What's new

Democracy off track

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Democracy off track

By Cyril Almeida

Friday, 10 Sep, 2010

"In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies that themselves have been fairly genuinely elected, there isn’t a single example of when the army has acted publicly or privately to support Zardari."

Two years of the accidental president and two and a half of a transitional parliament, and, let’s be honest, things aren’t looking good on the democracy front.

Everyone’s got their own theory — they were always crooks, what’d you expect; incompetence begets incompetence; they’re just looking to make money and scamper off; etc — but the conclusion is pretty much the same: the country won’t be better off at the end of the latest experiment in democratic (!) governance (!!).

But that’s only part of the story. Leave aside all the sins of omission and commission by the politicians for a minute (admittedly, a difficult task) and focus on the 800-pound gorilla of Pakistani politics: the army.

In a complex world, few things could be simpler: if democracy is to be strengthened, the army’s political power and influence must recede. It may not be a sufficient condition, but it is definitely a necessary condition. Yet, since the exit of Musharraf, the opposite has happened, and if it wasn’t entirely by design, it clearly was by no accident either.

Consider. The army has a chief who has become our latest indispensable. The army controls the national security and foreign policy domains. The army calls the shots on the fight against militancy inside the country. The army has selectively intervened in the democratic process (reinstatement of CJ Iftikhar).

The army has contemptuously slapped away ham-fisted, OK nonsensical, attempts at civilian control (ISI under the interior ministry) and policymaking (no-first-strike nuclear doctrine). The army has cut the government off at the knees over non-issues (we are getting Kerry-Lugar aid exactly under the terms originally approved by Congress; Cameron’s remarks are at the very least matched, if not outdone, frequently by American rhetoric).

I’m no theorist, but it seems to me that all this talk of democracy failing in Pakistan yet again and that being the fault of the civilian politicians yet again misses a very big point: the biggest and best organised political party in the country, the Pakistan Army, has been very, very naughty over the past couple of years.

You don’t need to have any sympathy for politicians to figure out that the democracy train isn’t going to reach its destination if the army is occasionally pulling out a sleeper or two from underneath the track along the way.

Nonsense, say the army’s apologists. The army has got its hands full, and isn’t interested in politics. If the civilians got their act together and governed properly, the army would stay in its barracks and would gradually become irrelevant, they claim.

The examples of governmental incompetence come pouring out. The only reason Kayani is forced to shepherd the strategic dialogue with the US is because the bureaucrats and politicians can’t be bothered to put together a basic report on anything, the apologists claim.

The army never tried to exclude the government from the fight against militancy, the army’s fans argue. Look at Swat, the civilians couldn’t even rebuild mosques and schools after the fighting had ceased. Look at the cities, where counter-terrorism is a police-led fight, what have the governments done to improve the police or overhaul the criminal justice system to deal with terrorists, those enamoured of the army ask.

Many, if not most, of the questions and accusations are true — a weak government shouldn’t complain if others occupy the spaces it shows little interest or competence in occupying.

But this is Pakistan and this place has its own history, a history which indicates that the army is a canny operator, more organised and cleverer than the politicians, and with a sense of when to opt for strategic retreat and when to embark on unobtrusive encroachment.

The problem with this area is that much of it descends into a blame game and farce. With so much at stake, both sides tend to heap all the blame on the other. The truth, as it often is, lies somewhere in the middle.

The accidental president has proved to be an accident of very bad timing. If the last couple of years had been a period in which Pakistan was bumbling along, say, with a four-five per cent GDP growth rate, militancy that is extant, not rampant, the avarice and incompetence of the present lot could perhaps have been absorbed and the country would have emerged to live another, possibly better, day.

But this isn’t just another period in Pakistan’s history, it is a defining one. The country needed experience and serious leadership, true statesmanship; instead, it got Zardari & co. History will not remember that Zardari & co were just representative of all that Pakistani politics has to offer; history will just remember that they have failed this country at a crucial point.

(In the 1950s, Pakistan had seven prime minister in the space of seven years leading up to Ayub’s coup. Most Pakistanis would struggle to name more than two, but Ghulam Mohammad, the governor general, has emerged as an arch-villain from that era. Could Zardari be our 21st-century villain?)

On the other side, all the finger-pointing in the world by the army’s apologists will not change the fact that their side has not shown the restraint and humility it demands from the politicians.

In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies that themselves have been fairly genuinely elected, there isn’t a single example of when the army has acted publicly or privately to support Zardari. There is on the contrary every sign that they have enjoyed his travails and misfortunes.

The great irony of the past couple of years is that the 800-pound gorilla has often got away with pretending to be the innocent babe, while the real new kid on the block, maybe not innocent but definitely inexperienced, has ended up becoming everyone’s favourite whipping boy, a monster with powers he can only dream of having.

cyril.a@gmail.com
 
^^^
Is Cyril Almeida being an "apologist" for politicians or just confirming that he is a "dyed in the wool" votary of Democracy?

Having read only a little of Cyril Almeida's writings, i will not claim any undue familiarity with his views; one way or another. However, it stands to reason that any believer in the essential principles of Democracy will be "uncomfortable" with any large role of an Army in governance or policy-making.

In the Democratic "mosaic", an Army is an important but not very large part(and definitely an overshadowing part). Its very function is (or should be) clearly defined. Governance is not part of that. Let us take this idea a little further; can anybody define a role for an Army in Law-making or Law-dispensing? In other words, an Army cannot (and should not) take over the role of the Judiciary either.
An Army by its very definition is NOT an open institution; rather by its very ethos and functions, it has to be an autocratic organisation. How much does that resonate with the essence of Democracy?

If these areas of responsibility and powers are either ill-defined or easily encroached upon; what happens to the State?
Very likely, it degenerates into a "Banana Republic".
 
Which ever stupid wrote this article should have a good look at zardari records and academic credentials before arguing in his favour for being a president.

Stupid Pakistani politicians dont even understands basic issues like importance of Kashmir and Afghanistan. Why are be at fight with India? Our strategic clout in Arab countries and how does it reflect us. Most of the Pakistani politicians will turn India appologist after coming into power, shrink Pakistan armed forces to mere para-milltary force and gradually turn Pakistan into a Bengladesh like lonely state always at behest of India.
 
Can't really agree with Cyril on this -- Mr. Zardari succeeds or fails by what he and his PPP have done, what the people perceive them to have done - Was it the army's responsibility to be cheer leaders for Zardari ? Did the armed forces create the problems Mr. Zardari and his PPP faces?

If the Army is doing X and Y and Z, isn't it because Mr. Zardari and his PPP government refuse to do the job and the army has had to do the job?

Seems Cyril is persuaded that the armed forces owe it to the PPP to not only do their jobs for them but also be the butt of the PPP's resentment against the armed forces.

Lets turn it around, imagine that the PPP government was a normal government 10 to 15 ministers, not 100 flunkies, imagine that the economy was better managed and not Benazir economy (she's dead but her cult of personality must go on, for the sake of the awam, surely), and what if relations with the US, now and then, included Pakistani interests, and imagine that Zardari and his PPP cared more about Pakistan the country and not Pakistan, the inheritance of the little prince?? Would Cyril have been complaining about the armed forces role?
 
stupid article there is no so called Democracy in PAkistan... without US and Army approval no one able to sit in presidency...
 
If Zardari migrate to India or America he might find more support and votes than in Pakistan.

In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies

First sentence of article is a big joke.

Why voters were asked to produce pictures of their vote?
Why election commission kept quite on open rigging?
Who threatened HEC chairman over fake degree row?
If a common MNA can be disqualified for submitting a fake degree why he cannot be impeached for same crime?

He is more unpopular in Pakistan than OBL is in US.
 
This democracy we have is not democracy as , we have
a uneducated class that is controled by feudal lords, and they give rice and other perks to farmers to vote the rich feudal lords

a) We need a controled dicator ship a nationalist dictator
is what we need to help move national development

b) Democracy is not working in our land because , we have sense of
kins ship and idea of reins of nation being passed on to children
and offspring with no credebility.

c) Democracy is not working due to the regional provincial divide
we have we need to divide the provinces into 24 regions

Untill our nation has 80% education literacy rate , and our GDP is 3,000 USD per family
democracy will not work for our country


Oil
Gas
Electrcity
telecommunication
Steels
Airlines
manufacturing
Construction

Are all national assets from which gov has to gain and make profits
right now we are not utalizing our potential from these industries
 
I would ask if your democracy is really off track.
Sorry but you get the idiots you elect.

Unfortunately from an outsider when I see this sort of news article I am somewhat amused by the article in the first post.

Non-serious lawmakers
Dawn Editorial
Saturday, 11 Sep, 2010

The performance of our lawmakers is less than inspiring. But when legislators show lack of seriousness in discussing such sensitive matters as the country’s worst-ever natural disaster, some introspection is in order. According to a report in this newspaper, only 10 per cent of members participated in a National Assembly debate on the flood situation in the recently concluded session, which was specially requisitioned by the opposition to discuss the disaster.

Members veered wildly from the agenda, spending a large part of the session criticising each other. The floods were only discussed on the third and final day. Resolutions that had nothing to do with the floods were adopted; 30 points of order — statements and speeches and not actual points of order — gobbled up nearly five hours of the session; on the last day only about 21 lawmakers were present, indicating that the house was clearly inquorate.

The problems highlighted in the report, which quotes figures from the Free and Fair Election Network, a watchdog body, are perennial. Figures suggest that even in normal times only half of the lawmakers participate in the house’s proceedings while many items on the agenda remain unfulfilled. This non-serious attitude is not limited to the National Assembly; provincial legislators usually turn in similarly lacklustre performances. We must ask the question: do our lawmakers understand what is expected of them as elected representatives of the public? The prime minister has called for an all-parties conference to discuss the floods. But what will be the use of such an exercise, considering that the politicians failed to utilise their time for this purpose in parliament? Better discipline in the house and improved legislative output is in order, especially concerning vital matters such as flood relief and rehabilitation. Otherwise the impression that politicians are callous, self-serving and petty will only be reinforced.

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Non-serious lawmakers

The bold section seem to be all encompassing of the current situation.
 
Ratus, he was never popular enough to win a single seat by public vote in any part of state.
It is our flawed democratic system which had him elected.
Judiciary should have rejected his election as he did not followed the rules and committed forgery before buying his way to the presidency.
Pakistan's governance and election system is not fair hence any democratic govt. elected through same process will remain unfair.
It same unfairly elected members of assembly who change the constitution unfairly to their own benefit.
 
There is a difference--

Democratic system and Democratic government.
Pakistan has democratic system now but the democratic government is incapable to deliver. If a mid term election takes place, it is in the best interests of Pakistan and democratic system.

The present government along with 'bandar bant' (collation gov) are misleading the people by saying that if there is a mid term election, democratic system will fail. It is quite immature and pathetic approach. Well, it is not an approach rather a rabbit in the hat of our government to mislead people.

Pakistan Army should take over the government, organize elections in ninety day period under supreme court and an independent election commission. Critics think that if the army takes over the country, we will not see any election in the near future considering past track record. My argument is a little different--Generals in the army are not bound to follow the old patterns, change is an evolutionary process. Furthermore, I think that if the army takes over with the intention of organizing free and fair elections, they will do it this time.

OR

Organize a free and fair election under supreme court and election commission without a direct interference of army.

OR

Current government and the corrupt collation partners should start to deliver. However, I am strictly against it. The corrupt and illiterate politicians should be given capital punishment. Why not prison? Well, it takes money to feed the scums and we do not have it. Pakistanis should not forget what their political leadership, bureaucracy etc did
 
Last edited:
Pigs will fly when army supports zardari..do you think the last creditable institute on Pakistani soil would risk its pride by standing being idol of corruption??
 
If govt. need Pakistanis to come forward and help them in need and not leave them alone in difficult times, than we also cannot leave the matters of governance, constitution and state affairs to their mercy.
 
The people of Pakistan should revolt and each person should take the responsiblity to kill the MNA of their area..with these looters gone country will be in better hands..Why dont sucide bombers or terrorists target them??
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom