Calls for Azadi resounding in Pakistan?

[SurvivoR]

Zardari came in with a massive mandate ...right and within a year he is the most hated politician...before that their were demonstrations to throw General Musharaf. Now you seen to not like Nawaz Sharief as well ....Kayani is not interested to step in.

What are the Options can you name some of the young leaders one can look up to. I feel you will have to give long rope to any one who comes in and democracy will take some time to evolve and throw up good leaders.

Can some one from Pakistan give us a perspective of what the man on the street want.

He was the hated man already. He did not come through popular vote rather imposed himself on us thanks to BB's unfortuante death which gave him the seat he never deserved.


The best option is to clean the mess by removing the stumbling blocks and leave the current government to complete its tenur sans the stumbling blocks.

Prez can be nominated from any side whereas PM is the real head so no question of looking for algternates. Gilani is already a wise politician if he is allowed to take decisions freely and on the orders from prez.

 

[Bane Blade]

The government are personally trying to make this violent and on top of that the media isn't stepping back the least bit.

oL7IhmwuGEE[/media] - Waday, Waday aur Sirf Waday

 

[batmannow]

Zaid Hamid was right about the Pakistani media!

WcBe_cOJg2k[/media] - Zaid Hamid on Ankahi

Final question!

not only he was rght about our media, but also he is 1000% right about our politicians, our system of running the govt, our govts!
he is right , when he say that we were runing , for a wrong dearm of democrcy which cannot work in 60 years!

 

[Bane Blade]

not only he was rght about our media, but also he is 1000% right about our politicians, our system of running the govt, our govts!
he is right , when he say that we were runing , for a wrong dearm of democrcy which cannot work in 60 years!

I must ask you though that I know Pakistan can't use western democracy but can't we use democracy in an Islamic way by giving the educated the power to vote rather than everyone. And rather than the Parliament have a Majlis-e-Shoura like Islam but the only way that is possible is by one big revolution or a very slow democratic process to put things into place.

 

[wtf]

I must ask you though that I know Pakistan can't use western democracy but can't we use democracy in an Islamic way by giving the educated the power to vote rather than everyone. And rather than the Parliament have a Majlis-e-Shoura like Islam but the only way that is possible is by one big revolution or a very slow democratic process to put things into place.

I understand where you are coming from when you talk about restricting democracy, but there is a reason things are set up that way.
Whenever you restrict voting to the educated, you end up restricting the minorities from the legislative process. And it is often the case that minorities tend to be the least educated. This "educated vote" was a tool used in pre-segregation USA to keep Black people from voting - some argue that it still happens in some states.

And as for your calls for a revolution, it may work but more often it does not. My reasoning is that it is because revolutionaries are rarely good administrators - very rarely have they had the courage to let go after they have gotten into power even when they got into power for the right reasons. North Korea/ Mao Zedong/ Mugabe / Lenin/ Siad Barre/ Gaddaffi etc. are all examples of revolutionaries who left behind systems that ended up repressing their people. Iran is probably the only place that had a revolution and then continues to be stable long after - and it may have something to do with partial democracy.

I understand that as an Indian who has never lived in Pakistan I have no ground level knowledge of things there , but this was my response to all the Indians who asked for the Military to take over after the Mumbai attacks.

Peace be with you.

 

[Bane Blade]

Although you have raised some significant points I must say that the revolution in france bore results and so did the Chinese communist party but for a revolution the person incharge really matters and I think that because a lot of people on the forum wish so and a lot of people pray for a good leader Pakistan may just get one with Allah's grace if it is for the better of the nation than why not but if you read my posts I am against a revolution I think that people who wish for change should vote for change.

 

[wtf]

Although you have raised some significant points I must say that the revolution in france bore results and so did the Chinese communist party but for a revolution the person incharge really matters and I think that because a lot of people on the forum wish so and a lot of people pray for a good leader Pakistan may just get one with Allah's grace if it is for the better of the nation than why not but if you read my posts I am against a revolution I think that people who wish for change should vote for change.

I'll concede the point about China. While I believe that the real Chinese revolution began with Deng Xiaoping and his opening up, it is true that he still did it with the system that Mao put in place(One party, return to historical borders, strong nationalism). But on France, I beg to differ. They had one of the most radical movements in History, but it immediatly deteriorated into what is called the "Reign of Terror" and then Napolean appointing himself the emperor and finally the restoration of the old Bourbon Monarchy. While before all this mess France was a power that rivaled England (especially after UK lost USA), after the Bourbon restoration they became a second best also ran. The ideas that the revolution threw out were remarkably beautiful but the implementation was ridiculously messy.

I absolutely agree with the point of the person in charge really mattering. The person needs to be one who can not only unite the country behind him and then take over power he also needs to be one who can then establish systems that will continue his ideas in his absence. It is the "system" that should continue the idea, not the person. The one recent example I can think of is Mandela - he fought, he went to jail, became a Gandhian-type peace lover and then came to power. He set up democracy, reconciled the people,made the constitution and country strong and in spite the overwhelming popularity had the courage to step down after one term. If you get a revolution (and I hope you don't) I hope you also get your Mandela.

 

[Bane Blade]

I am sure if the right people are given the chance then maybe the road to revolution may not be all bad but what our country is going through needs a complete system refresh but because this is democracy it will take a lot of time.

 

[wtf]

I am sure if the right people are given the chance then maybe the road to revolution may not be all bad but what our country is going through needs a complete system refresh but because this is democracy it will take a lot of time.

If you think that Pakistan needs a full change and that democracy does not work there I concede my point. I cannot argue with your premises, not having first hand experience. Nor can I offer any other solution that builds up on your premises other than what you suggest.
I pray that your revolution be a bloodless one.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The irony to me is that Musharraf was actually a reasonably balanced strongman who could have led a successful, partially democratic system. The fact that the Pakistani media and other political parties forced him out tells me that Pakistan is far too divided in its thinking about what form of government it wants to have stability. It really looks like a return to Army rule is what is going to happen within the next two years.

 

[Bane Blade]

Well if the army can bring 'Azadi' rather than arrests and wars then why not I think anything would do for Pakistan so long as it brings stability in the long term, personally still though I don't think that Army can do so though.