The Last Trumpets

addendum

And yes, one more thing I`d like to share, it`s a piece of oral history never published anywhere. I was told this in person by a family friend, an elderly gentleman of 77, whom I`ve known since my childhood. This is a true anecdote for the man`s integrity is beyond question. I am sharing this with you here because in one of your excellent responses to Urstruly you said that Pakistan gad been a dictatorship since 1947 (very true) and that the army`s involvement was begun by Sikandar Mirza before 1958.

Well, here is what I was told. This gentleman is the nephew of Ghulam Mohammed and he was an eyewitness to this happening.

Ghulam Mohammed who was the finance minister and quite a respectable man who was almost at the end of his career. But he couldn`t have finished his term because he had a stroke and suffered hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) which also took away his speech. He was in Rawalpindi at the time of the attack and that is where he was hospitalized. After a couple of weeks when he was strong enough to be discharged, but still permanently paralized, he submitted his resignation to the prime minister. His resignation was sitting on the Prime Minister`s desk in Karachi and had not yet been formally accepted because Prime Minsiter Jehalat Ali Khan was on a political speech making trip in the North of the country. Therefore Ghulam Mohammed was technically still the finance minister and thus entitled to all the official facilities. This included staying in government guest houses. So after being released from the hospital and before taking a train (tez gam -- air conditioned) back to Karachi he came to stay at the Chamba House. Attending him were his nephew (the gentleman who told me this -- lets call him Mr. M) and GM`s daughter whom Mr. M calls ``Iqbal Appa.`` As they came to spend the night at Chamba house, news broke that the prime minister had been assissinated. Total confusion broke loose.

Mr. M reports that at night the Governor General Khawaja Nazim ud Din also came to stay at Chamba house and visited GM`s room to ask after his health and talk about what had happened etc. As an aside Mr. M also recalls that as soon as Khawaja sahib arrived his first words were ``khanay-vanay ka kiya intizaam hae`` (what are the dinner arrangements?) Rumor had it, he reaclls, that Khawaja sahib was famous for his proclavity to over eat and eat again and again. Binge and purge, binge and purge.

The next day the PM`s body was to fly to Karachi and that was also when Mr. M and Iqbal Appa were taking the sick Ghulam Mohammed to Karachi.

The tez gam journey began, and Mr. M recalls that after a night in the train they stopped at Kotri junction early in the morning. Mr. M went out of the rail car on to the platform to buy the morning news paper. He says he can never forget the thunderbolt that hit him when he saw the heading. He rushed to their compartment in the train with the newspaper. Iqbal Appa saw it next and they both looked at each other first and then at the poor pathetic figuer of a frail old man who lay asleep at the time. The heading declared that Governor General Khawaja Nazim ud Din had taken over the office of the Prime Minsiter and that finance minister Ghulam Mohammed was the new Governor General. Thus began the dictarorship of the bed ridden and speechless Governor General Ghulam Mohammed.

So between a bolemic and a cripple the top leadership was securely in the hands of the puppeteer Sikandar Mirza (a retired general) who always had Ayub Khan in attendence by his side.

...SR

Feroz,

I regret not having read this article earlier than now. I always make it a point to read your pieces but they are usually so long that I put off reading them until I have ``more time.`` That, often comes several days later. Any way, I just wanted to commend this lucid and patient narrative. Also most of the posts are very good. I particularly agree with the theme that a few of responders (Romair and Nazar`s posts come to mind, besides several others) have touched upon: That (i) ``the good of the common man`` is the ultimate achievement no matter what shape the politics or state apparatus takes, and (ii) economic prosperity needs to be the absolute top priority, over riding ALL ideology, and this prosperity is only possible IF and when peace and demilitarization can be achieved. I couldn`t agree more. But where many of the responders are concerned their mindset is fully entrenched in the pervasiveness of the government in every aspect of life (economic, social, religious, cultural etc, etc). People must start thinking in terms of REDUCING the SIZE and SCOPE of government at ALL levels. Law and order, foreign affairs, roads and bridges, airports, sea ports, currency and banking regulation and one or two other vital functions is ALL that the government should be onvolved in and that too as much as possible as close to the grass roots as possible (particularly law and order and revenue collection). It is not the government`s job to create employment for instance. The government out to get the hell out of trade and commerce altogether and leave that to the enterprising and hard working people of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and Baluchistan who prove their competence and high achievements every single day in countries all over the world. Surely the same people can do miracles at home IF and ONLY IF the intrusive, obstructionist and corrupt government is OUT, OUT, OUT, of their lives and minding its own damn business doing the few things described above.

You can bring any constitution, have any form of governence, have any ideological principles, it will make absolutely no difference (except at the margins) unless and until 85% of the existing government bureaucracy is not ABOLISHED. And I really mean abolished and obliterated. Departments after departments shut down, the people sent home, office furniture auctioned off and the building leased out to private tenents.

The STATE itself is the problem in its present SIZE and SCOPE.

...SR

ferozk:

yes, blame games get boring.

i suppose we agree that no matter what system is supported or placed, it will fail as long as the army is there.

solutions of systems are many- including the set up of pre-1999.

as for WHAT would be the methodology for breaking the fauji back. right now, i can only speculate- much like you and everyone else. main reason the faujiz are in power is that they have guns. maulana fazlur rahman once retorted that `we also have guns` (this is before MMA found itself in parliamentary paradise). but my view is as long as the conflict with india remains, faujiz will feed off of it and make merry. peace, free trade with india could do the trick.

re: rozaiba

You misunderstood me. I am not defending the role of the military in Pakistan`s politics. I agree with what you said about the levels of inequalities between the military and the politicans. I have no disagreement with you on that score.

My question is simple: How do we remove the military from Pakistani politics?

You basically told me how the politicans feel about the army. Fine. Period.

You did not answer my question about how or by what process the military will be removed from Pakistani politics. I am not interested in how your friend feels as much as I am interested in getting an answer that gives me some framework or a methodology, which removes the army from Pakistani politics. Every body and their holy grail blames the military in Pakistan. Fine and good! Still, no one in Pakistan offers a viable argument on how to remove the military. I am not interested in blaming the army; I am not interested in debating whether the army is a problem or not. The army has been blamed and it has been accepted as a fact that the army is a problem. We do not need to debate these issues. What we need to debate and rationalize is how to remove the army from Pakistani politics and you have not answered that question.

The problem is, in my opinion, that we feel good about blaming the army, but we have no idea on how to remove the army from politics! We have placed the blame and we have established that the blame is valid. Great, now what do we do? Shall we keep restating the blame?

Tell me, please, how would you remove the army from Pakistani politics? Remember, I am not interested in blame-games; I am interested in solutions and if you have a solution, lets hear it! :)

re: Urstruly

I agree with your suggestions in the first paragraph.

As to the second paragraph; what Jinnah did before August 14, 1947 is vastly different from what Jinnah did after August 14, 1947. Jinnah`s creation of Pakistan does not absolve him for his political role in the aftermath of Pakistan`s creation. Who appointed him as the Governor-General of Pakistan? This is the problem. Jinnah may have fired Gracey, but the precedent for disobeying civililan leadership was already learnt by the Pakistani army.

Study Jinnah`s role post August 14, 1947 and you will discover the centralization of powers within his office. We, Pakistanis, need to seperate Jinnah the person from Jinnah the politican and in that we need to understand that Jinnah the politican before August 14, 1947 had a different political constitutency than he did after August 14, 1947. As mentioned in my article, the circumtances of Pakistan after independence may have given Jinnah the justification, but they also prevented Pakistan from developing a true parliamentary form of government. The prime minister is the head of the government and the governor-general is the head of the state; Jinnah combined both powers under him and in doing made Liaquat Ali Khan`s office a ceremonial one. He basically stated that Pakistan would be ruled with centralized powers and the diarchy of power between the governor-general and the prime minister does not, in reality, exist. His reasons may be correct, but he did rule as an autocrat and he did establish the precedent for others to follow.

Ciao

PS: I have given my own version of that electoral system in the constitutional outline that I submitted to chowk.

which brings me to my article.. which I will send to feroze k soon, and which has also been sent to chowk...

I think a new imaginative electoral process is required to sideline the feudals and biradari system of Pakistan.

Yes, you are right. Just wishing the army go away wont` make it go away. But eventually the Army WILL go away as there is NO alternative available then that the army go away.

I gave you the example of my friend who made less than 5000 rupees and was elected into the local council. How do you think he feels being treated like a sheep by serving Fauji Brigadiers who are ONLY there cause they have guns in their hands. Even though he was a sympathiser with PML Q (chamcha league), the action of faujiz from the get go reveals an obvious rift between civilians and faujiz.

Why do you think the politicians are so against the faujiz? Faujiz have NO legitimacy. ANY representative system they implement will fail as it is IMPOSSIBLE for those elected to stomach the role of faujiz- it is FAR more likely that the Faujiz will fail in their attempts to bring about a change than have the civilians accept their role.

I ain`t no resident expert :) but from my observations there is no way the civilian leadership will allow the army to have a say for any quantified period. Attempts by faujiz to legitimize their role will always fail. they always have.

Romair:

Are you busy studying Economics 101? Or does economics no longer make sense? Good Luck.

ferozk

Let me make it short. Army has no business interfering in civilian affairs in any shape or form. LFO, a uniformed president or dictator, and a security council are all absolutely unacceptable. Presidential system is acceptable to me if an independently elected parliament approves it by 2/3rd vote and then get it reapproved thru a fair referendum. Mushraf or any army stooge in any shape color or form in uniform or naked is unacceptable.

I dont understand your point of calling Quaid-e-Azam a dictator. He became the head of state thru a transparent mechanism and not thru a coup de etat; and immediately formed the legislative assembly. He only lived 1 year after independence. By your standard Nehru from 1947 to 1951 was also a dictator. But such designation to either of leaders is moronic. Quaid did not use his powers in indiscretion. However, Ghulam Mohammad and Sikandar Mirza used this power to crush democratic aspirations of this nation. Both were appointed by our former colonial masters. Quaid on the other hand refused to share power with mountbatten and also fired general Gracey the commander in chief. But it has nothing to do with being a dictator.

re: urstruly # 44

Pakistan is not United States and comparing an American presidential system to a would be Pakistani presidential system is flawed. We cannot import the American form of government to Pakistan and hope that it works better than what we have presently. Pakistanis need to create their own version of a presidential or a Westminister model of government. What ever they decide, they better decide because for the last 56 years we have been arguing about this issue.

You blame the army and that is fair enough.

Please answer this question, why was parliamentary democracy in Pakistan from 1948 to 1958 considered a failure; failure in the sense of resolving the issues of goverance? Why did the Governor-General and the office of prime minister engage in a continuous struggle to amass powers? Urstruly, even before the military entered the fray, Pakistan was grappling with the questions of a seperation of powers, between the prime minister and governor-general. The military did not start this debate; Jinnah did with the amended Government of India Act, 1935 giving him extra-ordinary powers, which eclipsed the power of his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan and thus, created the present debate which has mutated into the present LFO crisis - but the basic question is the same: who has the power?

Pakistanis think that Pakistan was a democracy before 1958 martial law and the coup d`etat of Ayub Khan, but it was not a democracy. All those governments, which were created and which ruled Pakistan were appointed by the governor-general. There were no elections held and there were no care-taker/interim governments. They were dismissed by the governor-general. Pakistan`s first truly free and fair elections were held in 1970. Pakistan from 1947 to 1958, was a dictatorship. Yes; Jinnah may have been a benign dictator, but he was a dictator never the less. All that happened in 1958 was that the army ended the debate and sided with the argument that power should be concentrated in one office and not shared in a diarchy.

You are right and I agree with you that the army in Pakistan has proliferated its interests in Pakistan and it must burden its share of the blame. I have never denied this argument. My question is this: what was the role of the army in Pakistani politics on August 14, 1947 when Jinnah decided to assume the viceregal powers of a viceroy in the guise of the governor-general, as those powers were amended in the Government of India Act, 1935? Who and which political act started this power tussle between the prime minister and governor-general/president`s office? Why did the army enter politics? Blame the army to your heart`s content, but what were the reasons which brought army into the politics? Did those reasons start prior to 1958 or after 1958? If they started prior to 1958, then when did they start? August 15, 1947?

The army did not intervene in politics as long as its commander-in-chief was a British officer, but it learnt the lesson of ignoring its civilian leaders from its British commander-in-chief. Douglas Gracey was the British officer in charge of the Pakistan army and when he refused, rightly or wrongly is another debate, Jinnah`s orders to send the army into Kashmir in 1947-48, he created a dangerous precedent. He established the principle that the army could ignore its civilian leaders. It was the wrong lesson to impart to the impressionable officers of the Pakistan army. If there is a person to be held accountable for erasing the line and undertaking the first step into politics, it was Gracey and not Ayub. Ayub followed in Gracey`s footsteps, but historically he was not the first one to bring the army into politics. Again, it was not Ayub Khan, but Sikander Mirza who as the president dismissed the government and brought martial law to Pakistan. Mirza was not a soldier; he was a civilian. Did the army ask for its chief to attend cabinet meetings? No, it was again Mirza, a civilian who brought Ayub to the inner santum of politics.

Does this absolve Ayub`s mea cupla of 1958? No! It does not, but who paved the way for the army to enter politics? If Ayub had ambitions, who encouraged those ambitions? Who recommended Ayub for the post of commander-in-chief of Pakistan army - it was Mirza and why did he do it?

Still, another question is if the army was disposed towards disobeying its civilian leaders in 1947-48, why did it wait ten years before formally entering politics? Why did the army not enter politics in the years before 1958?

As to your last question, please name one Pakistan civilian leader who did not rule Pakistan as a dictator? Name one leader who did not try to grab all the power into their hands and who willfully tried to stifle dissent against their rule? Name one leader who was not an autocrat and did not believe in autocracy? Name one civilian leader who did not amend the constitution of Pakistan to gain more power?

Urstruly, historically Pakistan has never experienced democracy, because since its birth it has existed as an autocracy under the rule of a dictator. From 1947 to 2003, Pakistan has been and is a dictatorship. Musharraf maybe a dictator who wears a uniform and Jinnah may have worn Savaille Row tailored suits, but he was the First Autocrat of Pakistan. Remember, a dictator does not always have to wear a uniform; it can be a sherwani with gold braided collars and he may have the written the 1973 constitution of Pakistan. Whether we have a prime minister or a president, it makes no difference because both wish to rule like autocrats and that makes Pakistan a dictatorship. In Pakistan, there is no difference between a dictatorship, a presidentship or a prime ministership, because all are dictatorships.

On a lighter note, I would appreciate those Cole notes! I need to understand how we got so messed up in our politics! LOL :-)

Ciao

The presidential system can only work if there is a strong and independent judiciary and legislation. Even if these two things are available the system cannot work unless there is a very strong consciencious press. Because the accountability of the president by the people is only thru the press. And people can only practice their right to accountability if they are educated and have a political knowhow. President is very less accountable to the elected body in this case. As a matter of fact a president can veto a decree by elected legislative. A president presents himself for accountability by the people thru his state of union address. Similarly, the accountability of judiciary, for example, is thru press. That is the reason whenever a new law is enacted in USA, the justices have to explain all the juristic reasons before the press.

However, in case of parliamentary system the accountability of Prime minister is thru the legislative body as well as thru the press and judiciary. And in some cases, when 58(2)B was in effect, president could also hold the PM accountable. A PM cannot override the decree of parliament as a President can veto in case of presdential system. So it offers more accountability than the presidential system. The failure of Parliamentary system in Paksitan is not because Parlimentary system is not suited for Paksitan but because Army has interferred in the business of polity. It has stuck its nose in every nook and cranny where it does not belong. Even a presidential system will collapse in Pakistan if army does not submit to the sovereignity of the people of Paksitan. Unless of course the president is an army chief in uniform......but then it is called dictatorship...isn`t it? As a student of political science you must appreciate the difference between a dictatorship and presidentship. Or you need coles notes for that :)

re: Romair # 39

Romair, with all due repect, that is just what Rozaiba, Mantolives and I have been debating on this forum!

My friend, we need to come with institutions and policy infrastructural frameworks, before we can even imagine thinking about economic issues! Economic issues and their utility is meaningless, unless we are able to develop political institutions in Pakistan, which cater to and sustain the kind of economic development you are wishing. You say that the average man in Pakistan is least concerned with these issues and I will agree with you. Romair, unless we can come up with a viable system, there will be no economic benefits, which will accure to the common man, because economic development needs a consistent, organized and coherent approach. We need a framework, which will give tanigble intent to your arguments and I am sorry to say this, but your agruments in lieu of what we are discussing, simply amounts to putting the cart before the horse!

Ciao

re: rozaiba # 41

Army will always be in Pakistani politics. It is not that I do not see your agrument, I do not understand how you are going to remove the army from Pakistani politics. Rozaiba, saying is one thing, but actually implementing that in practice is very a difficult and diffrent thing. My point was that we have to, for a lack of choice, to evolve our political institutions inclusive of the army`s role. There is a unhealthy degree of symbiosis beteween the army and the politics in Pakistan and though I agree with every word you said, but I still have to reason a method which seperates the two in Pakistan in a formal manner, which prevents a relapse.

Getting army out of politics is a theoretical statement, which implies that things will improve afterwards. I agree to this proposition. My question is how, in a pratical sense, do you propose to remove the army from politics? Shall we call the Americans or the Indians and ask them to fight the army, defeat it and disband it so the political process in Pakistan can march onto the sunlit uplands of joy and hope? No one is denying that the removal of the army will improve things, but no one seems to have come up with a solution on how this blessed event will happen. Then there is the problem of the army itself. Do you think that the army will willingly remove itself from Pakistani politics and go back to its barracks? What happens if the army resists? Are you prepared to fight the army in the streets and alleyways of Pakistan and win your democracy? This is what it boils down to; are you willing to fight a civil war for democracy in Pakistan? We fought a civil war for democracy in Pakistan in 1971 and we all know the results of that little fraticide,

Since you are the resident expert on removing the army from Pakistani politics, how do you plan and envisage the army`s removal in pratical terms, which can be implemented.

Rozaiba, in theory I agree with you, but do you not think we should now realize that theory in a tangible sense and come up with a practical solution and if we cannot, then we have to learn to live with the army. Just wishing the army away will not make it go away! LOL

re: urstruly # 38

Pakistan is more suited for a presidential system. Pakistan is not suited for a parliamentary system of goverance. In Pakistan, we had the ``wrong dream`` to cling to a parliamentary form of government, when all our leaders; civilian and military have excerised presidential powers from Jinnah to Musharraf. We should repudiate the constitution of 1973 and replace it another constitution, which gives Pakistan a presidential form of politics.

Basically, given our history, we have the wrong system of government; we have the wrong consitutution and we have the wrong speration of powers in Pakistan. We have a malfunctioning political system in Pakistan based on flawed ideals, which is creating untold of contradictions in our polity. In short, we squandered the last 56 years trying to create utopia in Pakistan and only ended up creating a political nightmare.

Does this help or do you need Cliffnotes to help you understand? :)

Ciao

FerozK:

``seems to be to massage the present Musharraf based local bodies system and allow it to mature and evolve naturally.``

Again you fail to understand my point. As long as the army is there, there will NEVER BE ANY evolution of ANY system. No matter WHAT system we have. Ok. Let`s look at it like this. The provincial MMA gvt. of Baluchistan and NWFP are extremely unhappy that the provincial gvt. cannot control all the finances which instead are going to the districts as part of the devolution scheme. If Musharaf strikes a deal with MMA to keep his uniform, and as part of the deal, he allows MMA`s provincial Govt. to legislate WHO - the state or the districts- has the authority to spend the finances, will you accept that Musharaf`s ONLY attempt to bring change has come to nought? That he has done absolutely nothing to bring change? That he and the Army have once again- tru to their nature- embraced cowardice by prefering selfish fauji interests over those that are better for the country?

Because I still don`t see ANYTHING that the army has intentionally done to promote a sense of certainty, stability and freedom of institutions that will help convince me that the role of the Faujiz is productive. The Faujiz have been in power for a longest uninterrupted duratioin since General Zia`s time in the 80`s.

FerozK, despite my opposition to anything Fauji, I still hope the local bodies system was able to succeed. Provincial governments are a big menace. Local bodies system makes sense if allowed to run on it`s own and if no matter who gets elected, the district administration has the powers to decide about finances without being tied down by upper level governments. However, I don`t delude myself by saying that it will survive the arm twisting and manipulative tactics employed by the faujiz.

---

And as for those Fauji lovers who to defend their fauji blood so dearly speak of the need for `economic stability`- you should stick to writing enjoyable translations of Ghalib.

But since you are so eager to show your concern by talking economics, lets talk economics. Economics demands stability. It demands certainty. Most importantly, it demands INVESTMENT. Since you are so FREAKING concerned about economics and want ECONOMICS to determine governments and direction of a nation, lets see if you are willing to practice what you preach- or at least change what you preach.

Economics dictates that Kashmir be forgotten. Immediately accept LoC. And for all intents and purposes say `The HELL WITH KASHMIR AND THE SUFFERING OF IT``S PEOPLE`. This is what economics dictates. Economics says that all political, social and psychological desires have to make way for choices that make economic sense- such as creating free trade environments that giving market access to a country`s products. Economics vehemently states that the Fukin Fauji is the most UNPRODUCTIVE person in the world. Get rid of him. Economics will also state that the DEMAND for a single roti, kaprra and makaan is 12 BILLION times greater than all the dinky F-16s,Mushaks, Al-Khalids, Ghauris, Hatfs, Shaheens combined.

Yes, I agree. You should stick to translating Ghalib. No disrespect to Ghalib, but like you, he was EXTREMELY bad at things relating to economics. :)



Mantolives:

where did you eat khansama`s shami kebabs? Go to Model Town and eat `Bhaiyay kay Kebab`.

``They should be debating Jinnah’s education policies, and Musharraf’s and Bhutto’s industry politicies, not their secular or religious policies.``


Dude... where in the name of my khansama`s shami kebabs, are we discussing their secular or religious policies... You are beyond redemption. We tried to explain to you that secularism is not an ideology. Education and Industry are secular endeavors, not religious ones...

Obviously there is something really wrong with you.

-Manto

I think people in Pakistan (and on this site) spend too much of their mental bandwidth debating relatively useless ideas (for third world nations), like religion and secularism, elections or no elections, etc. Everyone states they are doing it for the benefit of the, “common man,” without really looking at the behavior patterns of the, “common man.” What they should be debating is the benefit of one economic policy over another. They should be debating Jinnah’s education policies, and Musharraf’s and Bhutto’s industry politicies, not their secular or religious policies.

I doubt the common man is too concerned about secularism or religionism. Nor is he/she concerned about elections, or lack there of, or breaking away or reunificaition with India. These are all luxuries of the Pakistani elite, who have Internet connections. The common man wants economic progress and security. I can bet anything he will give economic growth more importance than secularism or Islam or USA or India, or Jinnah or Nehru, or democracy or dictatorship.

Just take a look at the immigration patterns of Pakistanis, for the answer. Overwhelmingly, the lower middle class of Pakistan has migrated to the Middle East oil states, as labor, whenever they have gotten the chance. In essence, they have voluntarily, again and again, given up their chance to vote in Pakistan, and have prefered to live in Arab dictatorships. Why? Because they got more security and economic progress there. Even within these Arab states, they have not been bothered too much by the secularism or Islamism of their destination of migration. People have given up the relative secularism of Pakistan to migrate to Islamic Saudi Arabia, again and again. And they have given up the relative Islamism of Pakistan, to migrate to a more secular UAE, again and again. Economic progress being the key common factor.

Even the well-off Pakistanis never think twice about migrating to North America. They have given up their right to vote in Pakistan, in a heartbeat, to migrate to North America, where they have no chance of being a part of the democratic process for a decade or two, until they become citizens (if they do beocome citizens). Ironically, after giving up this right to vote, they seem to be very concerned about democracy being the most important thing for the common man in Pakistan. A bit of hypocrisy, if you ask me. Since they themselves have prefered economic progress over democracy.

Amongst third world Asian nations, there is an interesting trend. The countries that have judged their govts. by giving economic progress the highest priority (higher than secularism or religionism or misguided democracies etc.), include Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China etc. While the other group, that has given, “democracy” more importance than economic progress, in their intellectual debates, include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.

Take a look at where these countries are today, and you will get an answer to what the common man wants.

If the maulvis raise the living standard of the poorest Pathan in NWFP more than the secularist ANP, then rest assured the common man will prefer the maulvis (so he should). Not because they are religious, but because they got him a job. And vice-versa. If the Army govt. provides more jobs for the common man than the democratic govts, he will prefer the Army govt. And vice-versa. Not because he hates democracy, or hates the Army, but because he wants food and an education.

Pakistanis for the next fifteen to twenty years, would be well-advised to judge any govt. by the primary criteria of how much it can raise the economic growth of Pakistan, without worrying about how democratic or dictatorial it happens to be. Or how secular or religious it happens to be. The, “common man” (and even the rich man) of Pakistan has always prefered to migrate to countries based on economic progress. He could care less whether Jinnah was secular, or whether the Military Mullah alliance will ruin Pakistan. And the progress of Asian nations has shown that economic progress is a pre-requisite to, “real” democracy. Democracy is not a pre-requisite to economic progress.

So the only alternative to a govt. in Pakistan, should be another govt. that can provide a higher rate of economic growth. Not one that is more, “Islamic” or more “Secular” or more, “Authoritarian” or more, “Democratic” than the previous. These concepts are only important to well-fed rich Pakistanis who are not effected much by the economic conditions of Pakistan.