Our expatriate communities do play an important part but not as one single unit becuase even outside of Pakistan, caste, creed, sect and religion plays a part in their point of view and what they want the country to be.
Perhaps more dynamic discussion and organization is needed. Leadership, but not necessarily unity; the desire for unity gives too much power to spoilers.
It is unfortunate that the Islamists have a considerable number of them located in foreign countries where they continue to malign and hassle other groups.
Is it? The "Islamists" are also dissatisfied with the current government in Pakistan, are they not? Yet they cannot point to any tangible benefits to Islamization, can they? Could these people now be aching for some sort of alternative?
Well i certainly hope that I and many others can follow in the footsteps of Truman and similar individuals to bring the required change in our national get up.
There are many differences between Pakistan and 1920's Missouri. First, the democratic mechanism - elections and vote counting - appears to have been honest. Second, taxes were collected from local citizens who actually voted the taxes upon themselves. Third, money collected from these taxes were the only funds available for public works projects that were controlled and built on the local level; there were no NGOs.
So there were two factors favorable to the development of honest political leadership: the desire of the people for accountability of their tax dollars and the need of the political parties to keep the public vote by pushing people with competency and responsibility in how monies were spent.
...though Truman changed the course of a nation, the problems that were faced by the minorities of America were gradually solved after the core the nation...its a slow process and in Pakistans case -
Between 1877 and 1940 segregation and racial bigotry actually INCREASED. None of the social change you cite happened by a natural "slow process"; they happened because INDIVIDUALS dared to step forward and help make them so:
Roosevelt advanced integration by a fair employment practices board only because he was threatened with a mass demonstration by black unions in the middle of WWII; Truman, building on this and examples he had witnessed plus the reputation of black soldiers in WWII, integrated the armed forces of his own volition by executive fiat; Supreme Court justices appointed by Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower struck down segregation; President Eisenhower took the critical step of enforcing this judgment upon unwilling states; and finally President Johnson built the support of civil-rights leaders into the 1965 Voting Rights Act which ensured these gains would be permanent.
Yet would
any of this have happened if in 1941 America lacked that
one organizer from the Brotherhood of Sleeping-Car Porters who canvassed the barber shops and streets of Harlem, cajoling people to go to Washington
en masse to demand better jobs?
link I don't think so.
