The Gentleman Must Go

Re: the_unforgiven

I am sorry that I could not reply to your post sooner, but I was away on a mini-vacation and did not have access to the net.

As to your last comments, it seems that we have reached point where are needlessly reinventing the wheel. For what it is worth, I think that the present government should go and obviviously that conflicts with your viewpoints. I respect your opinions and I know that you will not be changing them to suit my inclinations any time soon. Since I will not amend my mine, we have reached a stalemate and no amount of rationality, on either of our parts, will resolve the issue.

However, I thank you for all the comments and just for your info, the article was meant to provoke a strong response. It succeded in that thanks to you and Amin Saleh and others who took the time to respond!

Best wishes

Aliya

I was not the one that said that we cannot convert peace time professionals into wartime service men.
You suggested that the military personnel are highly trained persons that cannot be converted from civilian use into military use personnel.

If you read your reply it would seem that all our military personnel are qualified to command a naval vessel such as a submarine.

The reason why I asked about Trauma Doctors was for the sole purpose of identifying that unlike in
the west where these physicians man emergency rooms for serious life-threatening wounds like those related to gunshots, explosives and fire, the number of medical personnel in the army do not all specialize in this area.

Before we put all our military personnel onto a pedestral we should realisitically look at the skills that are substituable. This will enable to have a effective defence team without high costs.

Re; Amin
I wonder if there were typos/ problems with cut and paste in your earlier reply. I read your reply a few times but failed to see the connection between my comments, and your replies.

Re: the_unforgiven and Amin Saleh

Seems like that we are drifting towards a consensus on the issues.

I agree with unforgiven`s statement that the constitutional process must go on within the legal parameters.

However, I am still of the opinion that Nawaz Sharif is an inefficent and a corrupt leader and that he still should hold early elections. My reasoning behind this is simple. According to most, Nawaz Sharif came to power on the mandate of an economy and improving the economic life of the average person. He failed in that respect, because the country almost bankrupted and defaulted on its financial obligations during his tenure as the prime minister. He may not be the sole person accountable for the present mess, but as an elected leader, he bears the responsibility for what happens under his stewerdship.

Consequently, the mandate on which he came to power on was and is being questioned and with it so is the ability of the present government to rule. There is an issue of confidence, in the present government`s ability to rule, that needs to be answered. The best way of doing this is through a parliamentary motion of no confidence. Instead of waiting for the parliament to raise the issue, why does Nawaz Sharif simply not call for the motion himself. Given his majority in the parliament, he is sure to carry such a vote. He, should he opt for such a course, can benefit his government`s ability to continue to govern Pakistan.

Firstly, by calling for such a vote and winning it though his majority in the parliament, he would be renewing his mandate to continue as a prime minister and secondly, he would have effectivily silenced his critics. That is the beauty of a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system of government. You do not have to hold elections to renew your majority, but you can simply reassert that majority through a vote and finacially, it does not cost as much as holding an election, but the results are the same; a fresh start. Why does Nawaz Sharif not opt for this course of action? If he is such a powerful prime minister, what he is afraid of?

My problem with the present government is not its contitutionality to govern, but its legitimacy to do so. Given the recent easing of sanctions, Nawaz Sharif can use that as a basis for a vote of confidence and as said before, he will win without any problems. Why is he so loathe to renew his own legitimacy to govern Pakistan? We, elected him as our prime minister, because we felt he was the most capable. Now we are questioning that capability and we need to hear an answer.

In any firm, there are periodic reviews of an employee to do his her job and Nawaz Sharif, being an employee of the people of Pakistan, needs to have a review of his job performance. It is the right of the employer to have a job performance review of the employee. The employee has a right to refuse to participate in such a review, but that does not help his her case either as to their credibility to do the job.

Amin, as to your argument of spending 40 percent of our budget to finance the armed forces` upkeep, I am all for lowering that percentage. Could you please tell me how you hope to do this?

It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that nearly half of that percentage goes towards the saleries and other half goes towards the maintainence of, and procuremnt of, equipment. There are couple of ways to lower that percentage; you can either reduce the amount paid as saleries to all the ranks, or you can reduce the size of the armed forces. If you reduce the size, then you have to purchase equipment, that acts as force multiplyer, to compensate for the menpower shortages. Unfortuneatly, force multiplyers(such as F-16s, Mirage 2000-5 9, AWACS, BVR capabilities) costs too much. Pakistani armed forces, specially the army, is a poor man`s army. It seeks to make up in numberical strenght what it lacks in technical means. Not a satisfactory state of affairs in a modern combat environment, but a fact of economic reality in our case.

The only way, I can think of lowering the budget percentage that the military consumes, is by increasing our GDP and through the collection of revenues that increases our budget. Another way is to indignizie weapons development and reseach and find overseas markets in places that can not afford expensive western weapons, but can buy our cheap weapons systems. Though this, we can create a financial self-sufficency within the military that will allow it the resources to maintain itself and in the process lessen its share of the federal budget, which can be put towards education, the improvement of rural areas etc.

To do so, however requires a huge capitial investment to set up the infrastructures in the first place. We already have such an infrastructre in the Texila Heavy Armaments Rebuilt Factory and at the Karma Mirage Rebuilt
Factory. This is one productive way I can think of by which the armed forces can contribute postivily towards the civilin sector. It will decrease the budget percentage consumed by the armed forces in the long run, but in the short term, it will stay at the same levels or might even go up.

I`d like to hear any commnets you might have on this. Please try to be specific and not general in how you`d like to employ the armed forces in a productive manner in the civilian economy.

Lastly, if you feel that I am wasting Chowk`s resources, as you implicitily suggested, by my lack of understanding of your arguments, please feel free to inform the staff at Chowk. I have no objections to their deleting my replies, and the article in general, to create more resources space etc. If I have wasted your time, I am extermely sorry. You should have stopped replying to my banalities along time ago. The choice was always yours.

Aliya

``How about you try and gather all this data and then we`ll discuss. I will be surprised though if any army has made such information available for public consumption (how many trauma docs????).``

I was not the one that said that we cannot convert peace time professionals into wartime service men. You suggested that the military personnel are highly trained persons that cannot be converted from civilian use into military use personnel.

``Doing away with a peacetime army to collect a bunch of guys during wartime ? you are joking of course (i hope). I saw something like that in the spoof movie Independence Day.

In the modern world, where warfare is carried out with sophisticated machinery, it is unthinkable for a country to lay off it`s army/ navy etc. during peacetime, and call the faithful to steer a ship during war. Needless to say, even if the faith was so strong that our good muslims could steer the ship with faith alone, the darn thing will be rusted solid, thanks to years of sitting in the saline air with no upkeep.

If we expect the faithful to take up arms on an as needed basis, we`ll be following the Taliban model ( no chain of command, no warfare technique, etc,). I suggest a field trip for you. Please visit a submarine and try imagine having to operate it, or worse, be in it as someone is trying to operate it by faithpower of Hudaibia.``

If you read your reply it would seem that all our military personnel are qualified to command a naval vessel such as a submarine.

The reason why I asked about Trauma Doctors was for the sole purpose of identifying that unlike in the west where these physicians man emergency rooms for serious wounds like those related to gunshots, explosives and fire, the number of medical personnel in the army do not all specialize in this area.

Before we put all our military personnel onto a pedestral we should realisitically look at the skills that are substituable. This will enable to have a effective defence team without high costs.

Re: unforgiven
We disagree about a few things, but I think lets let that stand. In general I believe we need to downsize the army ( in numbers, not in weapons), and we need to keep the armymen from becoming martial law adminstrators ( for the army`s sake mainly, because of the avenues for corruption that open for MLA`s). As I mentioned earlier, I suggest toning down of blanket rhetoric, not doing away with criticism.
Where I disagree with you , and its unlikely that there is one `right` position is as follows:
having army in the family does not entitle one to berate those who died in the line of duty ( you did not do that ), and respect should be given where it is due( here I find you guilty).
It is arguable if it was the general who thrust the country into a crisis with his comments, or was it the premier`s response to the comments. Remember the PM can not even be trusted with $1000 of qarz utaro mulk sanwaro, how can this man who has done away with most of the checks and balances of a democracy be trusted with the lives of the man on the general`s watch. This is why I think illiberal democracies can not be compared with the liberal ones.
Re; Amin Saleh
How about you try and gather all this data and then we`ll discuss. I will be surprised though if any army has made such information available for public consumption (how many trauma docs????).

Ferozk

``but because in a parliamentary system there is an option to remove the government by holding early elections. It is called the vote of no confidence.``

While the members of the parliment have the right to remove the prime minister by the vote of no confidence, I don`t see how that would be the case with the peoples` or the army`s loss of confidence in its prime minister. Has the parliment called for a vote of no confidence. Then why are you such an ardent proponent of dismissing the current prime minister by fair or foul means. In any case if the house cannot come up with a sustained support for a particular person for the job of the prime minister would an election be called.

Why should Nawaz Sharif call an early election despite him having the support of the members of the parliment. I fail to understand that. Does the finances permit Pakistan to play with you experiment of continuing to seek support of the people. Who do you think would be more suitable in the proposed election.

Finally in response to your response to my response, I think you don`t like to read response and understand what i am saying. My objective is to reduce the size of the army. Give me a method of transition to achieve that and I will be more than happy to agree. You seem to think that as long as the army is in the barricks, its alright for us to pay 40% of the budget for their upkeep. I never did say that the civilian government is incapable of doing the job but there are a number of ways of skinning the cat. If the civilian way is successful, certainly go that way but mind you look for the ways for the army to be productively deployed and reduce the size of the army. Now if you still cannot understand what i have said I don`t think i would be inclined to say it again for I will be wasting Chowk`s resources.

If Indian and Chinese forces are on the Glacier then death is the direct consequence of being a soldier. Had you not been a soldier you need not given up your life for the ego of the Pakistani saving our land.

I am all in favor of having an armed force like that of Germany and Japan. Atleast we will be able to cut down our size to a tenth of what it is. Any takers.

Re: the_unforgiven

First of all, thanks for the detailed reply to my last tirade.

One; as to our need to allow one elected government to complete its term.

I disagree with this, not because I am in favor to usher in a military rule, but because in a parliamentary system there is an option to remove the government by holding early elections. It is called the vote of no confidence. Correct me if I am wrong, but in historic terms Pakistan is in the same position as Italy was at the end of the Second World War. Italy has gone through more governments in the last 50 years or so than any democracy and most of those governments were changed through votes of no confidences. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no Italian government has fully completed its elected tenure. Still, Italy is a democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, the ability of the government to govern rests on the perception of its confidence to be effective. The present government does not hold the confidence of the governed and has been ackonwledged to be ineffective, as evidenced by its inability to deal the present situation.

My point of disagreement lies in that, I am against the idea of allowing an ineffective government to remain in power for another three years. Pakistan, as a nation, can not wait another three years for act four of our unfoldingdrama of democracy to happen. We have the means to effect a change. Nawaz Sharif can hold early elections instead of allowing the nation to suffer more and if he is popular, he will be re-elected. Holding an early election does not diminish the importance of democractic institutions in Pakistan.

At the present time Nawaz Sharif may have a mandate, but it is not popular and the longer he stays in power, the more he abuses the system. In a sense, Nawaz Sharif does not believe in the independence of the institutions to be democratic without him, but thinks that democracy, in Pakistan, is an extension of his right to rule. The longer he overstays without resorting to renewing his mandate, the less credible democracy becomes in Pakistan.

Why are so keen on keeping an ineffective government in power that has lost the confidence of the governed. This is specially true when we have the option change that government without reverting back to military rule or dismissing it (no longer possible constitutionally and rightly so). We have the opportunity to change the government without weakening our nascent democratic institutions by holding early elections. Why must we wait three years to hold elections when we have the option to hold them sooner? Why?

secondly; do you really think that the president and the chief justice, who owe their jobs to the patronage of Nawaz Sharif, will disagree with him for the sake of their respective institutions? As I said before, I am not against the insitutions having all the time they need to mature, but I am against the idea of polalarizing them though political patronages especially if it lessens their independence.

thirdly; how is it possible to dissent against the Shariat Bill when those who do so are called apostates and are condoned to be killed? My dear friend, how can we call ourselves democractic and our nation a democracy, when we do not tolerate dissent, but urge the murder of the dissenters within our midst? In a normal situation, a bill passed by the majority is democratic, but when such a bill is passed by the majority, without allowing dissent and through intmidation, it is abnormal and it is certainly not democratic.

four; people in Pakistan can dissent to what they do not agree with if they have a death wish. Are you telling me that political dissent in Pakistan is a viable option without the fear of intimidation, bodily threat and persecution legitimized in the name of religion?

Off course, politicans will seek to influence their intent into the institutions, but the heads of those institutions should be responsible and answerable to their institutions for their acts deeds and not to the person who appointed them. Janet Reno, in agreeing to the investigations of Clinton, was upholding the interests of her institution; the Justice Department. Her reason for doing so was to investigate if the president violated any laws and to keep the objectivity of the Justice Department, i.e. not to allow her appointment to obstruct justice from being carried out, because to do other wise would have undermined the very institution she was supposed to have served.

As to your example of early American democracy, the problem lay in with politicans and not the institutions. Though the early American politicans were corrupt, the people who administered the institutions always upheld the independence of their institutions from being politically corrupted. In Pakistan, we are willing to subjugate the insitutions in the name of political expediency.

Concerning your reply to Aliya:

Why is it so unthinkable to question the credibility of the democratic government in Pakistan? If I follow your logic, and please correct if I am wrong, we should not question the credibility of the government to govern Pakistan, because we do not like constitutional crises?

According to you, we should we be democratic enough to tolerate this government and use the democractic means to change our governments, but we, as a democratic country, should forego our right to question the credibility of our own government? If we do not question the credibility of our government and ask for a justification from them, how do we insure that our democractic rights are being upheld? You are asking for alot. Just what is the government`s responsibility in all of this in return for our muted alligence to its democratic trynny?

Re: Amin Saleh

I am sorry that you`re sorry that I missed your point.

Amin, why must we allow the army to run our instutions? By allowing the army in the civilian economy(under your premises), are we not admitting to the failure of our civilian institutions to do the job? Do not get me wrong, I am of the firm opinion that the military should stay in the barracks and in the parlance of Monty Phyton, should instead,``march up and down the square.`` Assuming, the military does solve the WAPDA problem, then what? How many times must we call the military to be productive in face of civilian incompetence? The tacit problem of military influence in Pakistani politics lies in our, civilian sector`s, own inability to do the job. It is the sad fact of the Pakistani politics that the military is only institution capable of filling the vacuum left by failure of the civilians to be efficent in their jobs. Politics, like nature abhors a vacuum, and it is tragic that it has always been filled by a military rule, but something had to fill the vacuum of civlian incompetence. What or who would you have prefered to fill the void?

As far as I can tell, though I may be wrong, Indian and Chinese troops are only ones on, or near the glacier.

Question; even if NATO and the Americans are protecting the Japanese and the Germans, why do they still maintain their armed forces?

And, now in the interests of all concerned, I will shut up!

P.S. Thanks to all who have commented on my article. I learned a lot from your comments and I appreciated you taking the time to, ``educate a rebel without a clue`` with your insights. Sorry, I will be silent; promise!

dL

``If the popularly elected government with a mandate no less, is not strong enough to see itself through, then it needs to be replaced with an institution that is (and can)...``

Strength comes from fostering a healthy institution and not just a healthy action. The mandate given was just a healthy action. Just like having the best gym does not make me the best body builder in a week so does the government do not being strong institutions do not become in a matter of 2 years.

Another example would be that of a car and of an aircraft carrier. The car can be turned around in a space of 16 feet. The aircraft carrier needs 1 km to turn around. Give institutions time to develop and lets not be hasty to get results. For haste makes waste.

Ferozk

``Are you implicitily suggesting that the military is the only insitution in the country that can do the job.``

I am sorry that you missed the point. When I want the army to be reduced in size, I am not of the opinion that the armed forces should be kicked out and starved to death. If you read my reply, I merely state that the armed forces should be productively deployed in the civilian economy and if they can add value in WAPDA, that would be a start (mind you the key was subject to the experiment being successful).

Futhermore, tell me who other than the soldiers are on the Siachen Glacier. Are there any other Pakistanis that die on that glacier.

As a result of the World War II surrender the Germans and the Japanese were not allowed to have offensive capabilities for their armed forces and their strength was severly restricted. If you look at their military spending it is virtually non-existant. Their protection primarily comes from NATO or the American Forces.

Finally, tell me the elections in Pakistan`s history that had people out voting in excess of 50%. Unless you get out there in the rural areas and get people to vote (assuming that you can get to the women folk in the first place) you will never cross the 50% mark. The process will have to start from educating the masses to even get access to the entire population.

We are deluding ourselves if we think we can get someone perfect to all people. If these people are not perfect to you and the next ones are not perfect to me then what we will be left with is a revolving door (elections after every 6 months). Democracy is the ability to hear the people shout something that you are not capable of hearing.

Correction:

Miliary considers a casualty as anthing that prevents a soldier from being fit for combat.

Sorry for the typo in the post.

Re: Tehsin

You are premise is correct. In a parliamentary government, the ability to dismiss the goverment rests with the electorate (in an election), and with the parliament itself through a vote of no confidence.

Unfortuneately, a vote of no confidence is out of the question and the elections, three years away, are too long a period to tolerate this mediocrity that we call a goverment. Nawaz Sharif, if he has the well being of the country in his mind, should call for early elections himself. Realistically, he does not enjoy the confidence of his coalition partners. His government may have been popular once, but it not a popular government anymore. This man is willing to rule the country into ruin as long as he is in charge when it happens.

In a parliamentary democracy, when the government loses the vote of confidence, or seems it is going to lose such a vote, it calls for an early election itself for two reasons: one, to sustain the majority it already holds and secondly, to renew its mandate to govern again. If Nawaz Sharif believes that his is a popular government that the majority of the people voted for, let him call another election. What is he afraid of ?

Re: Amin Saleh

``Dying in the armed forces is a direct consequence of the job.``

Not nessesarily. Take the Siachen conflict for example. 80 percent of the casulities suffered, by both sides, is from the cold, frost bite, pulmonary edema etc. Only 20 percent is from combat and out of this, 50 percent is indirect; from wounds suffered and lack of proper medical treatment on the spot. As another example; an army division (10K+ men), suffers a peacetime attrition rate of 2-3 percent a month due to injuries, ill health etc. Hence, 20 or men become casualities, not due to combat, but from routine training excerises etc. The military considers a casualty as anything that prevents a soldier from being unfit for combat and not nessesarily as a result of combat inflicted results.

``3 wars in 50 years..``

The German Army has not fought a war since 1945, should they have disbanded too ?

What about the Americans ? The American Army has fought just one war since 1945, the Gulf War. Korea was ``police acton``, not a war; Vietnam was military assistence, not a declared war. Grenada was a rescue mission, not a war; Panama was DEA operation to nab Noreiga. In the last 50 years, America has fought only one declared war: the Gulf War. Should they too disband their army ?

Plus; I am more interested in a representative goverment than I am in a popular government. You also suggested that I am not allowing enough time for the institutions to work.... My problem is not with the insititutions themselves, but the people who run them.

Lastly, you seem to be advocating a role for the army in WAPDA. Are you implicitily suggesting that the military is the only insitution in the country that can do the job. Afterall, according to you, it should also collect taxes. Why not just have it run the country too ?

That is and was the crux of my argument: we should be strenghtening the insitutions and not weakening them, so that we do not have to ask the military to step in and clean our mess. In short, thank you for admiting that the military is the only insitution in Pakistan which is organized enough to do a proper job since the rest of the insitutions are more interested in cannabalizing themselves and undermining others than they are in serving the public good.

i dare with impunity.

whether my persepctive is the most appropriate one for the system is not whats relevant here. the lack of a system in Pakistan, a system that works with strong men and women as leaders to direct its vulnerablities is a desperate need. if the popularly elected government with a mandate no less, is not strong enough to see itself through, then it needs to be replaced with an institution that is (and can)...

we agree to disagree ...

regards

re: tehsin

Please refrain from attempting to cubbyhole me and get off your holier than thou high horse. It makes no difference whether you think democracy will emerge vindicated in Pakistan or not. It maters not a jot who you think will save Pakistan from itself. Your perceptions and mine are irrelevant as long as they are confined to the rarified chowks of intangible networks.

You might however be interested in knowing how democratic the worlds richest nations were when they were `mere developing` nations ... development and democracy is a luxury, the markets do not work when over 80% of the nation is bankrupt - materially and intellectually. there is a huge difference between growth and development: where one thrives on free markets, the other is stifled by their very existence. what is happening in the welfare states of Europe as they turn their governance inside out to accomodate the requirements of the Masstricht, and the Euro ? what are the roots of the American and the emerging European, underclass? And yes, the questions are relevant to this discussion, because the answers are a function of the workings of democracy, of the private sector, of free markets. Its not that simple. Adam Smith`s invisible hand is not only invisible, its SELFISH and MATERIALISTIC.

The poor, the illiterate, the downtrodden, the suppressed will wrest Pakistan from its woes. We have it would seem, learnt next to nothing from the communists and their `bolshevik` revolutions. In Pakistan, it seems, the messenger will die yet.

regards

I see that the government is taking better use of the army. Hopefully if they remain untainted then this experiment of letting the army collect the dues for WAPDA might pave the way to collecting income taxes.

However, I must add that once this experiment is successful the government should create a permanent department manned by these people and permanently reduce the armed forces level.

Aliya

Since I think you have more facts and figures at hand then myself, let me enlighten myself by letting you answer the following questions:

1) How many men does the Pakistan armed forces have:

a) Army
b) Navy
c) Airforce

2) What is the distribution of their educational and skill background
a) High School
b) Bachelors
c) Masters
d) Doctorates
e) Others

i) Engineers - Mechanical
Electrical
Aeronautical
Naval
Others
ii)Doctors - Trauma
General Physician
Other specialists
iii) Vocation - Pilots
Maintenance staff
iv) Other Professionals excluding trained soldiers
v) Trained soldiers

3) Which insurance company in the United States insures military personnel under war conditions (other than the United States Government self-insurance program).

4) Which are the 10 countries that have the largest per capita armies in the world

Finally, I am not clear what you mean by ``operate it by faithpower of Hudaibia``. Was Hudaibia a military operation. Did I miss something in learning History.

Re; Amin Saleh
Doing away with a peacetime army to collect a bunch of guys during wartime ? you are joking of course (i hope). I saw something like that in the spoof movie Independence Day.

In the modern world, where warfare is carried out with sophisticated machinery, it is unthinkable for a country to lay off it`s army/ navy etc. during peacetime, and call the faithful to steer a ship during war. Needless to say, even if the faith was so strong that our good muslims could steer the ship with faith alone, the darn thing will be rusted solid, thanks to years of sitting in the saline air with no upkeep.

If we expect the faithful to take up arms on an as needed basis, we`ll be following the Taliban model ( no chain of command, no warfare technique, etc,).
I suggest a field trip for you. Please visit a submarine and try imagine having to operate it, or worse, be in it as someone is trying to operate it by faithpower of Hudaibia.

As for the insurance part, service personnel in U.S have some of the best life insurance rates. Just like firemen, police officers, and yes emergency room personnel, servicemen are professionals not gladiators.

Remember...check your facts first. Quite a bit has changed since Hudaibia.