Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sir,
I see Musharraf as an envisioned man with a mission who's trying to make up for the lost time and put Pakistan back where it should have been now. Lack of strong democratic and civil leadership is whats stopping him from giving up.
You are in a chicken and egg situation. He wont resign because there is no strong democratic and civil leadership but the strong democratic and civil leadership will not develop until he resigns and allows them to function.
The problem is that the same vultures are waiting in the background. If Pak could get a fresh political setup.
I recently saw a documentary where Musharaf was interviewed where he said something that struck me as being true. He said that "the problem with Pakistan was that they were trying to put democracy on top of a feudal society. "
People don't vote with someone who is of a political philosophy. They vote for the leader of their "tribe" And the problem here is that they WILL vote one of those cretins back in again to create a big mess.
and what was the army doing during all these years of army rule?
In pakistan the army was in control for majority of years and for any neutral observer, it will have to carry the burden of major ills in the society. If after 30-40 years of rule, where they didnt had to look at the people's pulse, taking some strong measures is it so difficult?
It was difficult because they didnt had to look after the long term welfare of Pakistan, but only the long term welfare of their armed forces.
That the feudal system still exists in Pakistan, I blame Pakistan's armed forces for it.
Japan, India or any other nation had feudal system, but one ought break it and it requires lot of political will and care for the nation.
The problem is that theare waiting in the background. If Pak could get a fresh political setup.same vultures
I recently saw a documentary where Musharaf was interviewed where he said something that struck me as being true. He said that "the problem with Pakistan was that they were trying to put democracy on top of a feudal society. "
People don't vote with someone who is of a political philosophy. They vote for the leader of their "tribe" And the problem here is that they WILL vote one of those cretins back in again to create a big mess.
He said that "the problem with Pakistan was that they were trying to put democracy on top of a feudal society. "
People don't vote with someone who is of a political philosophy. They vote for the leader of their "tribe" And the problem here is that they WILL vote one of those cretins back in again to create a big mess.
The extent or the hold of the feudal system has decreased. That is why you see all over India, in every state (except WB), there have been governments from two different parties in the last 10-15 years. You see, after emergency, the congress was completely swept out, but after Indira died, complete vote was for congress, which would have happened if there was a high level of feudal strangle hold.Sorry but that is not true.......How can the army break feudal systems? In Japan it was the Emperor who broke it (And don't kind yourself that it doesn't still exist in India).
That highest political elite in Pakistan is the armed forces, which has been at the helm for more than 2/3rds of Pakistan independent time.The problem comes down to the fact that the political elite are the same people who benefit from the status quo.
Have they questioned, why cant they?Oh and the armed forces have driven forward pak in many senses but they cannot restructure society.
If you(army) are at the helm and cant do the job, then get the f*king out of that job.That is the job of Civilians
Why sir? They could have said sorry, we are not into politics and would firmly stay out of it (like in 1989). They didnt in 50's, 75, and 99. When they accepted to be part of politics and are the leaders of the proponents of it, they will have to share the blame for the failure of the political system.Army is not to blame for the failure of political system in Pakistan, the democratic leaders are!
When the first time, they went to army, if the army had said no, they wouldnt have come back. Remember the first time they ran to army, the political structure was weak.They started running to the army right from the beginning and expected PA to deal with each and every crisis.
Civil leadership fed the PA or militarism in Pakistan, not the other way around.
The extent or the hold of the feudal system has decreased. That is why you see all over India, in every state (except WB), there have been governments from two different parties in the last 10-15 years. You see, after emergency, the congress was completely swept out, but after Indira died, complete vote was for congress, which would have happened if there was a high level of feudal strangle hold.
Ofcourse it helped that congress's strength was from peasants and business class, which was against feudal lords. Unfortunately for Pakistan, ML's support was from feudal lords and so they would have had to break the feudal system, they had to break themselves.
That highest political elite in Pakistan is the armed forces, which has been at the helm for more than 2/3rds of Pakistan independent time.
Have they questioned, why cant they?
If you(army) are at the helm and cant do the job, then get the f*king out of that job.
No second thoughts about that.
When the civilian administrators have no guarentee that they will last the complete term even if they have 2/3rds majority and always fear about the army's clout. Where will be the time for governance?
Again Musharraf is the man who can change that due strong political will.