Nawaz Sharif

[Awesome]

The most serious actual achievement that they ever did was they have (you can see the thread starter) public support which they have acquired it in a democratic way.

not like musharraf who being a subordinate to the democratically elected PM of Pakistan, held a gun to his superior's head, threw the superior away and made himself the head of Pakistan.

When Musharraf came to power, people celebrated and distributed sweets. People wanted NS out really bad! We are just inflicted with short memories and a bad case of mob culture. At times we do crazy things like overthrowing a government for fun.

To control the Pakistani public you need to know how to control the crowd.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why should they ditch all the ideologies they stood for because some govt officer has asked them to? What was his standing at the time apart from his credit of throwing a democratically elected govt. I didnt know this before, but if it is true, I salute these people for not bowing to army diktats.

No one was asking them to ditch the "ideology" they "stood for". The reason Mushy asked them to join the government was because of their position as a more moderate party. Surely you remember his reform program when he frist took power - abolition of the Blasphemy laws, womens and minority rights, joint electorate, reforming the education system, police force etc.

What about those things was so "against the ideology of the PPP"? Oh of course, they had to ditch BB. So did they choose reforming Pakistani society or loyalty to a personality?

The responsibility pf any party, organization or individual is to work towards the improvement of the nation, with whatever you have to work with - democracy, communism, martial law - not wait around till your ideal and perfect situation develops.

when did the 160 million pakistanis come into picture? The asking of PPP was about reinforcing an INDIVIDUAL's rule, they were willing to sacrifice the ministerial berths for the sake of the country against an individual.

It was their absence, for the sake of one individual, that led to Mushy turning towards the MMA, and the more conservative PML-Q. Once again, it is not about democracy - it is about serving the people and improving the lot of Pakistanis. Mushy had offered the PPP a chance to implement an agenda that they themselves agreed with, it was irresponsible to shy away from a chance to implement it.

Will you save a child from dying of hunger, or will you walk away saying that it is not possible for you to participate in a system that would help the child because it (the system) is against your ideology?

If Pakistanis support Musharraf, let him play by the rules and hold proper free and fair elections. Change rules every other day for propogating his own rule and sycophantic himself, do not show that he has pakistanis support.

That will be decided by the courts - whether his rule changing is unconstitutional.

Just add the army and the "personality cult" of one individual- Musharraf

Not at all, the people supporting Mushy are fulfilling their responsibility (the ones actually working) of making use of whatever opportunity they have to improve the lot of the country. It is the PPP and PML-N leadership that is throwing tantrums and not participating in the process of governing.

Which parliament are you talking about? The parliament in which rules are made in army house? Where the parliament doesnt function because of lack of quorum, where the governing class realizes that there anyway is no use of coming to parliament as it has zero effect anyway. Is this the parliament you are talking about?

Every party has an ideology, in this case the ideology is one of social moderation and economic reform. The members of parliament agree with it, and they support legislation that advances that agenda. The democrats and republicans in the US have their own ideologies and they work to support legislation that advances those agendas. You are setting up a strawman argument by talking about "Army house policies".

When there is no "parliament" to protest, where else can they protest except for dharnas and walkout?

But of course there is - its just that they are in minority. Do you realize how frustrating it was for the democrats in the U.S when both the Houses and the Presidencey were Republican controlled? Ultra conservative judges appointed, Tax relief for the super rich, cuts in socia programs, cuts in education, cuts in health care, passage of torture laws. What did they do? Dharnas? No, they highlighted their opposition to the legislation passed in the media, presented alternate proposals and WORKED!. That swhat I expect form the opposition. Thats how they could protest.

That said, I do realize that Mushy could have been another Zia -ul-Haq, with an agenda of intolerance, bigotry and hate to implement. Zia got support for his vision as well. Did opposing him, rather than joining with him, offer any advantage in changing the system? I am not sure what the state of his rule and his grip on power was when he died. It may be that if he hadn't, we would have another ul-Haq in charge right now.

 

[bhangra12345]

No one was asking them to ditch the "ideology" they "stood for". The reason Mushy asked them to join the government was because of their position as a more moderate party. Surely you remember his reform program when he frist took power - abolition of the Blasphemy laws, womens and minority rights, joint electorate, reforming the education system, police force etc.

Saabji, you have already asked them to ditch their "ideology" by asking them to support the army rule!! When you are against such a basic issue, it is pretty difficult to reconcile, isnt it.

Blasphemy laws which have been reinstated, the hudood laws still working -
womens and minority rights - where the government of the day bans a marathon because women might run?
reforming the education system ?- doing nothing when the madarsas did not even register and then giving their education as equivalent to modern graduation, is this the reform you are talking about? Or is it that when one fine day he decided that only 50 phds come out of Pakistan and they need to be increased, so the next day universities start giving out 5000 phds. where a single professor from a batch has 18 students working under him.
police force - Every one saw the reforms in police force in karachi when the CJP went, how they were hiding and stuff.

What about those things was so "against the ideology of the PPP"? Oh of course, they had to ditch BB. So did they choose reforming Pakistani society or loyalty to a personality?

ditch the ppp and show loyalty to a personality-musharraf

The responsibility pf any party, organization or individual is to work towards the improvement of the nation, with whatever you have to work with - democracy, communism, martial law - not wait around till your ideal and perfect situation develops.

yes and at the same time to protest against any arbitrary handed over system. Break through it and give voice to the people is also their duty.
and if they believe that the present system is not working for the long term improvement of the nation, then?
give peaceful protests and not take a gun are the rules they have to follow, which they are following

It was their absence, for the sake of one individual, that led to Mushy turning towards the MMA, and the more conservative PML-Q. Once again, it is not about democracy - it is about serving the people and improving the lot of Pakistanis. Mushy had offered the PPP a chance to implement an agenda that they themselves agreed with, it was irresponsible to shy away from a chance to implement it.

Their goes all you arguments in a puff. So for extending his rule, he is ready to ditch his "so-called moderate ideology" and join hands with extremists. You expect with his record, other parties to believe him? It would have been power-mongering if they joined hands with Mushy. Their agenda also included removing army rule, is he ready for that?

Will you save a child from dying for hunger, or will you walk away saying that it is not possible for you to participate in a system that would help the child because it (the system) is against your ideology?

but if the child is in a cage and it is not directly possible to give him food, you have break the cage and then enter to give the food. Look I know how to give and modify other analogies to mean the exact opposite like this...

That will be decide by the courts, whether his rule changing is unconstitutional.

Every body is seeing how he is going about it.

Not at all, the people supporting Mushy are fulfilling their responsibility (the ones actually working) of making use of whatever opportunity they have to improve the lot of the country. It is the PPP and PML-N leadership that is throwing tantrums and not participating in the process of governing.

It is also their duty to destroy the current system. Working under the system but yet breaking the system, not blind subverscence.

Every party has an ideology, in this case the ideology is one of social moderation and economic reform. The members of parliament agree with it, and they support legislation that advances that agenda. The democrats and republicans in the US have their own ideologies and they work to support legislation that advances those agendas. You are setting up a strawman argument by talking about "Army house policies".

You yourself state that the ideology is for sale, when Mushy joined hands with MMA.

The democrats and republicans have their own ideologies but their legislation doesnt come from pentagon.

So you are saying that mushy is not at all involved in parliament and how the govt functions. Also please do tell me the role natinal security agency(name forgot) where the army institutionalized itself and then say with your hand on your heart that army is not involved in parliament.

But of course there is - its just that they are in minority. Do you realize how frustrating it was for the democrats in the U.S when both the Houses and the Presidencey were Republican controlled? Ultra conservative judges appointed, Tax relief for the super rich, cuts in socia programs, cuts in education, cuts in health care, passage of torture laws. What did they do? Dharnas? No, they highlighted their opposition to the legislation passed in the media, presented alternate proposals and WORKED!. That swhat I expect form the opposition. Thats how they could protest.

When the media is free to its boot, and where the media is not intimidated like the dawn and the geo tv. Dawn carried for more than 6 months how it was being intimidated and geo tv's saga was live during karachi. When english media's position with its international audience is like this, I dread to even think about urdu media. and you want PPP to work depending on that media?

Imran Khan cannot hold a single rally in punjab and karachi because the govt doesnt want him to. They ban him from the most important states where 70% of pakistanis live and then you expect political parties to behave normally as if they are freely functioning?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Saabji, you have already asked them to ditch their "ideology" by asking them to support the army rule!! When you are against such a basic issue, it is pretty difficult to reconcile, isnt it.

Blasphemy laws which have been reinstated, the hudood laws still working -
womens and minority rights - where the government of the day bans a marathon because women might run?
reforming the education system ?- doing nothing when the madarsas did not even register and then giving their education as equivalent to modern graduation, is this the reform you are talking about? Or is it that when one fine day he decided that only 50 phds come out of Pakistan and they need to be increased, so the next day universities start giving out 5000 phds. where a single professor from a batch has 18 students working under him.
police force - Every one saw the reforms in police force in karachi when the CJP went, how they were hiding and stuff.

ditch the ppp and show loyalty to a personality-musharraf

You are taking my comments out of context. I am not talking about reforms Musharraf accomplished, indeed he has been disappointing on a lot of counts, but the reforms program he announced. I have already stated that as a result of the PPP's refusal, he was forced to go with the MMA and the PML-Q, a decision that had a lot to do with the lack of implementation of his reforms program.

What is the purpose of a political party after all? Is it to strut about making grandiose statements about "freedom and democracy"? Or is a political parties first and foremost purpose to improve the lot of the people they claim to represent? People don't vote for "freedom" - they vote for basic services, they vote for affordable housing, education, the ability to provide shelter to their families and three meals a day. The "ideology" you suggest that the PP was "loyal" to, is only useful in societies that have gone beyond the first few levels of the "hierarchy of needs". So where was the PPP in playing its role in providing those "basic services"?

yes and at the same time to protest against any arbitrary handed over system. Break through it and give voice to the people is also their duty.
and if they believe that the present system is not working for the long term improvement of the nation, then?
give peaceful protests and not take a gun are the rules they have to follow, which they are following

The system can be changed from within. The PML-Q never took up the challenge, they were always more of a party of oppurtunists, but the PPP could have in conjunction with Mushy created independent and autonomous institutions that are far more important for establishing a functioning democracy than mere "votes".

Their goes all you arguments in a puff. So for extending his rule, he is ready to ditch his "so-called moderate ideology" and join hands with extremists. You expect with his record, other parties to believe him? It would have been power-mongering if they joined hands with Mushy. Their agenda also included removing army rule, is he ready for that?

No, he chose implementing SOME of his reforms rather than none. In fact the PPP needs to be given credit that they came together with the PML-Q to pass the Womens Bill.

but if the child is in a cage and it is not directly possible to give him food, you have break the cage and then enter to give the food. Look I know how to give and modify other analogies to mean the exact opposite like this...

You can modify analogies all you like, that does not make them relevant or apt. Accepting part of your analogy, in this case the Pakistani nation is in a cage of "dictatorship" - now you have a choice of educating them in that cage, providing them with food, water and clothing in that cage. Will you now refuse and let them die or be mistreated because they are "in a cage"? Or will you work to provide them whatever you can to make their lives easier and hopeful for the future, while at the same time attempting to get the cage removed?

Every body is seeing how he is going about it.

Let the courts decide. Bush, and the Republicans, passed several measures that were struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S Courts. That is part of what the courts do, and part of what any branch of government does, they govern base don their interpretation of the Law. If you don't like it, challenge it in court, and they decide who is correct. There is nothing unusual about this.

It is also their duty to destroy the current system. Working under the system but yet breaking the system, not blind subverscence.

Yes and they are the very same politicians who you would have run the country, whose creed is political survival. I never said that I liked every thing the PML-Q has done.

You yourself state that the ideology is for sale, when Mushy joined hands with MMA.

Accomplish something, rather than nothing. The analog of the "child in a cage again".

The democrats and republicans have their own ideologies but their legislation doesnt come from pentagon.

Doesn't matter where it comes from. It is an ideology that they support, and they work to implement it. The PML-Q has one and they work to support it, the fact that Mushy could not get so much of his agenda implemented shows that they are more than a "rubber stamp". There are ideological differences within the PML-Q and not everyone votes the way Mushy would want. How long did it take to get the Womens bill passed?

 

[bhangra12345]

You are taking my comments out of context. I am not talking about reforms Musharraf accomplished, indeed he has been disappointing on a lot of counts, but the reforms program he announced. I have already stated that as a result of the PPP's refusal, he was forced to go with the MMA and the PML-Q, a decision that had a lot to do with the lack of implementation of his reforms program.

So you are still talking about announcement projects after 8 years of his rule? what can i say?

Its more than the time Sharif and BB had combinedly total of 4 terms ruled. You do not talk about their announcement projects, do you?

What is the purpose of a political party after all? Is it to strut about making grandiose statements about "freedom and democracy"? Or is a political parties first and foremost purpose to improve the lot of the people they claim to represent? People don't vote for "freedom" - they vote for basic services, they vote for affordable housing, education, the ability to provide shelter to their families and three meals a day. The "ideology" you suggest that the PP was "loyal" to, is only useful in societies that have gone beyond the first few levels of the "hierarchy of needs". So where was the PPP in playing its role in providing those "basic services"?

It is the govt duty to provide what the people need, it is the party's duty to prioritize them. Army in barracks will not be asked how are you providing the needs of people. When in opposition, you dont ask the opposition to provide them. There is a difference between a govt and political party just as there is a difference between army and political party.

The system can be changed from within. The PML-Q never took up the challenge, they were always more of a party of oppurtunists, but the PPP could have in conjunction with Mushy created independent and autonomous institutions that are far more important for establishing a functioning democracy than mere "votes".

The changing of the system here implies moving the army back to the barracks and deinstitutionalizing their role in politics and achieving it in the shortest possible time. Again sir, why should the PPP join the army when their stand is completely against it, so that the individual-mushy can complete his reign? He had all the powers in his hand and yet is giving out feeble excuses, like if only that xyz had not made s*x with me that day, I would have been the world's greatest singer. and you buy these excuses? or are you one who is giving out these excuses on his behalf?

No, he chose implementing SOME of his reforms rather than none. In fact the PPP needs to be given credit that they came together with the PML-Q to pass the Womens Bill.

So you are saying PPP was working whenever they found it to be in benefit for the people of Pakistan. They are distancing when it is for the benefit of an individual-army. All the announcement reforms you gave in the previous post, i showed their actual progress, what are left?
During the first three years of his rule, was their a parliament? nope, again a feeble excuse for not implementing MOST of his reforms.

You can modify analogies all you like, that does not make them relevant or apt. Accepting part of your analogy, in this case the Pakistani nation is in a cage of "dictatorship" - now you have a choice of educating them in that cage, providing them with food, water and clothing in that cage. Will you now refuse and let them die or be mistreated because they are "in a cage"? Or will you work to provide them whatever you can to make their lives easier and hopeful for the future, while at the same time attempting to get the cage removed?

you forgot just one sentence from my analogy-it is not directly possible to give him food, now please explore.

Let the courts decide. Bush, and the Republicans, passed several measures that were struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S Courts. That is part of what the courts do, and part of what any branch of government does, they govern base don their interpretation of the Law. If you don't like it, challenge it in court, and they decide who is correct. There is nothing unusual about this.

right, except that they make rules for a nation and here the army makes rules for an individual. Just a small difference dont you think?

Yes and they are the very same politicians who you would have run the country, whose creed is political survival. I never said that I liked every thing the PML-Q has done.

same sentiments here for PML-Q

Accomplish something, rather than nothing. The analog of the "child in a cage again".

my analogy was a little different and in the end result it makes a HUGE difference.

Doesn't matter where it comes from. It is an ideology that they support, and they work to implement it. The PML-Q has one and they work to support it, the fact that Mushy could not get so much of his agenda implemented shows that they are more than a "rubber stamp". There are ideological differences within the PML-Q and not everyone votes the way Mushy would want. How long did it take to get the Womens bill passed?

If Mushy cant get much of his agenda, let him get off and make someone who can!! After being in rule for 8 years of which 3 years he ruled without even having to take care of an iota of public opinion, all his excuses seem .......

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So you are still talking about announcement projects after 8 years of his rule? what can i say?

Its more than the time Sharif and BB had combinedly total of 4 terms ruled. You do not talk about their announcement projects, do you?

Are you deliberately going off on tangents to what I am saying? You claimed that the PPP would have "sold out its ideology" by joining up with Musharraf. I pointed out to you that based on the reforms program he "announced", there was very little the PPP could claim to be "against" its "ideology". This is not about what Musharraf did or did not accomplish, the argument is whether the PPP should have sacrificed one individual to work with Mushy to implement a reforms agenda that benefited Pakistan. My argument is that it was irresponsible, and a let down for the people of Pakistan, for them to not do so.

It is the govt duty to provide what the people need, it is the party's duty to prioritize them. Army in barracks will not be asked how are you providing the needs of people. When in opposition, you dont ask the opposition to provide them. There is a difference between a govt and political party just as there is a difference between army and political party.

Political parties exist to form governments and fulfill whatever agenda their ideology dictates. Their primary duty is to serve the people, not some intangible concepts. In todays world of coalitions, opposition parties do have a responsibility to fulfill by making compromises, and in someway joining the process of "governing".

The changing of the system here implies moving the army back to the barracks and deinstitutionalizing their role in politics and achieving it in the shortest possible time. Again sir, why should the PPP join the army when their stand is completely against it, so that the individual-mushy can complete his reign? He had all the powers in his hand and yet is giving out feeble excuses, like if only that xyz had not made s*x with me that day, I would have been the world's greatest singer. and you buy these excuses? or are you one who is giving out these excuses on his behalf?

I am not sure where I stand on the current PPP-Mushy deal. I am referring to the opportunity the PPP had when they were invited to join Mushy in implementing his agenda.

So you are saying PPP was working whenever they found it to be in benefit for the people of Pakistan. They are distancing when it is for the benefit of an individual-army. All the announcement reforms you gave in the previous post, i showed their actual progress, what are left?
During the first three years of his rule, was their a parliament? nope, again a feeble excuse for not implementing MOST of his reforms.

I am not getting into a debate of what was accomplished by Mushy, that is for a different thread. The discussion was over what I considered the loyalty of the PPP and the PML-N to individuals, rather than a set of policies or ideas that would help change the Pakistani people.

you forgot just one sentence from my analogy-it is not directly possible to give him food, now please explore.

right, except that they make rules for a nation and here the army makes rules for an individual. Just a small difference dont you think?

Yes that is why I said that I was taking a "part" of your analogy. The child is not being starved, it is not being well fed, but not starved. Pakistan is continuing to stumble along, some would say, based on the economic indicators of the past eight years, much better than before. The question is whether it could have done better? I believe it could have had the PPP joined Mushy, rather than forcing him to go with the MMA/PML-Q.

If Mushy cant get much of his agenda, let him get off and make someone who can!! After being in rule for 8 years of which 3 years he ruled without even having to take care of an iota of public opinion, all his excuses seem .......

Unfortunately for his reforms program, he die rule with an eye on public opinion and an attempt to take the leadership along - because he realized that he would not be there for ever and for his "reforms" to hold, they would need to be accepted by the "politicians". Hence the scaling back of his police reforms after the elections, the scaling back of his LG reforms, the scaling back of his social agenda etc. That was all done because of opposition from the politicians in power, giving lie to the claim yet again that this is a "rubber stamp parliament"The economic reforms were about the only thing that continued, and the results of those are for all to see.

 

[bhangra12345]

Are you deliberately going off on tangents to what I am saying? You claimed that the PPP would have "sold out its ideology" by joining up with Musharraf. I pointed out to you that based on the reforms program he "announced", there was very little the PPP could claim to be "against" its "ideology". This is not about what Musharraf did or did not accomplish, the argument is whether the PPP should have sacrificed one individual to work with Mushy to implement a reforms agenda that benefited Pakistan. My argument is that it was irresponsible, and a let down for the people of Pakistan, for them to not do so.

Nope, I didnt take off on an tangent. It was you who mentioned that they were mushy's 'ideology". I just asked you to look on the ground, and then when you said they were simply "announcement reforms", I asked you to show the same fair grounds of comparing them to PPP and PML's "announcement reforms".

It would have been power-mongering if they had joined an individual to extend his rule and they took a principled stand of not going for power but staying for their ideology. You have yourselves noted that mushy had offered them power but they refused. It would have been a bigger letdown if they joined the cohorts of Mushy and leave none to expose and oppose his army rule.

Political parties exist to form governments and fulfill whatever agenda their ideology dictates. Their primary duty is to serve the people, not some intangible concepts. In todays world of coalitions, opposition parties do have a responsibility to fulfill by making compromises, and in someway joining the process of "governing".

Political parties WHEN IN POWER, they have duty of doing such and such to the people, not when not in power. In opposition they have duties as citizens of Pakistan and nothing more and nothing less.

They should do if they think it is good for pakistan they should support it, not support it because it is good for mushy.

I am not sure where I stand on the current PPP-Mushy deal. I am referring to the opportunity the PPP had when they were invited to join Mushy in implementing his agenda.

If PPP joins the govt without Mushy giving real power to parliament, I will be dissappointed. But my dissapointment doesnt count, as I am not a Pakistani.

I am not getting into a debate of what was accomplished by Mushy, that is for a different thread. The discussion was over what I considered the loyalty of the PPP and the PML-N to individuals, rather than a set of policies or ideas that would help change the Pakistani people.

and you want them transfer the loyalty of PPP and PML-N to another set of individuals(Musharraf) and not a set of policies and ideas.

Yes that is why I said that I was taking a "part" of your analogy. The child is not being starved, it is not being well fed, but not starved. Pakistan is continuing to stumble along, some would say, based on the economic indicators of the past eight years, much better than before. The question is whether it could have done better? I believe it could have had the PPP joined Mushy, rather than forcing him to go with the MMA/PML-Q.

Talking about analogies will lead us nowhere, you can change them as you wish, I can as I wish- it is better to avoid them for the most part.

Unfortunately for his reforms program, he die rule with an eye on public opinion and an attempt to take the leadership along - because he realized that he would not be there for ever and for his "reforms" to hold, they would need to be accepted by the "politicians". Hence the scaling back of his police reforms after the elections, the scaling back of his LG reforms, the scaling back of his social agenda etc. That was all done because of opposition from the politicians in power, giving lie to the claim yet again that this is a "rubber stamp parliament"The economic reforms were about the only thing that continued, and the results of those are for all to see.

If he scaled back most part of what he did initially when he didnt have an eye on public opinion, that itselves means that his vision is not shared by the public - You have yourselves accepted mushys' unpopularity.

 

[Lahori paa jee]

Yar this thread is in appreciation of my beloved leader Nawaz Sharif. Dont drag it into Mush-NS-BB debate

 

[Awesome]

We can always depreciate NS. It's easy to do so.

All leaders must go through scrutiny and NS has earned his fair share of it by his own actions.

 

[Bull]

How many of you guys have ever casted their votes?

 

[Lahori paa jee]

I have only voted once but some one voted on my behalf in the fake referendum of Musharaf. I was in lahore and but still i voted in Chakwal.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nope, I didnt take off on an tangent. It was you who mentioned that they were mushy's 'ideology". I just asked you to look on the ground, and then when you said they were simply "announcement reforms", I asked you to show the same fair grounds of comparing them to PPP and PML's "announcement reforms".

It would have been power-mongering if they had joined an individual to extend his rule and they took a principled stand of not going for power but staying for their ideology. You have yourselves noted that mushy had offered them power but they refused. It would have been a bigger letdown if they joined the cohorts of Mushy and leave none to expose and oppose his army rule.

Political parties WHEN IN POWER, they have duty of doing such and such to the people, not when not in power. In opposition they have duties as citizens of Pakistan and nothing more and nothing less.

They should do if they think it is good for pakistan they should support it, not support it because it is good for mushy.


If PPP joins the govt without Mushy giving real power to parliament, I will be dissappointed. But my dissapointment doesnt count, as I am not a Pakistani.

and you want them transfer the loyalty of PPP and PML-N to another set of individuals(Musharraf) and not a set of policies and ideas.

Talking about analogies will lead us nowhere, you can change them as you wish, I can as I wish- it is better to avoid them for the most part.

If he scaled back most part of what he did initially when he didnt have an eye on public opinion, that itselves means that his vision is not shared by the public - You have yourselves accepted mushys' unpopularity.

I had to run to class so I couldn't respond to everything in my last post.

I believe we have a philosophical difference over the role of political parties and their responsibilities and what their priorities should be. So I'll try to generalize the point I am trying to make.

Democracy, Communism etc are but systems or methods to achieve the ultimate goal of improving the State - It is the improvement or change which is important. If a communist state or a monarchy is able to fulfill the needs of its citizens, then all power to those systems of government. You can argue over which system is better, but like I said before, for people living in the conditions that the residents of South Asia are in, slogans about intangibles like freedom and democracy mean little - it is all about what you can deliver, and hence the lack of tears for NS and euphoria upon the assumption of power by Musharraf.

So when a reform agenda was unveiled, one that was in sync with the vision of a moderate, progressive Pakistan, I view the lack of support from a party such as the PPP as disloyalty to their ultimate goal of serving the people. You obviously place their loyalty to the system (democracy) over their loyalty to the goal of improving the lives of those the system is designed to serve - and to use your own argument "the opposition does not govern", by choosing to remain in the opposition, they played traitor to their own "roti, kapra makaan".

I similarly strongly disagree with the Cuban American community's policy to isolate and punish Fidel Castro, and therefore Cuba and the Cuban people, in order that they may have their "perfect system". How many years of sanction have passed? How many Cubans have suffered because of this "loyalty to system"? Castro is still there. Even after he dies there is no guarantee that his brother or some other strongman will not take charge - and so continues the saga of despair for the Cubans, brought on and perpetuated with strong support from their own kith and kin across the ocean.

The alternate is to be pragmatic and realistic about the situation on the ground, and remember that a decision to not participate in whatever system or process exists, takes away your opportunity for affecting change in your nation and for its citizens.

 

[Keysersoze]

Yar this thread is in appreciation of my beloved leader Nawaz Sharif. Dont drag it into Mush-NS-BB debate

I am still waiting for his achievements other than the motorway and buying people's loyalties......

 

[Lahori paa jee]

I feel his biggest contribution to Pakistan was to save Pak army from the humiliation they had to face in Kargil. NS gave our army a chance for face saving but this thank less army did not regard that man

 

[Awesome]

How many of you guys have ever casted their votes?

Once in the referendum since back then Musharraf was really pushing for international elections concept and we got a chance to vote in Dubai! I probably won't be voting in 2008...