Opinion: Pakistan must become an authoritarian state to progress

[Aspen]

Agreed. Authoritarianism suits Pakistan a lot better than the current system.

Absolutely, glad to see people waking up.

Pakistan needs an authoritarian govt that can cut through the red tape.

There is no point of voting in a democracy if you cannot even feed your family.

 

[FuturePAF]

Authoritarian regimes are high risk, high reward. You could get somebody terrible like Zia or you could get a visionary figure like Musharraf who finally brought Pakistan into the 21st century with a leader we could be proud of. Civilian gov'ts will be mediocre at best. If you want somebody truly great, you will never get that leader under any mediocre civilian govt, you need an authoritarian regime like Musharraf who knew what he was doing and did not let anyone get in the way of progress.

You never achieve anything great without putting it all on the line. Pakistan could keep continuing this stupid parliamentary system but then never expect the kind of radical reforms and forward thinking vision that only an authoritarian regime could expedite and cut through all the red tape which is desperately needed for Pakistan to achieve greatness in the world.

A lot of people keep saying that Pakistan should be democratic but what they always forget is that Pakistan is only democratic today because of the modern reforms that only Musharraf could bring. None of the "democratic" governments before Musharraf were able to make the reforms necessary for Pakistan to really become a democracy as people know it today.

Ironic that most of Pakistan's democratic reforms always come under military governments because civil gov'ts can never pass anything.

If the current government can build up the institutions that will ensure the needed reforms are not rolled back, then it’s possible we can stay democratic and sustain economic growth. We need a leader like the late Singaporean Le Kwon Yu, who could set the course for decades, then leave it all to the institutions to sustain it after he’s gone.

Even then, economically, basically some kind of “authoritarian” is needed to maintain to momentum. But we may get a Zia and not a Musharraf, so it’s better to build up the system And not the person that will ensure the economy is the focus.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Above all Pakistan should be a secular state as envisaged by the Founder of our nation in
his historic address on 11th August 1947

 

[Aspen]

We need security, sincere leadership, and a rapidly growing economy if we are to survive. The difference between East Asian cultures and our own is a social contract between the state and the people. We need only look at India to see what happened when an authoritarian for authoritarianism sake comes to power. the last 50 years of our history should be proof enough that we need to sustain a healthy and amicable social contract with all our people, similar to what is done in Germany or Japan.

If we can sustain a 7% on average growth for the next 30 years, we can become a $2 Trillion economy, as projected by the world bank. Considering how underproductive our industries and agriculture are, we need to find a way to attract the investment to modernize and utilize our labor force, and then this number will not look unrealistic.

A lot of the growth also comes from consumer demand and government spending on social services. Productive use of tax money should be key. If you have an all power authoritarian, its leads to bloated and inefficient public sector that underperforms. We need to incentivize small and medium enterprises. Study the German model and how after WW2, German chancellor Konrad Adenauer reformed Germany into the economic power house it remains today.

In 2018/2019, Even now German’s Mittlestand companies were seeing 11% growth. The Germans know a thing or two about authoritarianism, and after how to grow without it.

We have a golden opportunity with CPEC, to reform ourselves. Our companies should be going over their books and putting more money into modernizing as well as training their workers for the future. If Pakistan can make the reforms that could enable it to grow at a minimum of 7% it will attract the FDI from foreign investors looking to make some money during this global downturn. We don’t need to be the best, just better then the alternative investment options.

we should be careful not to go down the same road India is going down today, the socioeconomic burden that will condemn that nation to for a generation of not longer. Look at all the authoritarians in Latin America and how their economies have stagnated.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1332523105546162176

Democracy is probably the worst type of gov't you can have in an environment as fluid as a developing country with a large population in an unstable region. Once countries develop in a stable environment, then you bring in democracy. When you need to develop rapid reforms in an unstable environment, you need an authoritarian regime to cut through the red tape and take decisive action. Authoritarian regimes were almost purpose built to handle complex geopolitical environments exactly like Pakistan as a textbook example which is why literally every other successful Muslim country, including Iran, Saudi, Egypt, and Turkey have embraced authoritarianism while Pakistan is still foolishly flirting with democracy. Pakistan has paid the price for this mistake big time by giving oxygen and a microphone to people in Pakistan who wish harm upon the country and who have done nothing but hold us back. Authoritarian regimes don't have to deal with stupid problems like this. Pakistan is the youngest Muslim majority country of any relevance in the region and that inexperience is clear because none of the other Muslim countries that are successful are as stupid as Pakistan to drink the democracy Kool Aid. They have seen the kind of destruction it brought, hopefully we are not as stupid as the Iraqis who naively chanted to topple Saddam and then left a power vacuum for Iraqi democracy to be filled by the most extreme elements of ISIS. That fact that there several military gov'ts that came to power in Pakistan out of necessity during a crisis alone speaks volumes about how unsuitable a democracy is for high stress, rapidly changing geopolitical environments. Democracies need stability to work and the Middle East is the opposite of stable. The older countries in our region have been here for a lot longer than Pakistan and they know better than to play with fire. None of the other successful countries in our region are stupid enough to try democracy for exactly many of the problems Pakistan has now. Pakistan should be thankful that we didn't end up like other Muslim "democracies" like Iraq and Afghanistan because we had a handful of authoritarian leaders like Musharraf who were willing to step in and seize control to stabilize the country when it became clear democracy in Pakistan was heading off the side of a cliff. The reality is that even with nukes, there are places in Pakistan that are as dangerous, if not more dangerous than anywhere in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is only due to the authoritarian govt's of Zia and Musharraf that had the backbone to stamp out terrorist elements and do the dirty work of CIA and Lal Masjid operation. People hate Zia and Musharraf but the people who do the right thing are always hated by their people. If you think a democracy had the backbone to do any of the dirty but necessary work of Zia and Musharraf, then you are dreaming. Pakistan as a unitary state only exists today because we had strong leaders who had the foresight to intervene when they saw it necessary to keep West Pakistan together in one piece during very difficult times where no civil govt would have been able to do it. Musharraf's military gov't was not the last military gov't in Pakistan. I think it is inevitable that some future crisis in the coming decades will require another military coup in Pakistan and it will probably be for the better. The question is not if, but when.

 

[Gangetic]

Absolutely, glad to see people waking up.

Pakistan needs an authoritarian govt that can cut through the red tape.

There is no point of voting in a democracy if you cannot even feed your family.

Something like Vietnam's system would do wonders.

 

[FuturePAF]

Democracy is probably the worst type of gov't you can have in an environment as fluid as a developing country with a large population in an unstable region. Once countries develop in a stable environment, then you bring in democracy. When you need to develop rapid reforms in an unstable environment, you need an authoritarian regime to cut through the red tape and take decisive action. Authoritarian regimes were almost purpose built to handle complex geopolitical environments exactly like Pakistan as a textbook example which is why literally every other successful Muslim country, including Iran, Saudi, Egypt, and Turkey have embraced authoritarianism while Pakistan is still foolishly flirting with democracy. Pakistan has paid the price for this mistake big time by giving oxygen and a microphone to people in Pakistan who wish harm upon the country and who have done nothing but hold us back. Authoritarian regimes don't have to deal with stupid problems like this. Pakistan is the youngest Muslim majority country of any relevance in the region and that inexperience is clear because none of the other Muslim countries that are successful are as stupid as Pakistan to drink the democracy Kool Aid. They have seen the kind of destruction it brought, hopefully we are not as stupid as the Iraqis who naively chanted to topple Saddam and then left a power vacuum for Iraqi democracy to be filled by the most extreme elements of ISIS. That fact that there several military gov'ts that came to power in Pakistan out of necessity during a crisis alone speaks volumes about how unsuitable a democracy is for high stress, rapidly changing geopolitical environments. Democracies need stability to work and the Middle East is the opposite of stable. The older countries in our region have been here for a lot longer than Pakistan and they know better than to play with fire. None of the other successful countries in our region are stupid enough to try democracy for exactly many of the problems Pakistan has now. Pakistan should be thankful that we didn't end up like other Muslim "democracies" like Iraq and Afghanistan because we had a handful of authoritarian leaders like Musharraf who were willing to step in and seize control to stabilize the country when it became clear democracy in Pakistan was heading off the side of a cliff. The reality is that even with nukes, there are places in Pakistan that are as dangerous, if not more dangerous than anywhere in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is only due to the authoritarian govt's of Zia and Musharraf that had the backbone to stamp out terrorist elements and do the dirty work of CIA and Lal Masjid operation. People hate Zia and Musharraf but the people who do the right thing are always hated by their people. If you think a democracy had the backbone to do any of the dirty but necessary work of Zia and Musharraf, then you are dreaming. Pakistan as a unitary state only exists today because we had strong leaders who had the foresight to intervene when they saw it necessary to keep West Pakistan together in one piece during very difficult times where no civil govt would have been able to do it. Musharraf's military gov't was not the last military gov't in Pakistan. I think it is inevitable that some future crisis in the coming decades will require another military coup in Pakistan and it will probably be for the better. The question is not if, but when.

That’s why even democracies, that have the capability to deal with external threats, have a deep state.

 

[Aspen]

This works perfectly in societies that are homgenous or have a very strong core that sustains them. Pakistan has neither. It is a very divided country of many "societies" drawn along ethnic, sectarian and other lines. This can be seen in how most of Karachi votes [supposedly most educated city], Punjab votes, K-Pk votes and Balochistan votes. There is clear ethnic voting patterns. Guns and soldiers will not paper over these differances and divisions. If anything they could make the divisions stronger.

All this might not matter if Pakistani state had a very strong historical core that acted like a magnet and pulled everything together but it does not. Probably the closest thing it has to a core is the Potohar plaeaux and neighbouring districts [it is no accident that the capital sits right in middle of this region] which provided most of the manpower to the army. But this region is not large enough to have the sufficient pull to draw in a 200 million plus country. To be fair this region does have SOME pull and that is what keeps Pakistan sailing along. Or it would haven fallen apart decades ago.

For comparison pursposes consider Turkey. It's core region is the vast Anatolian region traditionally made up of small villages with Turkic majority. It was this region that provided the core to the Ottoman Empire and subsequently to the Turkish Republic. A authoritarian state took take root here and spread it's tentacles over adjacent Kurdish, Arab, Armenian, Greek ethnic populations.

This lesson was not missed on Kemal Ataturk. In the WW1 as Ottoman Armies began collapsing it was noted that most ethnic Arabs, Kurds both Muslim peoples rebelled. However the Turkic elements of the Ottoman Empire and army stood firm. In the desperate struggle against European invasion it was the poor Anatolian ethnic Turk farmer who provided the manpower to Ataturk's rejuvenated Turkish forces and defeated the Western invaders.

These realities gave Ataturk the ideas for a strong Turkic state with intense nationalism revolving around Turkic legends and history. The Turkish state was brutal, authoritarian and enjoyed almost total loyalty amongst Anatolian Turks.

You may also compare the erstrwhile USSR. Again that state claimed to be union but in fact was formed around a strong core region which was European Russia. The Russians were the backbone of that state. Another example is Prussia which formed the core region for the newly founded German federation. The authoritarian Prussian state was formed around the military. Germany subsequently became "Prussianized" and the deeply authoritarian reflex would go on to change the course of European history with two world wars. The German Army was effectively formed around Prussian military traditions and most officers were from Prussian Junker class [something like say Potohari Jat class] who came from wealthy landlowning familes.

However unlike wealthy in Pakistan boys were brought up in a very maritial culture often being sent to boarding schools which prized competitive sports and honour. Many of these boys would then join the German Army as officer cadets. Hitler fought his wars mostly with this cadre as many senior Wehrmact officers were of Prussian background.

They were brought up to fight and if needed die in the service of the German state. This tradition was also inheritated by Turkish Republic from the Jannsaries of Ottoman days. The pre 1945 Japan was also a authoritarian state with a army heavily influenced by Samurai traditions. It's interesting that after 1945 both German and Japan were "cleaned" by having their Prussian/Samurai traditions erased from their militaries to prevent rise of another authoritarian governments.

By contrast Pakistan has non of these factors. It is deeply divided, multi-ethnic state and only has the army to hold it together. But the Pakistan Army does not have a Prussian, Jannisary or Samurai like traditrion. Boys from middle class families join with siblings who try to become doctors or bankers. The families are more driven more by economic advantage then any deep sense of tradition.

Often one son will be a officer in the Pakistan army, another a businessman in New York, a daughter a doctor in New Jesey, a son in British university and a daughter married to a son of some politician in Pakistan. This creates horizontal linkages inside the differant vested power groups in Pakistan and abroad. A good example is Gen. Asim Bajwa.

So the army elite is effectively part of the ruling elite and you guys think it is going to carry out a purge or whatever. Not on yeer nelly. You can see how despite madam Maryam and co insulting the army leadership nothing has or will be done.

Divided ethnic lines matter more in a democracy than in an authoritarian regime.

The point of an authoritarian system is to cut the red tape and make the incompetence of the general public irrelevant to the functional governance of the country. It is especially true in a place like Pakistan where the concept of people not knowing what is good for them is true in a literal sense.

Democracy empowers both the incompetent and the competent and it can lead a country to both remarkable success and remarkable destruction when the fate of the country lies in the hands of a naive public that is doomed to make all the wrong decisions for the survival of its own future generations.

If you want a Pakistan for future generations that is better than the one you grew up in, then you should realize that the only reason the Pakistan you grew up in is better than the Pakistan of your parents is that the Pakistan of your parents had authoritarian leaders who knew when to seize control to keep the country in one piece and make urgently needed reforms to modernize Pakistan and bring it into 21st century. Look no further than the pitiful failures of Imran Khan's issues with pathetic PDM opposition if you want a glimpse at the dark future that awaits us where there are actually people in Pakistan who will proudly give their vote to PDM in next election and believe they did the right thing. Then tell me that authoritarian system would be worse. When I explain PDM to my non-Pakistani friends, they think I must be joking because this would never be tolerated in their countries. They cannot believe there are actually citizens of Pakistan who are stupid enough to vote for a mafia organization like PDM that every living Pakistani knows will be nothing short of absolute doom erasing any progress if it comes into power. The current crop of liberals in Pakistan and their misguided ideological allergy to authoritarian regimes is something that is not only misguided but divorced from reality. If liberals in Pakistan think an authoritarian regime erodes democracy and alienates the will of the people, then maybe what Pakistani liberal elites should really be asking is whether the erosion of democracy is even a bad thing when democracy has caused more destruction to the internal political stability of Pakistan than any other single factor handicapping the ability of central govt to deal with both potent internal and external security challenges and whether the will of the people of Pakistan is being able to choose between two corrupt political parties or being able to feed their children and provide a shelter for the family to live in.

 

[Bouncer]

Few points to note;

1. There are no shortcuts. We HAVE to pass through this test of fire. Rinse and repeat cycle of democracy till we get a critical mass of honest people in parliament, civil service, business, media etc.
2. Its not like we have not had experience with military rule--tried and failed thrice. First military rule led to 71. Second led to AK-47 and mullahism, third led to massive and unprecedented levels of undesired involvement of military in commercial enterprises along with incidents of corruption. The one institute that actually works in Pakistan lost respect and barely returned from edge of chaos. If anyone wants to ask what this time was--it was last days of Gen Mush and tenure Gen Kiyani. Great credit goes to Gen Raheel Sharif for restoring the respect of Fauj among common Pakistanis.
3. Current model of a hybrid rule is the need of time. Let the civilian setup continue while fauj works in the background on some key issues. Let the PEOPLE, not fauj or judiciary, clean out this kachra of PDM. Do NOT repeat the mistake of turning these corrupt assholes in to martyrs--we are still struggling with the Bhuttos because of this very reason.
4. Examples of South Korea, Singapore are irrelevant because they were from a different era and different cultures. South Koreans were so poor that a majority of their population did not have two meals a day and there were very few irritants. Pakistan is different because we have a significant and well established column of businessmen, judges, media persons & civil/military officers with enough resources and connections to sabotage even the strongest of dictators. And there there is social media and backlash from international community.

 

[Aspen]

Agreed, a presidential system suites Pakistan far more than the parliamentary crap. There should be elections held every 5 year at the federal/provincial level (similar to now) except that:

1. President should have full executive authority and be directly elected. Command in chief/Power to appoint govt/military officials and pass ordinances

2. Parliament should be elected with the first-past-post system, similar to Germany/Israel. In this systems the people only votes for the political party instead of a MNA/MP directly. Political parties have a predetermined list of their nominees in order based off of how much percentage of people vote for them...example:

PTI gets 50%, PPP gets 20%, PML-n-20 20%, Rest of parties gets 2% or less then in a 360 member assembly all the seats would be splits based off this percentage subtracting any party with less than 2% vote will not be counted (votes go to the largest parties split propritionally not counting those with 2>0)... this will prevent smaller extremist parties from holding nationalist interest hostage as done in Germany/Israel. This will also make sure that politicians hold national interest supreme over local interest since the electors have no motive to help a particular district.

3. The combination of direct elections for president and first past the post election for parliament will ensure that the president/parliamentary majority is always in the same hands.

4. Senators should be directly elected with a similar first past the post system every 6 years. No more smaller parties putting national interest hostage at the provincial level.

5. At a provincial level governors should also be elected directly and parliament should have a similar first past the post system.

Unfortunately in Pakistan we have had socialist, liberals, punjabi, sindhis, balochis, you name it hold nationalist interests hostage for their own self servicing interest.

I think Pakistan needs a straight authoritarian system but consolidating power and giving more central authority is a good step in that direction.

 

[Indos]

Democracy is probably the worst type of gov't you can have in an environment as fluid as a developing country with a large population in an unstable region. Once countries develop in a stable environment, then you bring in democracy. When you need to develop rapid reforms in an unstable environment, you need an authoritarian regime to cut through the red tape and take decisive action. Authoritarian regimes were almost purpose built to handle complex geopolitical environments exactly like Pakistan as a textbook example which is why literally every other successful Muslim country, including Iran, Saudi, Egypt, and Turkey have embraced authoritarianism while Pakistan is still foolishly flirting with democracy. Pakistan has paid the price for this mistake big time by giving oxygen and a microphone to people in Pakistan who wish harm upon the country and who have done nothing but hold us back. Authoritarian regimes don't have to deal with stupid problems like this. Pakistan is the youngest Muslim majority country of any relevance in the region and that inexperience is clear because none of the other Muslim countries that are successful are as stupid as Pakistan to drink the democracy Kool Aid. They have seen the kind of destruction it brought, hopefully we are not as stupid as the Iraqis who naively chanted to topple Saddam and then left a power vacuum for Iraqi democracy to be filled by the most extreme elements of ISIS. That fact that there several military gov'ts that came to power in Pakistan out of necessity during a crisis alone speaks volumes about how unsuitable a democracy is for high stress, rapidly changing geopolitical environments. Democracies need stability to work and the Middle East is the opposite of stable. The older countries in our region have been here for a lot longer than Pakistan and they know better than to play with fire. None of the other successful countries in our region are stupid enough to try democracy for exactly many of the problems Pakistan has now. Pakistan should be thankful that we didn't end up like other Muslim "democracies" like Iraq and Afghanistan because we had a handful of authoritarian leaders like Musharraf who were willing to step in and seize control to stabilize the country when it became clear democracy in Pakistan was heading off the side of a cliff. The reality is that even with nukes, there are places in Pakistan that are as dangerous, if not more dangerous than anywhere in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is only due to the authoritarian govt's of Zia and Musharraf that had the backbone to stamp out terrorist elements and do the dirty work of CIA and Lal Masjid operation. People hate Zia and Musharraf but the people who do the right thing are always hated by their people. If you think a democracy had the backbone to do any of the dirty but necessary work of Zia and Musharraf, then you are dreaming. Pakistan as a unitary state only exists today because we had strong leaders who had the foresight to intervene when they saw it necessary to keep West Pakistan together in one piece during very difficult times where no civil govt would have been able to do it. Musharraf's military gov't was not the last military gov't in Pakistan. I think it is inevitable that some future crisis in the coming decades will require another military coup in Pakistan and it will probably be for the better. The question is not if, but when.

You need to make paragraphs if you want others to read your opinion.

If the current government can build up the institutions that will ensure the needed reforms are not rolled back, then it’s possible we can stay democratic and sustain economic growth. We need a leader like the late Singaporean Le Kwon Yu, who could set the course for decades, then leave it all to the institutions to sustain it after he’s gone.

Even then, economically, basically some kind of “authoritarian” is needed to maintain to momentum. But we may get a Zia and not a Musharraf, so it’s better to build up the system And not the person that will ensure the economy is the focus.

Yup, it is gambling, if will be a disaster if you have this person become your ruler. He will start making dynasty once he comes to power

 

[Aspen]

If the current government can build up the institutions that will ensure the needed reforms are not rolled back, then it’s possible we can stay democratic and sustain economic growth. We need a leader like the late Singaporean Le Kwon Yu, who could set the course for decades, then leave it all to the institutions to sustain it after he’s gone.

Even then, economically, basically some kind of “authoritarian” is needed to maintain to momentum. But we may get a Zia and not a Musharraf, so it’s better to build up the system And not the person that will ensure the economy is the focus.

Reforms not getting rolled back is a big question mark, especially in a country as unstable as Pakistan and with so many people who are stupid enough to vote PDM in next election. As much as I hate PDM, PTI underestimating PDM will be the biggest mistake they make, just like Democrats underestimated Trump in 2016. PTI will probably think they have got the election in the bag and then out of nowhere PDM wins and Pakistan will go into next level of chaos that results either in erasing of all PTI progress or a military coup. The military coup would be the better option if it is someone other than Bajwa, if not then the future of Pakistan will really be screwed and it will be back to square one. That's what happens when all you pin all your future hopes and dreams for Naya Pakistan on a system of government as unpredictable and unstable as a democracy. People bitch about authoritarian regimes but they are more stable than anything else and political stability in Pakistan will solve hundreds of problems overnight. Foreign investors may actually want to invest in Pakistan if they feel that somebody is actually in the drivers's seat of the gov't and who knows that they are doing. People may actually pay taxes if they feel like gov't is stable and can actually do something useful over a long period of time.

The problem is a lot of people are waiting for democracy to fix the problem when really what you need is an authoritarian regime to fix the democracy. It sounds ironic, but it is reality and Musharraf was the living proof of this. No country that has ever wanted to get something done has done it by being a democracy, ask China. Pakistan needs an authoritarian regime to get a handle on its economy, take on its enemies, and survive an unstable world. A democracy is not going to cut it. Democracy is too weak to fix itself and a lot of people either do not or cannot understand this.

 

[Muhammed45]

I think Pakistan needs a straight authoritarian system but consolidating power and giving more central authority is a good step in that direction.

Bro, you are looking for Wilayat Al-Faqih. That's what you are seeking for.

We have democracy and at the same time we have a leader who steps in when everyone loses hope in solving problems through democracy. Islam as a religion is based upon that principle, prophet Mohammad PBUH was the inventor of this ideological system that corrects itself. The problem is you need someone that doesn't want anything but the goodness and welfare of his followers. You need someone having no greed or avarice towards Shahavaat. Its absolutely hard to find someone in that shape, the One that you can put your faith in him.

If you have doubt in functionality of wilayat al Faqih then look at Iran. Standing like a mountain in the hard and dark times of today having plenty of enemies sorrounding it USA UK Israel KSA to name a few. But what is keeping us from harms, who is it that holds us unified, its our leader.

 

[El Sidd]

If you have doubt in functionality of wilayat al Faqih then look at Iran.

All my doubts get cleared when I look at Iran

 

[Muhammed45]

All my doubts get cleared when I look at Iran

Yeah, things would be different for a Wahabi secular who in heart hates that kind of system. I know.

 

[313ghazi]

Democracy is a waste of time. We need leadership to have the approval of people, but the popularity contest farce we partake in right now is ridiculous. Also how can a country where 50% of people are illiterate and the vast majority politically illiterate - even be trusted to vote appropriately? It can't and shouldn't.

The thing is how do you not end up with a dictator - if the all powerful leader is shit, how do you change him? How do we end up with a system that can't be hijacked by those in power (like our current one).