Military rule VS Political rule

[lonedrifter]

In 63 years history of Pakistan which one was best for Pakistan, in terms of GDP growth, Infrastructure, Education, Construction of dams, Roads, etc... booth ruled for equal amount of time.Its not about one person or a party take all the political govs VS Military ones and please do elaborate why ones better than the other.




Cant find the option for polls...

 

[Evil Flare]

yes ... its Military Rule did more good to Pakistan rather than democracy

 

[truthseeker2010]

Military Junta!

 

[graphican]

Militry rules give the country a short-lived economic boosts and eventually bring it down further from the point they had started. Has those 33 years not been "enough for experiment" ? Who brought this corrupt government soon after dictatorship?.. now dont' say it wasn't Musharaf!

 

[ajtr]

military is like steroids which gives instant boost and its effect wears off as quickly.Political rule is like antibiotics which works slowly but gives permanent cure.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Interesting topic,

if we look at statistics, the period of FM Ayub Khan, and Gen Zia were the best.

Again, non muslims have a skewed way of looking at statistics !

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

Interesting topic,

if we look at statistics, the period of FM Ayub Khan, and Gen Zia were the best.

Again, non muslims have a skewed way of looking at statistics !

 

[lonedrifter]

Militry rules give the country a short-lived economic boosts and eventually bring it down further from the point they had started.

I don't get it construction of roads, dams , sea ports ,foreign investment etc.. how can this be short term.

 

[pak-marine]

military business thrives in war , civilian business thrives in peace ... hope this help us figure

 

[integra]

Military dictatorship gives a short term boost but it destroys proper healthy democracy. Without the practice of a long running continuous democracy you end up with hot headed corrupt politicians. The problem is when the military's gone, everyone goes berserk. So the development during the military regime never materializes properly.

 

[mikkix]

The debate is like a "pehle murgi paida howi thi ya Unda"
BHaiyon system ki implementation is the real issue, if we do it we will go ahead.
No military and democracy for Pakistan, both are Goras system.
Islamic system is a combination of both democracy and military.
Big debate.

 

[naveed qaiser]

An interesting feature of civilian rule in Pakistan is that within a year or so of the establishment of a civilian government, speculative reports abound about its collapse or removal. The media publishes stories about corruption, mismanagement, infighting in the government, estrangement of the top brass of the military or the shifting priorities of the West, especially the US. Such speculative reports get updated periodically on the deadline for the removal of the government. Such speculations were quite common during 1988-1999 when the weak and divided civilian governments were subjected to extra-parliamentary pressures. Three governments were removed by the president with the blessings of the army chief (1990, 1993 and 1996). The fourth civilian government was removed by the army top brass in a military takeover in October 1999.
The post-2008 election civilian political arrangements are in the third year. Since the civilian government took reign there have been ample stories in circulation in the political circles and echoed by the media that the days are numbered for the PPP-led federal government, or at least for President Asif Ali Zardari. Some deadlines for this possible development have passed but the interested political circles have not given up hope for a change to their satisfaction.
Such scenario making does not envisage any role for parliament in political change. The authors of these scenarios either talk about the role of the top brass of the military or the superior judiciary for the removal of some key personalities in the government or the whole government. Now the attention is focused on the Supreme Court with the hope that it lash out President Zardari and a number of senior members of the government to continue in office. The shadows of some intelligence agencies can be seen in the selective campaign against Zardari and his Govt.

 

[BlackenTheSky]

When military rule comes,it tries to satisfy governmet by taking the steps which have really bad consequences in future,but they do not care,when political parties come,they start to fight within and can't do the governance.

 

[BlackenTheSky]

Interesting topic,

if we look at statistics, the period of FM Ayub Khan, and Gen Zia were the best.

He was a killer of democracy,he killed bhutto.so dont take his name,the worst person ever born in Pakistan.(and improve your knowledge about zia)

 

[somebozo]

Milltary rule did well for time being but always left a bigger mess to handle later om...we should let democracy run for a while

if we look at statistics, the period of FM Ayub Khan, and Gen Zia were the best.

This is what ignorance breed really of children listen to parents faulty opnions..

Ayub Khan lost East-Pakistan and Zia gave us the gifts of Taliban, blasphemy laws, shariah trolls, etc etc

 

[iPhone]

A civilian govt is the only path to salvation. Maybe Pakistan's GDP did grow during military rules and a better infrastructure was developed but no can argue the horrible aftermath of a military rule. And a civilian govt, it's true, it never materializes in Pakistan, too many leg pullers both within and outside the civilian establishment. So the country has never actually seen the long term benifits of a publically elected civilian govt.

As pointed out by many before, a military rule is a quick fix, which is never good because it breaks again. You want a permanent fix and enjoy long term benefits, take the slow and bumpy ride of a civil rule. Afterall, slow and steady wins the race.