Open Letter to Prime Minister Jamali

#50 by ferozk
“How quaint, when history repeats itelf!”

Excellent! So you are pointing out that what is happening in Pakistan is the remaking (bad) of the old movies.

Pakistan practically is under the Presidential system. So it is not actually moving towards it but it is there already.
In the Ayub Khan’s days, his most powerful minister for a long time was Mohd. Shoaib. A World Bank alumnus and a finance guru of some questionable repute. Now we have a finance Minister of similar credentials, who will be prime minister.
In the Zia Ul Haq’s days, for most of the time his most powerful minister was none other then Mehboob Ul Haq another alumnus of the World Bank.

Only Mushy appears to be so stupid that he is willing to make a finance man of dubious credentials, his prime minister as he or his generals have difficulty in trusting any civilian politicians.
I would not blame them. Look at the history. Every civilian horse that they backed, from the erstwhile ZAB to Junejo to NS, turn around and tried to unsaddle them to dust.
Basically, what we have is Katchi Sharab in a new bottle or as some poet said Nai Jaal liya purana shikari.

Ignore the modus operandi, as that is the only way army can operate. It has a manual and every time the army needs changes, it dusts up the same old manual.
The need for change in Pakistan is obvious. As you point out mostly as part of the new Non-Nato ally status. These changes have nothing to do with changes at the lower level that will never happen.
If they talk of Institution building, they are only talking about the army as its image has been tarnished by the infiltration of the fundamentalist in its rank.


#63 by sadna
“Musharaf will require the support of such a popular base”

Sometimes you are funny! Musharaf already has that base. Don’t you see that around here? They form the majority in Pakistan.

Nothing has ever changed in Pakistan by the Street power alone and it is not a consideration because the Army has been manipulating the street for a long time now.
The first time Army lost power in Pakistan was due to its defeat in 1971, the second time around either KGB or CIA killed the Army chief to bring civilians to power.

is satire, or sarcasm, or irony missed on some people here?

my dear Rozaiba...... u seeem to portray either incredible naviety of local politics or incredible optimism about the ex Pm. though as hard he may have tried his tenure was bound 2 b incredibly short..... he was bound 2 have lost the support of his party men as well as the establishment that propped n then elected him! he should be glad that God gave him a chance to be PM which was his wish since the mid eighties..... his name has gone down in history as well and made the baluchis proud by being the PM from their province!

What happens if there is an untoward incident before Shaukat gets elected?

Take my words for it.
PST 2238 June 27, 2004

The ”Halala” Musharraf is shoving up the arse of the nation (Shujaat taking over for the moment and then Shaukat will replace him in a month or so) will become his biggest mistake yet.

It is just a matter of time that Musharraf will have serious difficulties finding place to drown himself. WCs of the Parliament house too small for him, Restrooms of the GHQ out of bound.

It will be a fun. Hoh, I long to see him running for the cover. By that time Bush too will have gone. Houston with Bilal, wouldn’t be a dream option either.

The only game Na-Pak fauj is good at: Musical chairs. The only political philosophy, the only enlightened moderating vision Army House has is to keep politicians on rotation. Never ever getting anyone strong enough to take the country forward or defy the yoke of military.

ferozk #50
Thanks for your appreciation of my simple comment. May I comment on your more extensive remarks ?

Whether Presidential or Parliamentary system, no ruler can rule for long without an organised popular base to keep the peace at street/regional level. Even the dictatorial governments of erstwhile Soviet Union and present-day China worked/work with the single party, the Communist party which provide organised broad based support upwards and a method of `distribution of spoils` downwards.

Either Musharraf will require the support of such a popular base which helps keeps the peace at street/regional level or he will have to rely increasingly on a repressive secret service to keep the peace.

So having a PM without popular base will not work beyond a point. So however qualified his PM candidate, various groupings will become increasingly restive about being left out of power, and Musharraf will repeatedly try to destabilize his old enemies among them. Instead of getting less involved in civilian affairs, the military will get increasingly involved in civilian affairs.

Anywhere here is what an `expert` says:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-6-2004_pg7_37

Hopefully, the next elections will be corrective to some extent and force the military to accept the reality of sharing power with civilians powerful in their own right.

FerozK:

Your argument that you favor institutions falls flat on its face when you give `significance` to the `change of faces` in the PM seat. The `open letter to Jamali` can only be taken as a joke as Jamali never had any credentials or principles that could be called to or woken up. Jamali was always a joke. Just as Shaukat Aziz will be.

Recently a former Brigadier who now heads one of the accountability departments (and who gave a crook like Sherpao a hard time before the Faujiz decided to get in bed with him as well) claimed that `the only thing Pakistan needs is institutions.` This seems to have become a catchy phrase and i guess it sounds cool to utter it so everyone willy nilly says it. Yet he then went on to proudly claim that the first five years of Ayub were the best ever in Pakistan`s history. He conveniently forgot his just-uttered words of honoring the building of institutions and was by implication OK that Ayub screwed the institutions as long as he provided `stunning` growth.

This same argument is being heard today by Fauji lovers.

There is hope in the current shenanigans orchestrated by the Faujiz. And it is that like ALL other historical tinkerings of the past, this will come crashing down. The faujiz have done everything possible to deny a role of POPULISM in politics. Unfortunately, true to their nature, they have offered NOTHING to replace it.

When one talks of institution-building, one cannot conveniently forget that institutions REQUIRE freedom from being tampered with. What you see today is the non-stop tamepering by the Faujiz by juggling politicians. I don`t understand why you go on to claim this as some proof of `institutional building`.

Secondly, why is a presidential form of system suited to Pakistan? Aside from stating what `may` happen differently under a different system, do provide support with Pakistan`s context on why the presidential system will solve many of the problems (as we agree that no system is perfect). Why is the presidential system more suited? I presume you`d say that Ayub`s and Zia`s presidential systems were not really presidential. Why so?

Some more on this `need` to change system:

I would support many of the arguments for wanting to `change the system` were it not for the fact that none of us has shown the ability to project the need for a change at the popular level. Only someone who is capable of having his/her ideas click with the masses stating that a change of system is a must can be taken seriously. Otherwise, it`s no different than mullahs who fantasize about a centuries old system that will solve their problem. Many may agree with them out of respect for religion, but no one believes them thus no one really votes for them for this precise reason.

I`m not saying the presidential system is wrong. Once you respond to the above questions I may be convinced it`s better. But for all intents and purposes I can`t ignore the fact that he British used the same system and it worked brilliantly for them. Maybe it`s not the fault of the system.

And MOST of all, all forms of changes and tinkerings that are done from the top are anti-populist and so really a joke and are an invitation to failure.

So, another Army experiment comes to an end. What else is new? Our Army needs to be given a gold medal just for its persistence in experimenting & the frequency of its noble efforts. And if possible a new Nobel Prize category needs to be created Prizes just for this purpose, irrespective of the fact where those experiments have led this poor nation in the last 56+ years.

We have seen these type of “mid-term course corrections” for the last 56 years. Didn’t lead us anywhere.

And who is to blame for imposing Jamali on this country in the first place? A person hand-picked by the general (and hand-picked obviously for his meekness and non-aggressive attitude and not for his leadership/managerial skills or his efficient handling of affairs) had to be supposedly done away with because he cannot manage things efficiently and is inept. Ha!

Jamali has been punished for his ineptness. And is there any punishment for the person who handpicked Mr. Jamali? Or was Musharraf so innocent that he mistook Jamali for Lee Kuan Yew? Accountability in Pakistan is only for the meek. The chaprasi in front of the XEN’s office is the only one caught redhanded & punished by the Anti-Corruption Department, never the XEN. Hand-picked PMs get fired but never the Generals who put them there in the first place.

I am pretty sure when Shaukat Aziz’s time is up, the justification will be something like,” In Musharraf’s opinion he was the best choice when he was made PM in 2004 being urbanite, professional etc etc, but he just failed as a politician, because of X Y Z reasons. So that experiment has also failed. BUT Musharraf needs another chance at experimenting. Let’s give the Army another chance at experimenting in this laboratory of a country. Let him bring in someone new. Inshallah everything will be fine”

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

``It is time, Pakistanis move away from the politics of personality and think of the politics of institutions.``(Ferozk)

as if it is the faults of ``Pakistanis`` that they are not moving away from the politics of personalities....

.....with a personality like Musharraf -- that has destroyed most -- INSTITUTIONS -- if only the `personality` will LET the Pakistanis -- move away.....

mantolives # 40 - Wow! So with ALL this power and wealth that Mullahs have gotten (changing curriculum through University of Nebraska, power brokering) they must be driving jaguars in Pakistan would, surely have become the largest landowning class in pakistan ! I only pity for the non-mullahs, who for 57 years have been shackled to their seats by these bearded creatures, unable to do anything - good or bad, for Pakistan.

oh wait a minute - seems like its the non-mullahs like you who are the rich ones here, with large houses, largers cars, foreign education, and all the comforts of life. While the mullahs are still making rounds collecting sheep and goat skins on eid day from your homes.

whats wrong with this picture? perhaps you should point your guns to people like you who weild all the power while pretending to have none!

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

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

ferozek,

``If Pakistan is truly headed for a presidental form of system, I am really optimistic because Pakistan had no future under a parliamentary form of government``............uh? ......man, you are a hopeless optimist, arn`t you ?.......... what makes you think a presidential form of government will work - didn`t we have ayub khan for ten and zia for eleven - what was that?.......... the khilafat?..........and shaukat aziz is nothing new - we had moeen qureshi before him ......... remember him?............ i hate to disappoint you but nothing will change - we will be discussing the same stuff ten years from now ................ let`s talk about buying a plot or two in the new defence colony in pindi and make some money while the fools are playing at politics ............

Irfanhamid:

1) India can do no wrong (or at the very least, its political system can`t)
2) Laloo is beneficial to the Indian railways as its helmsman

As an Indian, I dispute both the above assumptions.

NHK


``Could Laloo Prashad get an internship in a railway Company? ``

Afsos, he missed his true calling. He would have made a good engine driver.