB and NS and PPP and PML right now, become their biggest critics when these parties start screwing the country again. After all, these were the same people who criticized the PPP and PML in the 90s. Being a habitual critic is the easiest job in the world. It would be better however, if such folks picked an alternative option from what has ruled over Pakistan (i.e. someone other than PPP, PML and Army).

Pakistani political parties - The lack of conceptual Frame work

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-9-2002_pg1_9
``Election Watch: Manifestos leave key issues untouched
By Rana Qaisar
ISLAMABAD: While political parties have started announcing their election manifestos, none of them has so far come up with an agenda for economic and social changes in the country. With just 28 days to go before the elections, the political parties seem to be busy only in the selection of suitable candidates, to finalise their lists for the national and provincial assemblies or working out seat-to-seat adjustments with other parties.

Given the determination of President Pervez Musharraf to not let anyone reverse the reforms introduced during his three-year government and the many ‘ifs and buts’ punctuating the future political set-up, political parties find themselves in an uncertain situation after the elections, in which they may or may not be allowed to implement their own vision of Pakistan.``

Mr Qaisar - before political parties can implement their vision of Pakistan, shouldn`t they actually have such a vision? And isn`t it this vision of Pakistan that they seek the support of voters?? Chicken or egg? both, we are Pakistanis!

hobbes: Any comments under SameerJB name are mine and do not ascribe to the people of Pakistan. I do have the right to give my opinion about silly statements like, ``civilians lack understanding of military mind and vice versa``. I just presented my take that military should behave like good employees and stay on the turf assigned to them - garrison. They are like chowkidars found standing by the Banks and other buildings. Even if the bank has bad management, if long lines waiting for services or what not, chowkidar is not authorised to start running the bank on his own, just because he thinks he can manage it better.
Musharraf is illegitimate and it must be clear before discussing any step taken under his rule. This is also my opinion.
hobbes, if proper democratic procedures of the institutions were not being followed and politicians were much less than model public servants, military or chowkidars so not have the right to dismiss them at gunpoint, people do at polling stations will ballot papers.
Actually Musharraf himself has given the right answer couple of days ago at Harvard University. He said in response to a question that he took over to avoid humiliation. An employee taking over to avoid humiliation of being fired by the employer is what exactly it boils down to. Since then he has been trying to prolong his stay in power. Why is it so difficult for many intelligent interlocutors to undderstand?
Since his name can not win anything, he is trying to use biradri system to put together a coalition of lotas based on Jat and AraiN brotherhood and pre-election and post voting rigging to have enough Jats and AraiN winning in Punjab to claim his popularity and justifying staying in power.

SameerJB
Please lets not take the lind of rhetoric - lets deal with realities, we can all learn something, instead of our positions that are known to all. It is your particular take - please do not ascribe to the people of Pakistan, the ambitions of BB and NS. I mean it`s simply not justified. Mr. Musharraf`s acknowledgement that irregularities did take place in the referendum, is not sufficient grounds to suggests that the people of Pakistan do not support him or that the referendum was not legal.
Let`s keep the focus on what democracy has been/is in Pakistan and not on a referendum, that is already history as are BB and NS.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the ``democractic procedures`` of the institutions of state and those of politicians?

#24: It is not politicians. It is the right of the people/ tax payers to employ/ elect employees to run the affairs of their country. it is their money, their country. They gave right to BB and NS to be at the helm and not to Musharraf. They actually refused it to him when he asked for it - during referendum.

Since when are Pakistani politicians ``tax payers``?

15 by nasah;

Huzoor kya baat likhi hay, wallah [..the need of the hour - is the reform of the Pakistan Military by the civilian politicians - not the reform of the civilian politcians by the Army…] ...janab the civilian politicians that your are pining for are no good either…they have blackened their faces from the same pot…

anyone who thinks any good…however little...can come out of the futile exercise on Oct 10 is in denial or delusional…

Mark these words. Pakistan is an occupied land. The Occupation Army has to be removed from the equation. Unless that is forced, nothing will change.

Regards,

temporal

Re: Civilian and Military misunderstanding each other

The need for employees to understand employer is always more important than other way around. Military being paid to do the job of defending - the employees - must understand the employer, the tax-payer civilians. The employer only needs to understand employees in small horizontal businesses, not in large vertical businesses like governing a nation. An employees refusing to understand is often booted out by the employer representative and that is exactly what NS did to Musharraf.

Those who get paid for and accumulate plots should better understand Civilian employer and only request to be heard or understood by Civilians. No employer likes to be f&cked by the employees to the extent of robbing the employer business or running it dry. Some employees are provided arms out of necessity, not to be used against management.

If military is equal source of revenue, the civilian-miltary understanding should be at par and if they bring in more revenue than civilian, military should be traeted as employer. Plain and simple!

A drop of water on bucket fill of salt does not make water, a solvent. It becomes a solvent once it is more.

Romair, ferozk
Musharraf?s true democracy as I see it is : for the army, of the army, by the army paid for by the people of Pakistan. Could you explain how this is good for your country? Please be generous with your explanation.
If you ask me your country has not had democracy from April 17 1953. I assume you know the significance of that date.

Regards,

Faruk

Ferozek #17: ``Yes; the military is really misunderstood by the majority of Pakistan`s pseudo-intellectual classes and the blame for that is not the people`s but the military`s, which has always assumed that its actions were lauded by the people.``

I have met very few people who understand both the Pakistani military and the Pakistani civilian thought process. I will be the first to admit that I was baised and ill-informed about the civilian thought process, when I was in the military. As were nearly all my colleagues. And I have noticed that my civilian colleagues are equally biased and ill-informed about the military, as an institution.

The only people I have met who are informed about both are those who left the military at a young age, and then established civilian careers. I would count myself in this category, and others like Ayaz Amir, and some of my colleagues who left as Captains and Majors in their twenties and early thirties. People who retire after a full military career, and become civilian retirees, never really leave the military practically. And civilians cannot join the military, after having a civilian career.

What I have also noticed is that civlians, with no understanding of the military, are dead sure they understand it completely. And military men, with no civilian experience, are dead sure they have civilians figured out. This has lead to prejudices, misguided self-confidence and even hatred from both sides.

Since Chowk is completely visited by civilians, many of whom are self-proclaimed but very ill-informed critics of the military, I generally find myself trying to reduce their prejudices by pointing out the holes in their biased arguments, mostly unsuccessfully. However, whenever I am with my old military colleagues, specially those who have reached senior ranks, I always find myself trying to reduce their prejudices about civlians in a similar manner, mostly unsuccessfully.

It is really amazing to see how little individuals in both groups know about each other - even individuals who are blood relatives.

I don`t think the military is to be blamed for the pseudo-intellectual discussions of civilians, just like civilians are not to be blamed for similar discussions by the military. I think what needs to happen is for both groups to open up their minds, stop forming rock-solid opinions without adequate knowledge, and realize that it is very difficult to understand things one hasn`t experienced (experience does not mean having a father who was in the military or one who was a civilian - although that does provide some information). And, most of all, to listen to people who have experienced both sides.

On the whole I would say that the average junior military officer is one of the most respected persons amongst Pakistan`s common folk (shopkeepers, farmers, taxi-drivers). This is different from feared, which is what the common folk feel towards the police and civil services. I received a lot more respect from shopkeers etc when I told them I was in the military, than when I told them I was a software consultant. The upper-class and intellectuals (self-proclaimed or otherwise) are either indifferent to the junior officer or dislike him. The common folk are indifferent towards the General level soldiers and somewhat fears him. While the upper-class and intellectuals (self-proclaimed or otherwise) dislikes (and even hates, in many cases) the Generals and fears them as well.

India comes first in US-Pakistan ties
By Selig S. Harrison

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0909/p11s01-coop.html

sadna -- the urgency -- the need of the hour -- is the reform of the Pakistan Military by the civilian politicians -- not the reform of the civilian politcians by the Army.

``You seem to have a knee jerk hatred towards Musharraf``(ferozk)

thanks feroz --I take it as a compliment -- the anti democratic army man is indeed without any redeemable value whatsoever:-)

May be if your post would have been a little shorter.

my dear friend -- you don`t have to use so many words to say that Musharraf is going to harm Pakistan -- he already has.

Re: Hobbes # 7

The article, from Dawn, makes many good points about the institutional nature of the army and a lack of a corresponding institution in the civil-political life of the nation.

My disagreement with the article is that it seeks in a way to justify the military`s actions. I am not sure why the Ayaz Amir is suggesting this line of thought. The cynic in me would suggest that he is doing the obvivious, because he is contesting a national assembly seat, on the ``ticket`` of PML, and needs to pay the required sum to the piper...

Other than, having friends and the relatives in the armed forces, I still hold the believe that the military, among all Pakistani institutions, is the most open to a serious exchange of ideas and the only institution in Pakistan, where desicions are arrived on the basis of consensus.

Yes; the military is really misunderstood by the majority of Pakistan`s pseudo-intellectual classes and the blame for that is not the people`s but the military`s, which has always assumed that its actions were lauded by the people. If the military had presented its side of the agruments instead of dictating its vision of Pakistan to the Pakistanis, then the situation might have been different.

What I really disagree with the article is that democracy has to be allowed to evolve, just like the military`s institutions were allowed to evolve amid the change from a British tradition mixed with an Islamic identity. Keeping its own history in mind, the military should allow the civilan institutions to develop, mature and evolve and let them define the nature and scope and limits of a Pakistani democractic tradition instead of engineering their political-democratic evolution. Just because the military has well developed institutions, does not mean that it can belittle the civilian institutions, but should ask the reason they were not able to develop?

Re: nasah #13

Thanks for answering...

To pose a follow up to you...

Is your suggestion that it is the religious minority in Pakistan, who is not willing to tolerate dissent instead of civilian society?

If that is your contention, I would agree that there is vocal minority in Pakistan, which is extermely averse to dissent.

Ciao

Shahid Javed Burki is one of the few writers who understands the civilian-military dynamics in Pakistan quite well, without having been on both sides of the fence (in the military and a civilian). Most of the others, who in my opinion understand it, like Ayaz Amir, were themesleves in the military.

``Bridging the polarity
By Shahid Javed Burki
General Pervez Musharraf`s much anticipated constitutional package was made public at a press conference held on the evening of Wednesday, August 21. The general used an unusual format for letting the people of Pakistan - and the people outside Pakistan interested in that country`s trials and tribulations - know how he planned to govern the country for the next several years. That the conference was held in a hall named Chaghai must not have been lost on the people who attended it or watched the proceedings on national television.

It was in the hills of Chaghai in Balochistan that Pakistan exploded half a dozen nuclear devices in May 1998 and joined the club of seven nations who admit to the possession of nuclear weapons. Although Pakistan`s nuclear programme relied on the expertise of civilian scientists, it answered a military objective. Pakistan`s armed forces have been focused on the threat - both real and perceived - offered by India, a much larger and stronger nation that shares a long border on the country`s south and east. The Chaghai explosions signalled the arrival of a deterrence against possible Indian aggression.

The tremor caused by Chaghai was heard around the world. So was the case with the constitutional changes announced by General Musharraf on August 21. Much of the reaction to the changes proposed by the general was negative. Most political parties in Pakistan - especially the parties that held power in the 1990s - were bitterly opposed to the changes in the Constitution. Most of the press commentary - editorials as well as articles on the op-ed pages - did not like the suggestion that for the foreseeable future the military will have the constitutional right to watch over the workings of the political system.

The foreign press and commentators were equally critical. The New York Times, in an editorial that appeared on August 23 under the title of ``Power Grab in Pakistan`` advised Washington to deliver Pakistan a strong rebuke. ``For years, Washington has condoned anti-democratic behaviour by pro-American dictators... Washington should never again be so uncritical of the undemocratic company it sometimes feels compelled to keep,`` said the newspaper. A similar sentiment was expressed by the novelist, Salmaan Rushdie, in an article contributed by him to a recent issue of The Washington Post.

Is all this hand-wringing justified? There is no doubt that the announced changes in the Constitution are significant not only for Pakistan and its political and economic future. They were also of tremendous import for the world since Pakistan today is America`s most valued ally in its war against global terrorism. General Musharraf`s reflections on Pakistan`s political problems and prospects were offered amid cacophonous debate over strategy between, inter alia, the military and civilian politicians.

The general took some pride in the fact that he had allowed open debate on the set of proposals on constitutional change. The discourse he permitted lasted for a month and was, it would appear, followed carefully by the military strategists. This, the general proclaimed, was a much more democratic process than the one followed by the government headed by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in getting the National Assembly to pass the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

As General Musharraf leafed through his notes while addressing those assembled in the Chaghai hall, he explained why some of the changes contemplated in the initial draft were dropped and why some other, although not popular with most of the commentators, were retained. It was clear that he and his associates were not prepared to compromise on their right to oversee the working of the civilian government in a number of strategic areas. It was for this reason that the provision for establishing a National Security Council, although strongly resisted by those who commented on the proposed changes, was not abandoned. The only concession made was to shift the weight of membership towards the civilians by including the chairman of the Senate and the Speaker of the National Assembly.

According to my count, this will be a 12-member body if the president is also the chief of staff of the army or a 13-member entity when the presidency is finally claimed by the civilians. But in this game numbers don`t matter since, in all probability, decisions will not be enforced on the basis of a majority emerging from the exercise of one vote per participant. In the Turkish NSC, the military prevails on issues that it holds dear to its heart - the defence of the country`s secular constitution.

Let me now take a look at the debate that preceded as well as that followed General Musharraf`s announcement of the changes in the Constitution. As already indicated, a great deal was said and written - and, undoubtedly, a great deal more will be written and said - as Pakistan marches on towards the holding of yet another general election. I have followed the debate with some care and diligence. My main conclusion is that it has missed by a wide mark the main issues concerning the nature of our political structure.

The most important of these, of course, is the lack of confidence on the part of the military establishment in the ability of the politicians to manage the affairs of the state. Since the military - rightly or wrongly - is supremely confident of its ability to first confront and then solve all kinds of problems, it feels that it must keep the politicians on a short leash and watch over them with great care. What has made the military so confident and why does it regard the politicians so poorly?

It is said that in the ultimate analysis, power flows out of the barrel of a gun. This is no doubt also true of the power the military has wielded in Pakistan. But to ascribe the military`s ability to intervene in politics to its artillery is to seriously misunderstand Pakistan`s political evolution. If military power meant political ascendancy, democracies in the West would never have flourished. What could be a stronger military than the one possessed by the United States. And yet there has never been any serious doubt about the supremacy of the civilians in the way ultimate power is exercised in America. It is not a secret that the military resents the way Donald Rumsfeld, America`s current secretary of defence, exercises authority over them. But his decisions are followed without being questioned.

To stay with the American example a bit longer, what has given strength to its political system is not that the country`s founding fathers gave it a written constitution. What has really mattered is that the institutions developed by the civilian side of the power-sharing equation came to be much stronger than those developed by the military.

There is a belief - highly mistaken, I maintain - that what matters in a country in Pakistan`s situation is respect for the constitution and periodic elections. That is, at best, only one half of the story. The other half has to be seen in terms of a battle between institutions.

I believe the civilians in Pakistan don`t understand the military. They view its repeated incursions into their domain as a sign of perfidy: the military, according to the conventional civilian view, is always out to protect its rights and privileges. There is no doubt that the military rewards its senior officers very well. They draw not only salaries comparable to those given to the highest echelons of the civil service. Those holding senior ranks in the military also receive generous awards of land in military cantonments and in Pakistan`s ample countryside. By now the military has also built an elaborate business empire to serve its pensioners and provide welfare to its personnel. According to this line of thinking, the military is fearful that it may lose control of this significant economic asset if the civilian authority manages to assert its authority over military matters.

I look at the continuing civil-military conflict through the glasses of an institutional economist. The structure of the military in Pakistan is built upon a series of interlocking institutions that reach into every aspect of what the armed forces do. These institutions include academies that train officers and soldiers; colleges that keep the commanders current on national, international and strategic issues; and think-tanks that ponder about the way the world is evolving around us. The institutions are run by professionals; they maintain well-stocked libraries; they publish journals that get widely read; and they invite people from outside their ranks to join the various debates in which the military`s senior officers are engaged.

And then there are formal institutions that are brought into play when important decisions are to be taken. We all know about the periodic meetings of the corps commanders and the GHQ`s principal staff officers in which important matters facing the military or the country are discussed. The man at the top - generally the chief of the army staff - calls the final shot but he tries to develop a consensus among his colleagues on whatever decisions get taken.

There are other well established institutions the military uses to conduct its business. The chain of command in which officers of different ranks and ages congregate on a regular basis provides a way for both discourse and passing on information. Army messes offer space where much informed dialog takes place among the attending officers. ``Bara khanas`` bring together on festive occasions the officers with the men they command.

My purpose for delving into all this is to underscore the point that the military, an entity with a rich institutional infrastructure, confronting a body of people who have no respect for institutional thinking, is not likely to develop a great deal of confidence in the latter. What the military has attempted to do in this round of constitutional changes is to create and strengthen the institutional system on which the political structure should be based. I don`t believe the politicians have fully grasped this point. The constitutional protection afforded the State Bank, the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Service Commission, etc., falls squarely in this category.

By creating the National Security Council, the military is attempting to formalize its dialogue with the civilian authority. As General Pervez Musharraf disclosed in response to a question from one of the Chaghai hall audience, he must have visited the prime minister 50 or 100 times to discuss the various affairs of the state. That dialogue can now take place within the forum provided by the NSC.

The military leadership cannot be impressed with the way the politicians reacted to some of the institutional-making attempts of recent weeks. The way the political parties reacted to the demand to democratize their own operations by electing, inter alia, their own personnel could not have increased the military`s respect for the civilians` capacity to go beyond personal interests or the interest of the narrow group the politicians represent. That a politician defeated in the poll to elect the party`s president should walk out with his handful of supporters and found his own party cannot be viewed as a serious commitment to institution-building either. Without developing a robust set of institutions of their own, the politicians will not be able to keep the military at bay. Power comes from institutions, not necessarily from the barrel of a gun. (www.dawn.com)

``In a pluralitic, tolerant, can there be several versions or vision of what Democracy is? ``

Yes hobbes miaN -- there can be -- except the military vesion of democracy `democratic disctatorship` -- tha`s sheer nonsense.

As Haqqani aptly said -- Pakistan military (and you guys) -- are trying to REDEFINE democraCY -- INSTEAD OF PRACTICING IT.

And tha`s a TAAAALL order -- either for you guys or for the mighty Pakistan Army.

in 2002 it will never float -- why waste a poor country`s fortunes on esoteric than on the well tested methods of democratic governance -- inside or outside the subcontinent?

Re: Sadna

Thanks for the ``clip``. I tend to agree with that and I am also of the view that the present reforms by Musharraf will not solve the problem. The problem in Pakistan is too mutli-faceted for it to be bracketed as a solution within a constitutional reform - implying that it is the alpha and omega of democracy, something which Musharraf seems to be inclined towards.

Re: nasah

I hope that you do not mind if I suggest the following observation.

If you had read the article, you would have noticed, as Sadna did, that the article was not about supporting Musharraf, but instead arguing that the policies undertaken by him, will end up doing more harm to Pakistan`s politics than any good.

You seem to have a knee jerk hatred towards Musharraf and you assumed that the aricle was supporting Musharraf. It did not advocate any such hypothesis. It merely said that Musharraf`s policies are not going to bring about the results he hopes.

Could you please tell how you came to the conclusion that the article was supporting Musharraf?

Ciao

``state should be willing to tolerate dissent, it is specifically refering towards the tolerance of religious dissent``(Ferozk)

I don`t see that the state had any problem in tolerating religious dissent -- it is the religious disssenters who are not able to `tolerate` each other without Klashnikoves.

the real problem -- it is the democratic dissent the Musharraf military state is unwilling to tolerate -- for coming 5 years.

Ferozk
An Indian activist for political reform talking about Indian aam janata`s contempt for politicians in an NY Times article on the Indian CEC:

``If you are always saying nonpoliticians are right, and politicians are wrong, that`s very dangerous; you`re looking for a Musharraf,`` he said, referring to Pakistan`s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. ``The solution must come through the reform of politics as well.``


By reform of politics IMO, this person meant reform in the way in which Indian political parties seek power, a reform of the ideas, issues, terms and language they use to win public support and later stay in power.

IMO, Musharraf is not interested in such political reform in the Pakistani system, all the reform required is that he will exercise personal control over all civilian institutions because he alone is a sincere patriot. His rivals are not talking of any such reform of politics either, which lends weight to his arguments about constitutional amendments to keep them in check.

He projects himself better than his political rivals on two fronts, partly the result of changed times.

-giving a perception of articulating a broader vision of national interest over personal interest than they did/do. In reality his army constituency severely limits his articulations while politicians have an advantage in that the entire public is their constituency.

-giving a perception of greater transparency in government and honest intentions.

His political opponents not only have to debunk these perceptions but have to project themselves to the public as better than him at least in the vision department. How easy or difficult it that?

Now here is finally someone who believes -- General Musharraf is `extremely democratic` -- who on October 10 will ‘shepherd ` Pakistan -- by his baton to the blissful corral of `sustainable` democracy!

F. R. Khan
below are excerpts from Shahid Javid Burki`s artilce printed in the Opinion section of todays` ``DAWN``, I would be interested in your take, for instance, ``Ought Pakistani politicians also have an institutional view of themselves, or what does legislator mean, what ought it mean`` and what might this mean for the way political parties organize in Pakistan, please also comment on the contrat between the way the armed forces explore and arrive at a decision with very broad participation and the manner in which Pakistani politicians explore issues and arrive at decisions :
``...To stay with the American example a bit longer, what has given strength to its political system is not that the country`s founding fathers gave it a written constitution. What has really mattered is that the institutions developed by the civilian side of the power-sharing equation came to be much stronger than those developed by the military.
There is a belief - highly mistaken, I maintain - that what matters in a country in Pakistan`s situation is respect for the constitution and periodic elections. That is, at best, only one half of the story. The other half has to be seen in terms of a battle between institutions.
I believe the civilians in Pakistan don`t understand the military. They view its repeated incursions into their domain as a sign of perfidy: the military, according to the conventional civilian view, is always out to protect its rights and privileges. There is no doubt that the military rewards its senior officers very well. They draw not only salaries comparable to those given to the highest echelons of the civil service. Those holding senior ranks in the military also receive generous awards of land in military cantonments and in Pakistan`s ample countryside. By now the military has also built an elaborate business empire to serve its pensioners and provide welfare to its personnel. According to this line of thinking, the military is fearful that it may lose control of this significant economic asset if the civilian authority manages to assert its authority over military matters.
I look at the continuing civil-military conflict through the glasses of an institutional economist. The structure of the military in Pakistan is built upon a series of interlocking institutions that reach into every aspect of what the armed forces do. These institutions include academies that train officers and soldiers; colleges that keep the commanders current on national, international and strategic issues; and think-tanks that ponder about the way the world is evolving around us. The institutions are run by professionals; they maintain well-stocked libraries; they publish journals that get widely read; and they invite people from outside their ranks to join the various debates in which the military`s senior officers are engaged.
And then there are formal institutions that are brought into play when important decisions are to be taken. We all know about the periodic meetings of the corps commanders and the GHQ`s principal staff officers in which important matters facing the military or the country are discussed. The man at the top - generally the chief of the army staff - calls the final shot but he tries to develop a consensus among his colleagues on whatever decisions get taken.
There are other well established institutions the military uses to conduct its business. The chain of command in which officers of different ranks and ages congregate on a regular basis provides a way for both discourse and passing on information. Army messes offer space where much informed dialog takes place among the attending officers. ``Bara khanas`` bring together on festive occasions the officers with the men they command.
My purpose for delving into all this is to underscore the point that the military, an entity with a rich institutional infrastructure, confronting a body of people who have no respect for institutional thinking, is not likely to develop a great deal of confidence in the latter. What the military has attempted to do in this round of constitutional changes is to create and strengthen the institutional system on which the political structure should be based. I don`t believe the politicians have fully grasped this point. The constitutional protection afforded the State Bank, the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Service Commission, etc., falls squarely in this category.
By creating the National Security Council, the military is attempting to formalize its dialogue with the civilian authority. As General Pervez Musharraf disclosed in response to a question from one of the Chaghai hall audience, he must have visited the prime minister 50 or 100 times to discuss the various affairs of the state. That dialogue can now take place within the forum provided by the NSC.
The military leadership cannot be impressed with the way the politicians reacted to some of the institutional-making attempts of recent weeks. The way the political parties reacted to the demand to democratize their own operations by electing, inter alia, their own personnel could not have increased the military`s respect for the civilians` capacity to go beyond personal interests or the interest of the narrow group the politicians represent. That a politician defeated in the poll to elect the party`s president should walk out with his handful of supporters and found his own party cannot be viewed as a serious commitment to institution-building either. Without developing a robust set of institutions of their own, the politicians will not be able to keep the military at bay. Power comes from institutions, not necessarily from the barrel of a gun. ``

FR:
Ok, you win my vote for Longest article really saying nothing on the chowk. :) Is there a Most U-Turns in an Article award, too?
FR sahib, methinks you have probably spent a few too many years in grad school!
rgds,
PM

The problem of religion in Pakistani politics is too obvivious and it is in this sense that the term ``plurality of opinions`` must be reviewed and when the article mentions that state should be willing to tolerate dissent, it is specifically refering towards the tolerance of religious dissent.

In Pakistan, there is a confusion between what consitutes as workable defination of secularism and that, to an extent is also responsible for the political problems in the nation.

Is secularism....

A) The seperation of religion from politics
B) The absence of religion from politics
C) The tolerance of all religions in politics

These questions needed to be diecided before Pakistan can really deal with the religious problem in the country, which has to be tackled.

Ciao

... blah, blah, blah, blah!

....... i could not read past the first two sentences of this self-serving, spineless, meaningless, idiotic and really quite silly tripe and recycled kaka that is being fed to us by the clowns in khaki and their apologists and ordoriferous camp followers ............ i have no idea which camp fr khan belongs to, but i certainly don`t want to get down wind from him !

........... nonsense! ...... the military never gave the politicians half a chance to set up shop and now thay want to set up a puppet government ...... the elections being held by the horrible hindoos in occupied kashmir are more meaningful than this farce .......... october 10, 2002 will be remembered as another comical event in the tragic saga of Pakistani politics....................

Pakistanis have after long granted to themselves that they, their ideas or lack of them, has been at root for pakistani political instability. The blame can be spread generously to just about every portion of society. A key player that has yet to acknowledge that it`s skewed, obscuritanist understanding of Islam has been a curse upon Pakistan, is the Ulema. These reckless and power humgry opportunitists risk the populations religious faith on the alter of their ambition.
Beyond this I find little to agree with in your work. You assume that the only understanding of Democracy is one fashioned by the radical majoritarians of the English and European parliaments. If indeed a pluralistic environment is what you decry, why do you choose to deny that Democracy is not majoritarianism, that Democracy is itself born of the distrust of power and it`s accumulation in any particular office and that checks and balances are representative of this ethic? In a pluralitic, tolerant, can there be several versions or vision of what Democracy is?
As for the concentration of power in the presidency - this is an absurd notion - Do political considerations not work as a check on the use of by the Presidentr of power to dismiss the premier or the assembly? Doesn`t the same political consideration apply to the NSC?

This ``hekmatyar`` dude still in Pakistan? I have seen reports that prior to Taliban he was the favorite of ISI. Why is Pakistan still even ``supporting`` him, let alone harboring him somewhere in Peshawar?

Take a look at this report.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020910/asp/frontpage/story_1185341.asp

It`s one thing to be an optimist, but ground reality, however, is a whole different ball game. As long as your military is involved, real democracy just wont happen. Sure, you can call it a democracy or whatever, but the rest of the world wont just see it your way.

This version of democracy is going to be different in some ways than the earier versions of democracy that were offered to you, but in the end, it won`t make a difference. If mushy had actually done what he promised in terms of reigning in the religious nutcases, things might actually be different, and there could be grounds for optimism. Instead, you have the beardos running around [and continuing to provide sanctuary for Al-Qaeda luminaries such as Binshalb and that other 9/11 planner, and not to mention, Bin Laden and the others] as if nothing ever changed.

In a word, your problem is religion and the blurring of lines between church, oops, mosque and state.

For all the comparisons with Turkey and holding it as a role model, things worked in Turkey because it was essentially a single cultural entity. It managed to wipe out its Armenian and other minorities earlier on, and what was left when Attaturk was a disorganized Turkish state and he was able to lay his will on his people. On the other hand, even though you are Islamic, and you have managed to get rid of your non-muslim minorities rather successfully, a la Turkey, you still have enthic/linguistic differences and not to mention, the not-too-friendly sibling rivalry between the shias and the sunnis. In other words, a recipe for chaos. If there is a similarity with Turkey, it has to do with an ethnic problem that hasn`t been resolved to its liking, the Kurds. Over here, it`s Kashmir.

India is not a perfect democracy. It borders on chaos, yet there is some semblance of order beneath the surface, and the good thing is that governments do get kicked out on a regular basis. Best of all, the army has been put in its place, the cantonments.

The junta is taking exactly the opposite steps that are necessary for true, institutions building and good governance. They are absolutely relying on lotas whereas they are the first group of politicians that need sidelining. In today`s Dawn, Mumtaz Ali Bhutto said it straight.
[What has been labelled as the King`s Party is only a conglomeration of losers and rejects who line up for any government that is in power and abandon it when the going gets rough. This is exactly the lot that should have been removed from the field in the process of cleaning up politics.]

It is not difficult to forcast the expectations from this group of politicians - Chaudhrys, Sherpaos, Imtiaz Sheikh et al. Musharraf`s excuse of relying on this group of lotas - unpopularity at personal level - in itself speaks of desire to cling on to power above all else. Why has he failed to popularize himself, if his ``accomplishments`` are so remarkable?

Therefore this page of history, the October 10, 2002 will go down in history as rigged election, an exercise conducted just to meet the deadline set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The SCP directed government to conduct elections within three years. Once a regime waits for the last day of three year period speaks of half-heartedly meeting of obligation and not a desire to set Pakistan on a democratic path.

To predict the outcome of hypothetical question, [The question posed, which the October elections will seek to settle, is not whether democracy can thrive in Pakistan, but whether this political “experiment” by the military government will be ranked as just another landmark failure in the history of Pakistan.] it is safe bet to opt for ``another landmark failure in the history of Pakistan``.

The reasons for military interventions are simply reluctance to give up their over-lordship of Pakistan and ambitious (read power hungry) COASs. The acrobats of politicians are secondary issues. From paid defenders of geographical boundries of Pakistan (and failing it in 1971), they have taken upon themselves to define politics in Pakistan and defend ``ideological boundries`` of Pakistan as well. These are the areas they can not fail. They have never conquered Jammu or Amritsar across the border but conquered Islamabad three times already.
If Musharraf is so important to bring true democracy through constitutional amendments that he has already made and through remainnig at the helm for 5 years that he has already claimed through referendum, why does he want to remain COAS for the next 5 years? The position of COAS is not related to true democracy, constitutional amendments, presidency for 5 years and a seat at NSC. Am I wrong?
Second point is that democracy never comes through back door and totally rigging the election. Nobody can honestly and seriously believe that Musharraf`s supported Sarkari League can win an election, not even coming in at second position.
October 10, 2002 will be as farcical as Referendum, if Sarkari League is pronounced a winner!