Deliverance On Promises: The Hybrid Regime Is Running Out Of Time

[Jungibaaz]

Pakistan has been a hybrid regime in one form or another since 1958, the issue isn't how we are classified. The issue is the childish use of this term to undermine an existing government.

This term has been overused to describe this government, which undermines the authority of the government, therefore the state of Pakistan.
The Nawaz and Zardari governments were also the same, like the ones that came before. But this term was not used as religiously as it has been for this government.

It makes no difference to me, but it is important to point out the unrecognised aspects, and the resultant harm it does to the nation. Recognise it, describe it, but don't do it to spit anyone, especially if it harms the state of Pakistan, which it does.

It's simply calling a spade or spade, previous governments also paid homage to the hybrid system in major ways, but there efforts made to bring this government in on a significant scale, hence why it is proportionately targeted as hybrid. If we falsely assume that their level of interference between previous governments and this one are the same, then it may look disproportionate.

And I disagree that this causes harm by undermining the government. The government is either credible or it isn't. People the world over criticise their governments in every manner possible and imaginable, even unfair criticisms are levied. The credibility of a government isn't measured in how few critics it has or who is attempting to undermine it, but how well it's able to sustain itself in the light of these criticisms and of its own accord.

For example, this line of defence would be just as ineffective as the previous government saying "pls don't call the PM a thief, it undermines the credibility of his office". It's no defence, and even if the credibility of his office is being undermined, who's actually undermining it? The emporer who himself has no clothes, or the one who points out that he's got no clothes?

 

[peagle]

It's simply calling a spade or spade, previous governments also paid homage to the hybrid system in major ways, but there efforts made to bring this government in on a significant scale, hence why it is proportionately targeted as hybrid. If we falsely assume that their level of interference between previous governments and this one are the same, then it may look disproportionate.

And I disagree that this causes harm by undermining the government. The government is either credible or it isn't. People the world over criticise their governments in every manner possible and imaginable, even unfair criticisms are levied. The credibility of a government isn't measured in how few critics it has or who is attempting to undermine it, but how well it's able to sustain itself in the light of these criticisms and of its own accord.

For example, this line of defence would be just as ineffective as the previous government saying "pls don't call the PM a thief, it undermines the credibility of his office". It's no defence, and even if the credibility of his office is being undermined, who's actually undermining it? The emporer who himself has no clothes, or the one who points out that he's got no clothes?

I find your line of argument somewhat baffling.
I fail to see how this government is any different in it's dealings with the military then the previous governments, please explain how they are different?

Calling someone a thief, or throwing accusations is not about undermining a government, if there is substance in the allegations, and being a thief or corrupt is a legal issue. A hybrid regime isn't a criminal act, therefore the overblown accusations achieve nothing, but they do undermine the government and the state.

Being a hybrid regime has no legal implications, it merely points to the level of involvement by security forces in government policy, how does that equate to being a thief or being corrupt.

I really do not see the correlations you are attempting to create.

 

[TNT]

My profile picture causes deep pain in mushrik CCP wumaos to the point I have been threatened with death threats and the worst profanities thrown at me by both wumaos and so called Muslim members here who suck up to wumaos and support the oppression of Muslims meanwhile crying crocodile tears for Kashmiris.

You think I will want to please such pathetic Muslims supporting Uighurs Muslim holocaust or the oppressors of Muslims? Ha.

If you insulted me because I support the Uighurs cause despite the fact you don't like IK then you are even worst person that I imagined. Many of PTI patwaris here actually hate me because they like IK but you don't even like IK and you insulted me for expressing similar views because I speak for fellow neighboring Muslims, yeah you are worse than these blind patwaris


Just so you know, It was PTI's propaganda against journalists/news channels

Busted: Pro Govt Propaganda Cells Circulating Fake Letter From US NGO

In an attempt to discredit independent media, social media cells close to the government have been circulating a fake letter supposedly written by National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Vice President to the US Ambassador in Pakistan, saying that NED has been helping some media outlets in...

www.thefridaytimes.com

I am all for Muslim ummah but do u have same emotions for Kashmiri muslims and hate RSS and modi same as CCP? Do u also care for Palestinian muslims?
The thing is there are delusional and propaganda brainwashed muslims in india that dont see Kashmir but suddenly became blood brothers of uighurs. Isnt it such a coincidence that these muslims suddenly care abt uighurs when exactly US and other anti China countries suddenly found their love for uighurs? And no one cares abt ur stupid judgements, i dnt even remember u. Calling others mushrik without proof makes u become one too. No wonder ppl think u r indian.
Oh and i dont hate or like anyone for personal like or dislike, i evaluate based on whats good for the state. I also appreciate the very few good things done by IK.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I find your line of argument somewhat baffling.
I fail to see how this government is any different in it's dealings with the military then the previous governments, please explain how they are different?

Since 2014, there have been conspiracies to remove the previous government and PM, and install this one. They are only claims and accusations for now. I have no credibility to prove them here, the history on this is yet to be written. Wait till the current crop retires.

Calling someone a thief, or throwing accusations is not about undermining a government, if there is substance in the allegations, and being a thief or corrupt is a legal issue. A hybrid regime isn't a criminal act, therefore the overblown accusations achieve nothing, but they do undermine the government and the state.

Being a hybrid regime has no legal implications, it merely points to the level of involvement by security forces in government policy, how does that equate to being a thief or being corrupt.

I really do not see the correlations you are attempting to create.

Simple allegations, political statements, and criticisms should not be enough to "undermine" a government. They're an essential part of a democratic system. And please be consistent, we've started doing two things here which veer us way off-track and threaten to have us making political value judgements instead of debating the merit of the initial point; firstly we've started differentiating between substance, and then by the type of allegation. If calling a PM a thief or puppet, or accusing him of election rigging, all of these can politically undermine a government. The legal aspect is more important, sure, but it is also there in the case of the allegations against the military and the serving PM, this story hasn't reached that point yet. And by this standard, calling the previous PM a thief before he was tried in court is also tantamount to unfairly compromising the integrity of the government. I'd say allow the criticism to be made, even if as yet unproven. If that criticism alone is seen as undermining a government, then it means the government didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.

Part in bold. The accusation and classification means nothing, I agree. But practically and constitutionally, it has several legal implications.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Mark mY words as I have been here for about a decade now, Feel fre to tag me, Harami Ganjay and Suwar Waderas will never come in power, Never. Period. Tag me when any of that changes * Yawns *

SS has a serious chance
Ngl, both public and millitary support for his rule

 

[peagle]

Since 2014, there have been conspiracies to remove the previous government and PM, and install this one. They are only claims and accusations for now. I have no credibility to prove them here, the history on this is yet to be written. Wait till the current crop retires.



Simple allegations, political statements, and criticisms should not be enough to "undermine" a government. They're an essential part of a democratic system. And please be consistent, we've started doing two things here which veer us way off-track and threaten to have us making political value judgements instead of debating the merit of the initial point; firstly we've started differentiating between substance, and then by the type of allegation. If calling a PM a thief or puppet, or accusing him of election rigging, all of these can politically undermine a government. The legal aspect is more important, sure, but it is also there in the case of the allegations against the military and the serving PM, this story hasn't reached that point yet. And by this standard, calling the previous PM a thief before he was tried in court is also tantamount to unfairly compromising the integrity of the government. I'd say allow the criticism to be made, even if as yet unproven. If that criticism alone is seen as undermining a government, then it means the government didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.

Part in bold. The accusation and classification means nothing, I agree. But practically and constitutionally, it has several legal implications.

You continue to baffle me, I have to protest at your accusation of not being consistent.

I have been very consistent, since it is you who replied to my post, and continue to bring forward new points, that I feel are irrelevant, I am within my rights to answer the new points you bring forward, it is not me who is broadening the scope of this discussion, but you. The lack of consistency is on your part, not mine.

At no point I have opposed criticism of governments, that's an unfair label based on your own assumption, my point was and is very clear and simple. the repeated and constant use of the term hybrid does undermine the government and the state. I have not opposed the use of the term hybrid, merely the parroting of the term, because It has visible ramifications.

You are again bringing forward more points that I am forced to answer. Again, being a thief is a legal term and to accuse someone of corruption or theft requires the use of those words, there is no other way, once the allegations are made, the system must follow it's course.

Since hybrid is not a legal term and there is no remedy for it, and according to you, it's mostly allegations and conspiracy theories, it cannot be compared to allegations of being a thief or being corrupt. Surely you understand it is unfair to repeatedly use the term hybrid precisely for these reasons. Conspiracy theories and allegations have no place in running of the government.
Corruption and theft are issues central for an open and honest governance.

 

[alphapak]

Atleast Imran Khan stood up for the Pakistani's self respect every other leader so called leader could not
stand upto the Americans. He said absolutely not for U.S bases and drone strikes, there were 61 drone strikes
in nakli sher Mota Nawaja's 5 years.

 

[Jungibaaz]

You continue to baffle me, I have to protest at your accusation of not being consistent.

I have been very consistent, since it is you who replied to my post, and continue to bring forward new points, that I feel are irrelevant, I am within my rights to answer the new points you bring forward, it is not me who is broadening the scope of this discussion, but you. The lack of consistency is on your part, not mine.

At no point I have opposed criticism of governments, that's an unfair label based on your own assumption, my point was and is very clear and simple. the repeated and constant use of the term hybrid does undermine the government and the state. I have not opposed the use of the term hybrid, merely the parroting of the term, because It has visible ramifications.

You are again bringing forward more points that I am forced to answer. Again, being a thief is a legal term and to accuse someone of corruption or theft requires the use of those words, there is no other way, once the allegations are made, the system must follow it's course.

Since hybrid is not a legal term and there is no remedy for it, and according to you, it's mostly allegations and conspiracy theories, it cannot be compared to allegations of being a thief or being corrupt. Surely you understand it is unfair to repeatedly use the term hybrid precisely for these reasons. Conspiracy theories and allegations have no place in running of the government.
Corruption and theft are issues central for an open and honest governance.

I've pointed at your inconsistency, you can protest, but I'd like to hear you address it at the point that I've explained. Why is it okay to repeatedly call a government corrupt, useless, impotent, subservient, etc. But when the term hybrid is applied repeatedly (by your own definition) is that tantamount to undermining, which you take issue with? Explain that, forget everything else. Why is this line of criticism more pernicious?

Are you saying the only fair line of criticism is one that has direct lexical equivalent to a legal standard, and only that which has been proven? Being part of a hybrid system is surely meaningless and carried no direct link with any legal standard. But how does one arrive at such a system? Compromised courts, rigged elections, political conspiracies to undermine parliament, stifling of media and free speech, kidnap and abduction and unlawful detention of undesirable entities be they political, or media... these are all part of a hybrid system, and there are plenty of laws broken here, constitutional and civil. When they're proven, as they eventually become either a matter of historic record or the subject of a court case, the same will happen with the conspiracies of today.

And I ask you instead of saying that I am bringing forward xyz arguments - if the arguments are irrelevant, explain how why they are and dismiss it, to my mind they were pertinent and explained with some context. And if the arguments are incorrect, elaborate how they are and I'd be obliged to accept.

As for the part in bold, no idea what you mean by "place in running a government", who's running what? And by the last sentence in your post, you are proving the point I made about inconsistency, apparently it seems that all criticisms of government if repeated enough are unfair unless they relate to corruption and thievery and until they're proven in a court. If that is indeed your line of thinking, then let's just agree to disagree, there's no country on earth that applies this standard of discourse. By this standard, not only is all of this hybrid talk is deeply invalid and unfair, but also any accusation against anyone, any political argument unless tied and proven by a legal standard is an attack against the government or office. Do you see my point here?

And lastly, who is to decide what frequency or intensity of an accusation is bad enough for it be considered tantamount to undermining a government (part underlined)? Do I decide? Do you?
Really, let's not think too much of ourselves. All of that which we're discussing here is mostly on the basis of political value judgements.

 

[peagle]

I get the feeling that you are on a ego trip, this discussion is pointless, because you keep raising points that have very clearly been answered, just because you refused to accept or understand, does not mean they have not been answered.

This discussion is not based on your acceptance or rejection of an argument, you need to provide valid arguments, repeating your arguments is not rational. Furthermore, being a retired moderator does not bestow you with the eternal truth, there is a clear smell of arrogance in your approach, to which I strongly object.

I will answer this post, but for any further communications, you will have to justify your objections to my original post, you have deviated from that discussion so much, the contents of this discussion have changed entirely, that's very poor and unfair.

I've pointed at your inconsistency, you can protest, but I'd like to hear you address it at the point that I've explained. Why is it okay to repeatedly call a government corrupt, useless, impotent, subservient, etc. But when the term hybrid is applied repeatedly (by your own definition) is that tantamount to undermining, which you take issue with? Explain that, forget everything else. Why is this line of criticism more pernicious?

You have not pointed out anything, because there are no inconsistencies, you broadened the discussion with new points, which were very clearly answered. Please go back and read, your points were very clearly answered, I cannot understand why you are confused.

Are you saying the only fair line of criticism is one that has direct lexical equivalent to a legal standard, and only that which has been proven? Being part of a hybrid system is surely meaningless and carried no direct link with any legal standard. But how does one arrive at such a system? Compromised courts, rigged elections, political conspiracies to undermine parliament, stifling of media and free speech, kidnap and abduction and unlawful detention of undesirable entities be they political, or media... these are all part of a hybrid system, and there are plenty of laws broken here, constitutional and civil. When they're proven, as they eventually become either a matter of historic record or the subject of a court case, the same will happen with the conspiracies of today.

This simply does not make sense. For one, I have not claimed any of these things. I asked you to explain how the present government is different from the previous governments, which you completely failed to answer, and you have failed to justify your arguments beside repetition, that's not right.

Plus, the above statement has nothing to do with anything I said, therefore I cannot provide any clarification.

And I ask you instead of saying that I am bringing forward xyz arguments - if the arguments are irrelevant, explain how why they are and dismiss it, to my mind they were pertinent and explained with some context. And if the arguments are incorrect, elaborate how they are and I'd be obliged to accept.

I have provided a valid and detailed answer regarding the above point, I cannot force it upon you, and neither do I wish to. You have not provided a suitable rebuttal. Please go back and read.

As for the part in bold, no idea what you mean by "place in running a government", who's running what? And by the last sentence in your post, you are proving the point I made about inconsistency, apparently it seems that all criticisms of government if repeated enough are unfair unless they relate to corruption and thievery and until they're proven in a court. If that is indeed your line of thinking, then let's just agree to disagree, there's no country on earth that applies this standard of discourse. By this standard, not only is all of this hybrid talk is deeply invalid and unfair, but also any accusation against anyone, any political argument unless tied and proven by a legal standard is an attack against the government or office. Do you see my point here?

You continue to astound me with your line of thinking, you are making far too many assumptions and creating your own arguments based on your own assumptions, that is very unfair. You are forcing your assumptions onto me, then expect me to answer your assumptions. how does that make sense?

And lastly, who is to decide what frequency or intensity of an accusation is bad enough for it be considered tantamount to undermining a government (part underlined)? Do I decide? Do you?
Really, let's not think too much of ourselves. All of that which we're discussing here is mostly on the basis of political value judgements.

There is only one person here who thinks too much of himself, and that's not me. Vague discussions and vague points lead us towards a never ending journey.

I have to say, I am extremely disappointed, this continuous broadening of this discussion and making assumptions about things I never said is extremely unfair, and it is simply a waste of time.
I bid you well, you have your views and I have mine.

 

[SaadH]

I fail to understand the logical fallacy some of the haters of IK's gov't engage in, i.e. IK was brought into power by the establishment yet somehow the same establishment had nothing to do with five years of Zardari rule and then PMLN came into power through sheer power of electorate.

Does anyone else sees the dichotomy of this belief?

 

[SIPRA]

Does anyone else sees the dichotomy of this belief?

Yes. e.g. @peagle.

 

[peagle]

Yes. e.g. @peagle.

I actually believe that the power of the vote exists in Pakistan, although the powers that be do have some influence.

Either way, I rather we not shout about it, if it makes Pakistan look bad. Just like Turkey and Indonesia we will get these things sorted, it will take time and for civilians to deliver.

Till then, there is no point in crying, just enjoy the fact that we have Pakistani blood in our veins. Although I'm rather proud of being British as well, dual heritage is never a bad thing lol, and loyalty is important.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I get the feeling that you are on a ego trip, this discussion is pointless, because you keep raising points that have very clearly been answered, just because you refused to accept or understand, does not mean they have not been answered.

You've not answered, instead we've hopped from one tangential remark to another, first you say I'm bringing up too many points, now you're saying I'm on an ego trip. Pls get back on the substance. Why not give me a counterargument instead of these weird remarks that have nothing to do with the points I raised?

And no, I disagree. Let me reaffirm, you have not answered the issues I raised, and I'm beginning to doubt that you want to have a go at answering them. Fact of the matter is, calling this government a hybrid regime can't just be characterised as tantamount to undermining nor is it something to lament about as if it's seriously costing the nation - both of which you did. Which is exactly your point that I objected to which started this debate.

So let's get back on track, if all it takes to undermine a government is to use veiled terms to describe its nature like "hybrid", then it's too weak for its own good. Then it's probably too easy to undermine and doesn't have a leg to stand on in the first place. That is the totality and the essence of my argument.

I then went on to say criticisms can be levied at governments, whether they're of a legal, moral, political, or completely frivolous in nature. It happens everywhere in the world. If it's okay to make one type of unproven claim about them, and as long as we're not breaking the equivalent of libel laws, then it's okay to make the other kind. The ONLY reasons folks such as yourself care to make a distinction is because you are making political value judgements, and then working your way back to this conclusion that calling this government hybrid and wrong etc. etc.

There. Let's cut out all the rest of this argument, and address this issue.

This discussion is not based on your acceptance or rejection of an argument, you need to provide valid arguments, repeating your arguments is not rational. Furthermore, being a retired moderator does not bestow you with the eternal truth, there is a clear smell of arrogance in your approach, to which I strongly object.

Please come off the personal and tangential remarks, whoever said anything about me being a retired mod? Who cares what my rank is? I don't. This is an internet forum, the labels mean almost nothing, in real life you could be a high flying executive, and me a deadbeat. So forget that, I'm debating this as another member.

I humbly ask you stop feeling this way, and making these sorts of comments, and get back to the discussion.

I will answer this post,

ty

but for any further communications, you will have to justify your objections to my original post,

Done, above, and your original post is below. Likewise, any more communications, you must address the points being raised here instead of making remarks about you being baffled, or amazed, or something about my title here etc. etc. etc.

you have deviated from that discussion so much, the contents of this discussion have changed entirely, that's very poor and unfair.

Feel free to ignore everything else and get back to the subject of why you think that calling the system "hybrid" is unfair, undermining, and bad for the state of Pakistan. Here's your original post quoted and highlighted for brevity:

Pakistan has been a hybrid regime in one form or another since 1958, the issue isn't how we are classified. The issue is the childish use of this term to undermine an existing government.

This term has been overused to describe this government, which undermines the authority of the government, therefore the state of Pakistan.
The Nawaz and Zardari governments were also the same, like the ones that came before. But this term was not used as religiously as it has been for this government.

It makes no difference to me, but it is important to point out the unrecognised aspects, and the resultant harm it does to the nation. Recognise it, describe it, but don't do it to spit anyone, especially if it harms the state of Pakistan, which it does.

And my original argument was simply calling a spade a spade is not a sin. If it does harm to criticise the state, then the state is too weak for its own good and needs to change. I argued that it's an integral part of democracies to question governments and power structures.

Now I've removed all the noise, and focussed this post back on the original subject, while ignoring everything else we've meandered into. I truly don't think that the above line of thinking of yours is justifiable if you want a vibrant democratic system, which ironically would allow for people to call it a hybrid system without all of this pearl clutching.

 

[peagle]

You've not answered, instead we've hopped from one tangential remark to another, first you say I'm bringing up too many points, now you're saying I'm on an ego trip. Pls get back on the substance. Why not give me a counterargument instead of these weird remarks that have nothing to do with the points I raised?

And no, I disagree. Let me reaffirm, you have not answered the issues I raised, and I'm beginning to doubt that you want to have a go at answering them. Fact of the matter is, calling this government a hybrid regime can't just be characterised as tantamount to undermining nor is it something to lament about as if it's seriously costing the nation - both of which you did. Which is exactly your point that I objected to which started this debate.

So let's get back on track, if all it takes to undermine a government is to use veiled terms to describe its nature like "hybrid", then it's too weak for its own good. Then it's probably too easy to undermine and doesn't have a leg to stand on in the first place. That is the totality and the essence of my argument.

I then went on to say criticisms can be levied at governments, whether they're of a legal, moral, political, or completely frivolous in nature. It happens everywhere in the world. If it's okay to make one type of unproven claim about them, and as long as we're not breaking the equivalent of libel laws, then it's okay to make the other kind. The ONLY reasons folks such as yourself care to make a distinction is because you are making political value judgements, and then working your way back to this conclusion that calling this government hybrid and wrong etc. etc.

There. Let's cut out all the rest of this argument, and address this issue.



Please come off the personal and tangential remarks, whoever said anything about me being a retired mod? Who cares what my rank is? I don't. This is an internet forum, the labels mean almost nothing, in real life you could be a high flying executive, and me a deadbeat. So forget that, I'm debating this as another member.

I humbly ask you stop feeling this way, and making these sorts of comments, and get back to the discussion.



ty



Done, above, and your original post is below. Likewise, any more communications, you must address the points being raised here instead of making remarks about you being baffled, or amazed, or something about my title here etc. etc. etc.



Feel free to ignore everything else and get back to the subject of why you think that calling the system "hybrid" is unfair, undermining, and bad for the state of Pakistan. Here's your original post quoted and highlighted for brevity:



And my original argument was simply calling a spade a spade is not a sin. If it does harm to criticise the state, then the state is too weak for its own good and needs to change. I argued that it's an integral part of democracies to question governments and power structures.

Now I've removed all the noise, and focussed this post back on the original subject, while ignoring everything else we've meandered into. I truly don't think that the above line of thinking of yours is justifiable if you want a vibrant democratic system, which ironically would allow for people to call it a hybrid system without all of this pearl clutching.

I have not read this post because this discussion has lost all it's meaning, and it's become pointless. I have nothing more to say to you, I bid you farewell.
I hope you find peace.



@Norwegian I'm glad we were able to entertain you lol

 

[Jungibaaz]

Waste of time. Likewise.