Generals in Pakistan Push for Shake-Up of Government

[Tuahaa]

Once Pakistan relatively stabilizes then other political parties(or army) might start getting ambitious.

Its been unstable ever since the return of democracy...

Democracy does not automatically mean good, nor does dictatorship automatically mean bad.

If Pakistan relatively stabilizes, then Army won't think about interfering. They have had more hand in politics than what you'd expect from an average 3rd world country. Other political parties wouldn't be 'getting the vote' if Pakistan is on its way to success.

No, we can't wait for a few more years. Its been two years since return of democracy and Pakistan is going down the toilet head first.

 

[somebozo]

American officials, too, say it has left them increasingly disillusioned with Mr. Zardari, a deeply unpopular president who was elected two and a half years ago on a wave of sympathy after the assassination of his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Anyone being elected on sympathy is discreditied on his / her own!

 

[DGMO]

present govt. will limber on till the present economic and humanitarian crisis are resolved.

That's the problem, a resolution is not in sight, and things are expected to get worse.

Once Pakistan relatively stabilizes then other political parties(or army) might start getting ambitious.

Again, stability at present seems a long way away. If inflation hits 20% as expected in the next few months, this electorate will get further restless. We could be heading towards all out anarchy - a world away from the stability which we all crave.

If it gets that messy, then I wouldn't be surprised if the army steps onto the streets to quell the unrest - or into Aiwan-e-Sadr.

 

[Von Hölle]

Its been unstable ever since the return of democracy...

Democracy does not automatically mean good, nor does dictatorship automatically mean bad.

If Pakistan relatively stabilizes, then Army won't think about interfering. They have had more hand in politics than what you'd expect from an average 3rd world country. Other political parties wouldn't be 'getting the vote' if Pakistan is on its way to success.

No, we can't wait for a few more years. Its been two years since return of democracy and Pakistan is going down the toilet head first.

If you look at the events carefully, you will see the process of destabilization had already begun while the army was still in power.

Economic growth had started to slow down(GDP growth rate fell by almost 2% in 2007)..the economic bubble of consumption led growth had finally burst.

Army had already started operation against Taliban .. retaliation against Pakistani cities had started.

Global economic recession was setting in.

And oil prices had started increasing.

Present govt had inherited steadily deterioration situation but were inept stopping this downward spiral.

 

[karan.1970]

Yarrrrr
Pakistan is in such crises time
very corrupt govt. corrupt minister presd: PM the entire elite class is curropt still few people say let them complete their five year.
"how moronic"
the change must be brought through suprem courst not army.

Bang on.. Thats exactly what I am saying. Use the democratic means to throw out the democratically elected govt. If people get together, then there are many ways to do that. Remember that the same people were able to get rid of a dictator as well..

Getting army into every thing creates multiple power centers in the country and that can never be good..

 

[karan.1970]

Its been unstable ever since the return of democracy...

Democracy does not automatically mean good, nor does dictatorship automatically mean bad.

If Pakistan relatively stabilizes, then Army won't think about interfering. They have had more hand in politics than what you'd expect from an average 3rd world country. Other political parties wouldn't be 'getting the vote' if Pakistan is on its way to success.

No, we can't wait for a few more years. Its been two years since return of democracy and Pakistan is going down the toilet head first.

u are right. Democracy does not mean good all the time and Dictatorship does not mean bad all the time.

However Democracy always means that the people can get rid of the govt if it does not perform.

No such luxury in Dictatorship... See North Korea..

 

[Solomon2]

Its been unstable ever since the return of democracy...Democracy does not automatically mean good, nor does dictatorship automatically mean bad.

I think Pakistani democracy needs revision at the grass-roots level. Too much is top-down. A system more like the American and less like the British would serve Pakistan better because there would be more empowerment at the local level to throw crooks out - a necessity in a state with poor rule-of-law.

My question is, are individual Pakistanis really motivated to start such a revolution, rather than just grouse about it? From the British experience at government responsibility and democracy reform (Wilkes, 1770s) such change begins in districts controlled by the middle-class, not the very rich or very poor. And it isn't easy - not at first, anyway. Which Pakistanis at PDF are willing to drop their keyboards to step forward?

 

[Awesome]

If he can dictate terms to define operational mechanism for the president of the country, then I would say he already has the power and doesn't need to assume it.

You're assuming that he somehow, magically is responsible for Zardari being in the present situation, and not Zardari himself.

1) The people are seeing a no-way-out situation from Zardari, due to this civilian dictatorship type democracy and they are suggesting that Kayani takes over. What is Kayani fundamentally? Till he doesn't start pointing it at people, a man with a gun hasn't held anyone hostage.

The man with the gun is saying "Dude, I really don't want to use this, so don't f things up and make a situation where there is no way out". That is a lot different than making Zardari bend to his will. There is no personal gain, there is no political ideology being enforced - there is nothing in it for Kayani. If you can prove anything otherwise, please tell me.

2) Democracy is a process, it is not people dependent. A man with a 100% mandate can be elected and declare himself king and then say there will be no more elections. Do we allow it since technically he has the democratic right to be undemocratic? Also mind you, Zardari came to the man with the gun, the man with the gun didn't come to Zardari waving his weapon threateningly.

A lot of rumors are abound, but the only person who officially involved Kayani, who officially came to the military to seek out the military's opinion on all the coup talks - that was Zardari. So give credit to Kayani where its due, he has made it clear that hes not interested in a military coup and demonstrably hes not Zardari's puppeteer since they went ahead with the Kerry Lugar bill against his wish.

 

[Awesome]

I think Pakistani democracy needs revision at the grass-roots level. Too much is top-down. A system more like the American and less like the British would serve Pakistan better because there would be more empowerment at the local level to throw crooks out - a necessity in a state with poor rule-of-law.

My question is, are individual Pakistanis really motivated to start such a revolution, rather than just grouse about it? From the British experience at government responsibility and democracy reform (Wilkes, 1770s) such change begins in districts controlled by the middle-class, not the very rich or very poor. And it isn't easy - not at first, anyway. Which Pakistanis at PDF are willing to drop their keyboards to step forward?

Musharraf had done one good thing to encourage democracy at the grass root levels, that is to introduce Local Nazims, who were elected officials in every town. Unfortunately the political parties first subverted them when each Nazim was officially supposed to be independent of all political parties, but ended up being aligned to one or the other.

This should have been corrected not abolished. Problem is same, most people who vote, are from rural farmland areas. They all live on lands owned by feudal lords. Most feudal lords run for office and all of them end up getting the votes from the people that live on their lands.

This is not democracy this is just who controls more mindless zombies at the time of elections.

 

[karan.1970]

You're assuming that he somehow, magically is responsible for Zardari being in the present situation, and not Zardari himself.




1) The people are seeing a no-way-out situation from Zardari, due to this civilian dictatorship type democracy and they are suggesting that Kayani takes over. What is Kayani fundamentally? Till he doesn't start pointing it at people, a man with a gun hasn't held anyone hostage.

The man with the gun is saying "Dude, I really don't want to use this, so don't f things up and make a situation where there is no way out". That is a lot different than making Zardari bend to his will. There is no personal gain, there is no political ideology being enforced - there is nothing in it for Kayani. If you can prove anything otherwise, please tell me.

Not really.. A man with a gun walks up to a civvie and says .. Dude, see this gun.. Dont make me take this out and point at you.. So give me your wallet.. I persoanlly consider this as bad as any other hold up.. Threat of violence is as bad a violence to enforce a mandate.

About personal gain, you are just assuming..Just like I cant prove there is a gain, you cant prove there isnt.

What is however clear is that this kind of strong arming is not democratic. Kayani is the military chief. He is neither in legislature, not executive and nor in judiciary. Democratically he has no business deciding taking this stand. Benovolent dictator is as Oxymoronic as you can get..

2) Democracy is a process, it is not people dependent. A man with a 100% mandate can be elected and declare himself king and then say there will be no more elections. Do we allow it since technically he has the democratic right to be undemocratic? Also mind you, Zardari came to the man with the gun, the man with the gun didn't come to Zardari waving his weapon threateningly.

A man with 100% mandate also can not operate outside the constitution. Thats why judiciary exists.. And he does not have the right to be undemocratic even technically since Constitution does not allow for elections to be abolished..

A lot of rumors are abound, but the only person who officially involved Kayani, who officially came to the military to seek out the military's opinion on all the coup talks - that was Zardari. So give credit to Kayani where its due, he has made it clear that hes not interested in a military coup and demonstrably hes not Zardari's puppeteer since they went ahead with the Kerry Lugar bill against his wish.

My comments are not against the individual but the concept of army deciding whether the political system is working or not. Not their job.. Nor their mandate.

 

[Solomon2]

This should have been corrected not abolished. Problem is same, most people who vote, are from rural farmland areas. They all live on lands owned by feudal lords. Most feudal lords run for office and all of them end up getting the votes from the people that live on their lands.

Yep. That's why bottom-up democracy is desirable. Let the peasants run their own primaries and elections under objective supervision and ignore what is desired at higher political levels. Eventually the lord will have to conform to the popular will or somebody else gets elected, maybe on a plank of wealth redistribution of some sort or the other. Naturally the powers-that-be will try to oppose this; that is the hard part. That's also why it's easier to begin such a revolution with the urban classes. Yes, it may smack of socialism or communism, but the Soviet threat is gone and this is the best way to keep feudal lords, corrupt officials, and exploitative plutocrats in check.

 

[Awesome]

Not really.. A man with a gun walks up to a civvie and says .. Dude, see this gun.. Dont make me take this out and point at you.. So give me your wallet.. I persoanlly consider this as bad as any other hold up.. Threat of violence is as bad a violence to enforce a mandate.

Actually you misrepresent the example.

1) He said Dude see this gun, I don't want to take this out, so don't steal everybody else's wallets. If Zardari does the job he's supposed to do, there won't be any need for a coup.

What would you suppose happen in India if the elected government says we'll kill 100 Million Indians to control the population? At some point when things get out of hand, there has to be some sort of check and balance.

About personal gain, you are just assuming..Just like I cant prove there is a gain, you cant prove there isnt.

He has said that he doesn't want to be in power, he didn't assume Musharraf's presidency. He had plenty of opportunity to coup, especially during the long march when the people were marching towards Islamabad.

What is however clear is that this kind of strong arming is not democratic. Kayani is the military chief. He is neither in legislature, not executive and nor in judiciary. Democratically he has no business deciding taking this stand. Benovolent dictator is as Oxymoronic as you can get..

To be a dictator you need to dictate something that would be active governance. He commented upon the lack of governance. To be a dictator you have to subvert democracy, he only asked Zardari to return to the constitution - when asked by Zardari himself.

A man with 100% mandate also can not operate outside the constitution. Thats why judiciary exists..

Yes but who implements the judiciary's orders? The judiciary said "Open the swiss cases, NRO is illegal" Now Zardari has to implement that order and he says "Nope, don't feel like it". The judiciary can only pass judgement, the implementation has to be done by the government.

And he does not have the right to be undemocratic even technically since Constitution does not allow for elections to be abolished..

Coming back to a milder version of the 100 million people killed argument, similarly what happens when still Zardari does something undemocratic and says nope I'll do as I please. Which he has done, by disobeying the supreme court.

My comments are not against the individual but the concept of army deciding whether the political system is working or not. Not their job.. Nor their mandate.

I don't prefer the return of the military, even when PAkistan is at the brink of total collapse. But I'm defending Kayani as it is unfair to label him as a dictator for this incident.

 

[Awesome]

Yep. That's why bottom-up democracy is desirable. Let the peasants run their own primaries and elections under objective supervision and ignore what is desired at higher political levels. Eventually the lord will have to conform to the popular will or somebody else gets elected, maybe on a plank of wealth redistribution of some sort or the other. Naturally the powers-that-be will try to oppose this; that is the hard part. That's also why it's easier to begin such a revolution with the urban classes. Yes, it may smack of socialism or communism, but the Soviet threat is gone and this is the best way to keep feudal lords, corrupt officials, and exploitative plutocrats in check.

Hmmm nope the feudal lord will have the peasant killed once he votes against him. The police live on his land as well. The Bhuttos for example own real estate as far as the eye can see, then multiply that by 10.

Distribution of wealth has always been theorized but never implemented. It is I feel the first step towards democracy for Pakistan. Otherwise we're just playing pretend democracy every 5 years.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Not really.. A man with a gun walks up to a civvie and says .. Dude, see this gun.. Dont make me take this out and point at you.. So give me your wallet.. I persoanlly consider this as bad as any other hold up.. Threat of violence is as bad a violence to enforce a mandate.

About personal gain, you are just assuming..Just like I cant prove there is a gain, you cant prove there isnt.

What is however clear is that this kind of strong arming is not democratic. Kayani is the military chief. He is neither in legislature, not executive and nor in judiciary. Democratically he has no business deciding taking this stand. Benovolent dictator is as Oxymoronic as you can get..





A man with 100% mandate also can not operate outside the constitution. Thats why judiciary exists.. And he does not have the right to be undemocratic even technically since Constitution does not allow for elections to be abolished..




My comments are not against the individual but the concept of army deciding whether the political system is working or not. Not their job.. Nor their mandate.

Nothing of the sort is going on. The current government is in legal mud and its clear that shake up is going to take place under the law according to rules and regulations of Constitution without any sort of gun visible or unvisible.

The unconstitutional steps have to be reversed . Kiyani has nothing to do with those or removal of these unconstitutional elements.
Yesterday he met Zardari and PM and assured them of support to democracy.

 

[Solomon2]

Hmmm nope the feudal lord will have the peasant killed once he votes against him. The police live on his land as well. The Bhuttos for example own real estate as far as the eye can see, then multiply that by 10.

Which is why any such revolution needs to be as noisy as possible, to deter such actions by the feudal lord, in the knowledge that if they go that far rule-of-law will be so undermined that the police and army will turn against them. Officials who enter office through free elections thus establish their own legitimacy.

Distribution of wealth has always been theorized but never implemented.

Most of the time the landlord gives in rather than lose everything. But if you just break up huge estates you'll end up creating a new ruling class; individual rights and rule-of-law need to be established at the same moment or before. Better to tame the rich through rule-of-law and some sort of compensation than send them to the guillotine or destroy the right of the individual to own property.