Open Letter to Prime Minister Jamali

Hoping against hopes,

Now the pakistanis are over the moon, they have an urbane president and a similar PM. So what, it has all happ[ened before. The legislation against the ahmadias was passed by bhutto, the real white man of pak politics.
Look at the k for kafir education material, they are all prepared by the educated of pakistan, the civil servants in the pak education department, the so called grade 20 types of the pak beaurocracy.

Look at mushy the great general with the pickenese dogs, a harm for the muslims. he is talking about discussions on honour killings, if that is what all his military training has done to him, there is absolutely no hope for pakistan.
It has been proven time and time again, the jihadisation of pakistan is not driven by the illiterates of pakistan, it is driven by the educated urstrulies of pakistan. The military dictatirship is supported by the educated romairs of pakistan.

The new Pm will only closthe th ejihadic values in safistry, like the works of romair and urstruly. What will eventually drive the policies are what the pakistansi heve learned in their childhood, the k for kafir education.

Since 1947, the change in pakistan had been only in one direction, whether military or civil the rulers were, in the direction of increasing jihadisation of pakistan.

There is too much bravo-sierra and too much hand wringing and chest beating going on here. :)

This a mid-term course correction and it should have happened much sooner. Jamali was removed, because he did not seem as the candidate capable of ensuring PML-Q`s victory in the 2007 elections. Jamali was tainted, because he was a little too out spoken, lately, in supporting and making pro-MMA statements on Hudood Ordinances and on the issue of the Islamic verses in the textbooks. Jamali had to be ditched, since he was starting to carve a political support base for himself and that threatened the political constituency of the brothers from Gujrat. Another reason, which hammered the last nail, was that Jamali was losing visable support from PML-Q and as Musharraf was stepping aside from offering aid, Jamail was relying increasingly on MMA for political support. This was unpardonable. Jamali had to exist within the support frame of PML-Q and could not be allowed to create his own political base, with MMA acting as the foundation for such an eventuality.

The most intelligent comment on this whole situation was made by Sadna and I fully agree with her. Pakistanis should not pin their hopes on Jamali, but should be more concerned, whether the parliament exists to finish its entire term. It is time, Pakistanis move away from the politics of personality and think of the politics of institutions. In the larger scheme of things, Jamali and his successor and the successor`s successor are insignificant.

Pakistan is slowly and gradually moving towards a presidential system of government and this is simply an attempt in that direction. After Shaukat Aziz is elected, regardless of the manner, Pakistan will move towards a dyarchy of power; Musharraf dominating foreign affairs and defense (war on terror) and Aziz controlling the economy. This was the truth foretold, when Pakistan was awarded the Most Important Non-NATO ally status and the end result of this would be a quicker pace of privatization and liberalization of economic reforms in Pakistan. Aziz has no political constitutency in Pakistan and that is why he was elected as the prime minister. Aziz will be able to, due to his lack of political support, tackle issues which Jamali was unable to addess. Aziz does not have to rely on the MMA or the religious parties to shore up his support or to make exhortations to Islam in order to seek a political support mechanism. Aziz will hopefully marginalize the influence of religion in Pakistani politics.

This is a very subtle secularization of politics in Pakistan and two things will originate from this situation. One; elections would be fast forwarded to June 2006 after the next budget shows some tangible growth. Second; the 2006 elections would be an opportunity to clean the stables of the MMA elected in 2002 and end the military-mullah alliance, as the establishment makes a military-technocratic alliance in vogue of Ayub Khan. There will be a discernable shift as urban political power will eclipse rural political power and hope to seek an end of feudalism, which will allow agriculture to post healthy gains, thus buffering the overall growth ratios in Pakistan. As mentioned, Pakistan after 2006 or 2007, will emerge as a presidential form of government, where president and the prime minister, acting as a defacto vice-president, will share power. A very superficial glance at the developments will suggest that Musharraf is attempting to correct the mistake of 2002 by gradually replacing the political team that existed from October 1999 to October 2002. A certain tell-tale of this would be the formation of the new cabinet under Aziz.

The key to the future lies in the statement made by Aziz a few weeks ago. Aziz mentioned that the second generation economic reforms will implemented soon. Anyone, with a idea of what that means, will immediately know where the focus of intention will exist. It is all about ensuring that what had started in 1999 does not get derailed by a civilian setup and the end result of that process is a presidential system of government. The future of Pakistan till 2011 or sooner, when the term of Aziz if elected in 2006 will end, has already been decided. This means that Musharraf will have been in power for 11 years; giving him enough years to indelibly influence Pakistani politics for the next few generations.

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. How quaint, when history repeats itelf!

Ciao

Ijaz_gul #35 ``impulsiveness is not always correct. All of a sudden you have a heartache for Ata and Hoodbouy. Being actually involved in professional education, I have a true measure of the contributions of both.``

I am surprised you find my remarks impulsive. I have been making these same remarks for ages. I didn`t just start making them. If you get a chance to go back and read my posts, you will notice that I had been saying that Shaukut Aziz (or people like him) should be finance minister, even before the coup occured. Then when the PM was going to be appointed, I had repeatedly suggested that Shaukut Aziz would be the right person. This was three years ago.

I had also stated that Shaukut Aziz, and his team would turn the economy around. Which they did. Faster than I expected. One can make arguments about six out of ten things in the economy still being bad. But it used to be ten out ten things being bad.

As for Ata and Pervez. Are you arguing that they are not good people. Even if they aren`t, wouldn`t you agree that they (or people like them) are more qualified than feudal off-springs like Leghari. I have been making this argument for ages, also. IT is a profession I do know quite a bit about. And I follow off-shore development quite closely. It requires dynamic, and qualified leadership. This cannot be provided by Abida Hussain, Leghari and Nawaz Khokhar.

I don`t know any of the individuals mentioned above. I have nothing to gain from them. However, I think individuals along those professional lines are the best people to lead Pakistan.

``The issue is experimentation with demcracy and dispensibility of institutions.``

I really fail to understand which democracy you are talking about. Where is democracy in Pakistan? I certainly haven`t seen it? Does it exist within the political parties? Does it exist in feudal lands? Does it exist in the social system? Does it exist in university politics? Does it exist in religious shariahs? It obviously doesn`t exist in the Army>

Where is this democracy that we all seem to think will emerge from nowhere, if Jamalis, Legharis, Fahims, Bhuttos, Mehrs, Hussains, Khattaks etc. are allowed to rule over the country for the next forty years. Could you explain exactly how it will emerge. Please do so in detail. Because I ask this question of everyone who makes this argument. They keep making the argument, but never provide an explanation.

The, ``civil`` societies of the world, fought brutal civil wars, or had to grow for centuries to get rid of landed aristocracies and its influence on society, before they could become free of them. The emergence of the Army etc. is only a consequence of such dominance. It is not the cause. In Pakistan, the breakaway of Bangladesh is a consequence of landed aristocracy in Pakistan.

Pakistan, for the next many years, in any kind of leadership, regardless of where it emerges from, will be a game of individuals. Not of instituitons. Insitutions do not arrive from thin air. They don`t arrive by merely making arguments. They are not constructed by individuals, who themselves are harmed by it - this includes the Army, Feudals and maulvis (three groups which dominate Pakistani politics).

It is good to dream and live in a fantasyland. But dreams, unfortunately, do not solve problems.

Pakistan needs a competent, technocratic, urban, honest, leadership with international experience, for a while. This is what got Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and now China out of their respective messes. Once that is done, and people have food to eat, then they can start dreaming.

Those who do have food to eat, are too hung up on names from Musharraf to Jefferson to realize that the average guy on the street would be least bothered by the fact that Jamali is gone. Or what the hell anyone else is doing. He just wants a decent living standard..........

``Shaukat would perform better in select areas. Take my word, Pakistan`s dependency would increase. Note the date and time. 27 june 9:26 AM``

Dependency on what? If he performs better in just a few areas, that is still better than performing terribly in all areas. At least the guy, isn`t afraid to show his wife in public, and doesn`t have sisters married to the Quran. And doesn`t believe in tribal jirgas, and karo-karis, and educates his daughters, and doesn`t consider anyone with the wrong last name, lower than him.........

And if you are bent on making a Constituional argument. His appointment is perfectly legal constituionally speaking.

Dependencies may increase or they may not. But at least it will reduce the chance of the next generation being ruled by Bilawal Bhutto. Musharrafs and Azizs will come and go. But the off-spring of the landed aristocracy will never go, unless they is pushed out of power........and that will never happen democratically..........

``The right wing in India and Pakistan are different.``

hp

Thanks for the comments. Would you be able to clarify the above? Isn`t the term ``right``, ``extreme right`` etc fairly universal describing similar political manifestations?

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.

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.

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 ............

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

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

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!

``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.....

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

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”

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.

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.

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.