The core contradiction

[Guest01]

No, the "contradiction" only exists because people view the army as a viable alternative to civilian rule. That is a sad reflection on the incompetence of the civilian politicians. The army is just there -- it is not lobbying for power.

Such is the perfidy that the army generals have played with the Pakistani nation. It is strange that you mention of the people considering the army as a viable alternative. I am sure your Qaid would not have wanted that. And you must see the number of years that Pakistani Army has ruled Pakistan from the date of the country's inception to see if the Army is really "just there" .

Even when the politicians are inept (they are no different in any other country), they represent the nation. The army does not represent the political will of the nation. The contradiction is actually larger = whether Pakistan could actually exist as a welfare state and not as a dictatorship. That is what reflects more in the Pakistani predicament.

 

[Developereo]

The civilian leadership was lacking, which resulted in not putting a strong people governance in place right at the inception which again resulted in inept leaders and parties coming to power and the army putting down these parties owing to their incompetency. The army had to be the Saviour every time.

That's my point. You can't blame the army because the civilian leadership doesn't perform.

mate the contradiction stands in the fact that the army is not able as they are not trained.(you own words) to run civilian institutions. and yet they are the one who are wanted by the people , who want a better life but chose the one institution not equipped to give them that .

is it really so hard in Pakistan to find an equation that works without the army being in it?

The people don't expect the army to run civilian institutions any better in the sense of long term planning. That is a job for people qualified as such. The main reason is that the army is expected to be far less corrupt than the civilians. It is a reaction to the rampant bloodsucking by the civilians that the army looks good in comparison.

Similarly, an orgnisation that is designed to confront Militarythreats cannot do the job of Civilian admistration as efficiently as those trained for it would do.

..and if they can then the necessity of a civilian admistration & its selection / training set up is redundant.

As I wrote above, no one expects the army to design the education curriculum or the next five-year economic plan. However people understand one basic principle: if corruption and nepotism can be controlled, then ordinary, honest middle level people can do their job properly. These people were honest all along, but were powerless in a system of corruption.

The army understands one thing very well: once there is a plan of action, they know how to execute it. Getting paid to work 9-5 means working 9-5, not coming in at 10 and leaving at 3.

 

[Developereo]

Such is the perfidy that the army generals have played with the Pakistani nation. It is strange that you mention of the people considering the army as a viable alternative. I am sure your Qaid would not have wanted that. And you must see the number of years that Pakistani Army has ruled Pakistan from the date of the country's inception to see if the Army is really "just there" .

Even when the politicians are inept (they are no different in any other country), they represent the nation. The army does not represent the political will of the nation. The contradiction is actually larger = whether Pakistan could actually exist as a welfare state and not as a dictatorship. That is what reflects more in the Pakistani predicament.

Again, by 'viable alternative', we are talking of management style. There is no question that appropriately qualified consultants should be used to design policy. The army is simply better at implementing plans.

Unfortunately, laatoon key bhoot baatoon se nehein mantey.

 

[truthseer]

The problem of pakistan feudalism, army, extremism, feeding of wrong history to kids.

At least, proper English is imparted to the youth. Unlike the sentence you wrote, most Pakistanis are comprehensible

 

[r0ck]

The current 'democratically elected government' is a farce, especially when it's being lead by the biggest of 'em all, our very own Mr. Zardari. Whenever I hear support of this term these days, I cannot help but question the OPs analytical judgment and their fundamental understanding of Pakistan. Obviously who in the world in their right state of mind would think that this lot should be (wholly or even partially be) responsible for Pakistan's affairs with no check and balance. This 'democratically elected government' can and will sell whatever there is to, to remain 'democratically elected'. You name it, nuclear secrets, espionage services, hell they'd even rip off (that too for the second time) poor Pakistanis going for Hajj. The situation remains absolutely abysmal with this 'democratically elected government', the so-called 'representatives of the people of Pakistan' or any other fancy line you want to associate them with.

So although everbody agrees that the military should not be involved with running the country's affairs, but is it not more prudent to ask why the people of Pakistan seem to disagree with this assertion? Or are all of them ignorant or have been brain-washed by the ever so critically-performing ISI into thinking as such? Or that the 'democratically elected government' consists of the most honest and innocent men and women, this planet has ever inhabited that so much wrong is being done to them by the military guys? I could go on and on but this would become like the article itself. Pointless.

Apparently the overly supportive tone for the 'democratically elected government' of Pakistan in this article, renders it rather one-sided. Unfortunately, it ends up being in the same class with other articles having similar jibes that are circulated in abundance these days, attempting to somehow conjur up support for the current inept government in public view. Yes, the military need not mingle in a country's affairs, but beforehand, have you given them any other reasonable choice?

The 'democratically elected government' needs to get it's house in order first, before they shamelessly blow their own horn about them being the 'representatives of the people of Pakistan' when in reality they are far, far from it.

 

[third eye]

Not exactly.

Army is also trained in discipline and following the SOPs,
Just like the bureaucracy should do.
Government by definition is multifaceted administration.
and the Army is trained to administer ( it's the policy making which they are not very good at ).

All what Pakistan needs is a honest government which can follow the rules and not serve the elite Feudal class.

Pak Army fills this role very well.

The SOPs any Army is trained to follow relate to military activities and not civilian ones unless the PA runs ' running civilian admistration' as a part of its cirruculum.

The Feudal class is Pak too can only be removed ( as was done in India )by an elected Govt who has the authority to amend the consitution.

The bottom line is that everyone agrees that an Army can at best substitute a civilina Govt for limited periods,an elected Govt needs to run the nation. How can it groe roots if it is not allowed to grow them?

 

[livingdead]

The current 'democratically elected government' is a farce, especially when it's being lead by the biggest of 'em all, our very own Mr. Zardari. Whenever I hear support of this term these days, I cannot help but question the OPs analytical judgment and their fundamental understanding of Pakistan. Obviously who in the world in their right state of mind would think that this lot should be (wholly or even partially be) responsible for Pakistan's affairs with no check and balance. This 'democratically elected government' can and will sell whatever there is to, to remain 'democratically elected'. You name it, nuclear secrets, espionage services, hell they'd even rip off (that too for the second time) poor Pakistanis going for Hajj. The situation remains absolutely abysmal with this 'democratically elected government', the so-called 'representatives of the people of Pakistan' or any other fancy line you want to associate them with.

So although everbody agrees that the military should not be involved with running the country's affairs, but is it not more prudent to ask why the people of Pakistan seem to disagree with this assertion? Or are all of them ignorant or have been brain-washed by the ever so critically-performing ISI into thinking as such? Or that the 'democratically elected government' consists of the most honest and innocent men and women, this planet has ever inhabited that so much wrong is being done to them by the military guys? I could go on and on but this would become like the article itself. Pointless.

Apparently the overly supportive tone for the 'democratically elected government' of Pakistan in this article, renders it rather one-sided. Unfortunately, it ends up being in the same class with other articles having similar jibes that are circulated in abundance these days, attempting to somehow conjur up support for the current inept government in public view. Yes, the military need not mingle in a country's affairs, but beforehand, have you given them any other reasonable choice?

The 'democratically elected government' needs to get it's house in order first, before they shamelessly blow their own horn about them being the 'representatives of the people of Pakistan' when in reality they are far, far from it.

The issue is you never allowed institutions to be built. Every time you throw away politicians and army takes over, it sets the clock backward. And they have to start it all over again.
You have to tolerate current generation of politicians, so that next generation emerges out of it. Unless of course you think military rule is a viable alternative.
I dont know about you, I would prefer corrupt and inept politicians to rule India than a general. Because we cant remove generals easily, but politics can become cleaner.(It is cleaner in India compared to 80s )

 

[Developereo]

You have to tolerate current generation of politicians, so that next generation emerges out of it.

Where is it written that if we 'tolerate' corrupt dynasties, the next generation will be cleaner?

The political scene is dominated by feudal dynasties which hand down power through relatives. The dynasties have a vested interest in the status quo.

(It is cleaner in India compared to 80s )

Because in India, one of the two main parties is democratic. Congress may be Gandhi clan's playground, but BJP and others keep pressure on them to stay somewhat honest.

In Pakistan, both main parties PPP and PML-N are family dynasties. Both parties have an unwritten understanding not to rock the boat too much.

 

[OrionHunter]

The only people having a heartburn about it are our enemies like India and certain Western interests.

My reply to them is: Our Country, Our Choice.

Mind your own darn Business.

You talk like a illiterate ignoramus! The reason why Pakistan is where it is today is because of the psyche of people like you.

Now the question is why should India 'mind its own business'? For heaven's sake, are you not aware that we are neighbors? And since we are, any policy decision in Pakistan especially concerning defence, foreign affairs and economy affects India's policies towards Pakistan too. You are not living in a fish tank, for crying out loud.

So wake up to reality and smell the coffee. Your childish blabber just exhibits your ignorance.

 

[third eye]

Where is it written that if we 'tolerate' corrupt dynasties, the next generation will be cleaner?

The political scene is dominated by feudal dynasties which hand down power through relatives. The dynasties have a vested interest in the status quo.



Because in India, one of the two main parties is democratic. Congress may be Gandhi clan's playground, but BJP and others keep pressure on them to stay somewhat honest.

In Pakistan, both main parties PPP and PML-N are family dynasties. Both parties have an unwritten understanding not to rock the boat too much.

One understands the point made & concern expressed.

However, its not about any party being good or otherwise. What is needed is faith the electorate has in itself and the power of its vote.

 

[livingdead]

Where is it written that if we 'tolerate' corrupt dynasties, the next generation will be cleaner?

The political scene is dominated by feudal dynasties which hand down power through relatives. The dynasties have a vested interest in the status quo.



Because in India, one of the two main parties is democratic. Congress may be Gandhi clan's playground, but BJP and others keep pressure on them to stay somewhat honest.

In Pakistan, both main parties PPP and PML-N are family dynasties. Both parties have an unwritten understanding not to rock the boat too much.

Dynastic politics is an Indian trait too, and BJP and each other party has its own share. It is in our culture to think somebody as his father's son(Mr X's son) and people become individuals only after they turn 30. Children inherit the goodwill and trust that people have on their father/mother.
So it is not a problem specific to pakistan. Nor is the problem of corruption.

If only you keep on engaging with politicians, slowly better people will emerge. I wont have any issue, if Army was a viable alternative. It is not in long term, and it capturing power in regular interval destroys institutions.
Please remember, institution of democracy is bigger than politicians, the same way Institution of Judiciary is much bigger than individual lawyers or judges.

 

[indiatester]

Most Pakistanis are quite content with the Military holding the sleazebag politicians feet to the fire.

The only people having a heartburn about it are our enemies like India and certain Western interests.

My reply to them is:

Our Country, Our Choice.

Mind your own darn Business.

You are wrong actually. The only choice you have is in electing whoever you get into the civilian government. You don't have choice with the military. Its imposed on you. If you happen to like it, I will liken it to the Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Developereo]

If only you keep on engaging with politicians, slowly better people will emerge.

Hasn't happened for 60 years. Even now, Zardari is grooming his son Bilawal, and Nawaz Sharif is grooming his son-in-law (and maybe others) to take over the reins of the family business.

These people are shameless and incorrigible.