What is Holding Pakistan Back

[maverick2009]

For a nation that had so many PLUS FACTORS in its favour the first 60 YEARS have been a real let down. This nation had

1. USA has its main ally until recently yet failed to use them like Japan & Korea did to attract $billions in FDI for industril growth.

2. China is their GREATEST steadfast friend yet CHINA grows at incredible rates for 3 decades whislt Pakistan goes backwards. WHY has china not been help to translate its massive success in their great ally.

3. Massive ARAB suport on their doorstep being a very large iSLAMIC NATION you wud think that particularly Saudi with its outraegous wealth could have turned parts of PAKIASTAN INTO DUBAI.. Yet nothing concrete.

Why has it failed to live up to its potential.

Some factors to consider

1. Pakistani Army have held the Power with no idea how to grow the country succesfully. Stagnating growth involved in costly border wars and an ARMS race that Pakistan simply cannot win.

2. Aleination of the west preventing outside FDI due to various combination of Army politics and growth of islamic fundementalism.

3. No foesight from a string of leaders who are simply keen to loot the country and have no idea how to grow and nurture democratic institutions.

4. Lack of education and no growth in Pakistans edicational base to develope the leaders of the future.

 

[A1Kaid]

This is a question that many of US ponder...

It is because Pakistan has lacked a great leader in modern times.

Also because of other Geo-Political menaces that pose a threat to Pakistan.


But I disagree with you on this point.

"1. USA has its main ally until recently yet failed to use them like Japan & Korea did to attract $billions in FDI for industril growth."

The U.S has not been to us a very genuine ally, it has betrayed Pakistan in the past before, so their loyalty is questionable. And when Pakistan did have relations with U.S it was mostly with the Pakistani Army and it's Generals, and funding was more for military procurements and spending, not necessarily to build infrastructure and modernization plans (perhaps there are some exceptions). Let's not forget this is the same country that sanctioned us, or as Gen. Colin Powell put it Pakistan was "sanctioned to the eyeball".


Also about this point about Japan & Korea, Japan and Korea developed domestic industries far greater than what Pakistan has. For example, Japan developed Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, Mitsubishi in recent history, and Korea developed other great domestic industries like Samsung and Daewoo...Pakistan on the other hand does not have no major company to speak of that is on an international level...

These two countries had better economic plannings, they also enjoyed a greater period of peace, one that Pakistan was not able to have due to the regional situation with India.

By the way, I hope you are not saying that Japan and Korea both became wealthy nation's due to the U.S...(just saying okay)...Though Pakistan did for several years from 2003-2007 bring in high amounts of FDI, during the Musharraf administration. FDI was coming in Pakistan in the billions, from China, US, and parts of the Middle East.


You made another interesting point.

"2. China is their GREATEST steadfast friend yet CHINA grows at incredible rates for 3 decades whislt Pakistan goes backwards. WHY has china not been help to translate its massive success in their great ally."

Until recent times Pakistan's relationship with China was highly concentrated in the Military sector--Military development. For many decades, the relationship with China was not necessarily an economic one, but merely a military one, where China would bolster Pakistan's defense, and Pakistan would support China politically, because during those years China was a very unpopular and politically weak country with little foreign allies.

But today, there is a transformation of the Pakistan-China relationship, and it has reached a new height beyond the military sphere, it has evolved into a economic relationship as well. This had always been missing in the past, but slowly greater economic ties are being established with China.


I encourage you to read more about this recent evolution in Pakistani-Chinese relationship moving to establish greater economic ties.

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3873&tx_ttnews[backPid]=195&no_cache=1

 

[PAFAce]

For a nation that had so many PLUS FACTORS in its favour the first 60 YEARS have been a real let down. This nation had

1. USA has its main ally until recently yet failed to use them like Japan & Korea did to attract $billions in FDI for industril growth.

2. China is their GREATEST steadfast friend yet CHINA grows at incredible rates for 3 decades whislt Pakistan goes backwards. WHY has china not been help to translate its massive success in their great ally.

3. Massive ARAB suport on their doorstep being a very large iSLAMIC NATION you wud think that particularly Saudi with its outraegous wealth could have turned parts of PAKIASTAN INTO DUBAI.. Yet nothing concrete.

Why has it failed to live up to its potential.

Some factors to consider

1. Pakistani Army have held the Power with no idea how to grow the country succesfully. Stagnating growth involved in costly border wars and an ARMS race that Pakistan simply cannot win.

2. Aleination of the west preventing outside FDI due to various combination of Army politics and growth of islamic fundementalism.

3. No foesight from a string of leaders who are simply keen to loot the country and have no idea how to grow and nurture democratic institutions.

4. Lack of education and no growth in Pakistans edicational base to develope the leaders of the future.

Another gem! What an insightful analysis of a complex nation! Surely, there is no way you thought of all that in two minutes. How deep and thoughtful.

 

[Skeptic]

This thread should be moved to an appropriate section.

Moreover on the topic:

And when Pakistan did have relations with U.S it was mostly with the Pakistani Army and it's Generals, and funding was more for military procurements and spending, not necessarily to build infrastructure and modernization plans

Pakistan's relationship with China was highly concentrated in the Military sector

So, will it be incorrect to infer that Army ruling the country was the main reason that held Pakistan back. A civilian Govt might have extracted more from these two strong allies than a few fighters and artillery.

Also about this point about Japan & Korea, Japan and Korea developed domestic industries far greater than what Pakistan has. For example, Japan developed Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, Mitsubishi in recent history, and Korea developed other great domestic industries like Samsung and Daewoo...Pakistan on the other hand does not have no major company to speak of that is on an international level...

Again these companies were not gifted to Korea of Japan. They worked hard to make it big and had the backing from their govt. This is the primary reason I see the Army rule as the major deterrent to growth and I am not focusing just on the Army Budget. More than money it is the focus which is required to boost the economy. Army ruling the country is the single major factor which has historically slowed down Pakistan.

Look at the results, Pakistan has one of the top 10 Armies in the world and still in your own words - not a single domestic industry with international recognition as they were never the focus of ruling authority.

 

[A1Kaid]

This thread should be moved to an appropriate section.

Moreover on the topic:





So, will it be incorrect to infer that Army ruling the country was the main reason that held Pakistan back. A civilian Govt might have extracted more from these two strong allies than a few fighters and artillery.



Again these companies were not gifted to Korea of Japan. They worked hard to make it big and had the backing from their govt. This is the primary reason I see the Army rule as the major deterrent to growth and I am not focusing just on the Army Budget. More than money it is the focus which is required to boost the economy. Army ruling the country is the single major factor which has historically slowed down Pakistan.

Look at the results, Pakistan has one of the top 10 Armies in the world and still in your own words - not a single domestic industry with international recognition as they were never the focus of ruling authority.

"So, will it be incorrect to infer that Army ruling the country was the main reason that held Pakistan back. A civilian Govt might have extracted more from these two strong allies than a few fighters and artillery."

Well not necessarily, because the civilian option was poor as well. Also, military rule is not necessarily counter-productive, and I would point to Gen. Musharraf's period of rule as a primary example, during his rule Pakistan experienced great economic growth with an average GDP growth rate between 2003-2007 at 7.0% +/-, and major FDI, and further privatizing of the economy. And other things...

"Again these companies were not gifted to Korea of Japan."

I never said they were, you better start clearly reading what I said.

"Also about this point about Japan & Korea, Japan and Korea developed domestic industries far greater than what Pakistan has. For example, Japan developed Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, Mitsubishi in recent history, and Korea developed other great domestic industries like Samsung and Daewoo...Pakistan on the other hand does not have no major company to speak of that is on an international level..."-A1Kaid

I never said these industries were gifted, I said "Japan and Korea developed domestic industries" they developed them on their own.


Though I think what you are suggesting, military rule can slow down economic progress. Because the Military is not necessarily experienced in economic policies rather defense policies, if we put in simple terms guess there is some simple truth to that...But what Musharraf did was bring in brilliant technocrats to revive the nation's economy, and made the economy a major objective of the nation.

 

[Skeptic]

"So, will it be incorrect to infer that Army ruling the country was the main reason that held Pakistan back. A civilian Govt might have extracted more from these two strong allies than a few fighters and artillery."

Well not necessarily, because the civilian option was poor as well. Also, military rule is not necessarily counter-productive, and I would point to Gen. Musharraf's period of rule as a primary example, during his rule Pakistan experienced great economic growth with an average GDP growth rate between 2003-2007 at 7.0% +/-, and major FDI, and further privatizing of the economy. And other things...

"Again these companies were not gifted to Korea of Japan."

I never said they were, you better start clearly reading what I said.

"Also about this point about Japan & Korea, Japan and Korea developed domestic industries far greater than what Pakistan has. For example, Japan developed Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, Mitsubishi in recent history, and Korea developed other great domestic industries like Samsung and Daewoo...Pakistan on the other hand does not have no major company to speak of that is on an international level..."-A1Kaid

I never said these industries were gifted, I said "Japan and Korea developed domestic industries" they developed them on their own.


Though I think what you are suggesting, military rule can slow down economic progress. Because the Military is not necessarily experienced in economic policies rather defense policies, if we put in simple terms guess there is some simple truth to that...But what Musharraf did was bring in brilliant technocrats to revive the nation's economy, and made the economy a major objective of the nation.

I agree with your views and I understand it will not be possible for us to converge closer on this issue, but history will see Musharraf as an exception rather than the rule. Ayub Khan also to a certain extent as he bargained Aid from US by aligning against Soviet, but generally that has not been the case.

These was no intention of misquoting you, just wanted to emphasize the point that these companies need support from the govt tp prosper.

 

[A1Kaid]

I agree with your views and I understand it will not be possible for us to converge closer on this issue, but history will see Musharraf as an exception rather than the rule. Ayub Khan also to a certain extent as he bargained Aid from US by aligning against Soviet, but generally that has not been the case.

These was no intention of misquoting you, just wanted to emphasize the point that these companies need support from the govt tp prosper.

Absolutely, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China the Asian Tiger Economies have all developed heavily in their industries. The Government invest state subsidies in their domestic industries, and protects their domestic industries by creating an advantageous economic environment for their domestic industries to operate in, for example high tariffs on foreign cheap goods, and specifically putting tariffs on competitive markets.

These nations, invested in their industries and today they benefit from the fruits of their past labor. I encourage Pakistan to do the same, the Government must invest heavily in local industries, state-sponsor companies, provide them money, infrastructure, and a market to do business. After years of development allow these companies to privatize to some extent...It is a complicated and time consuming topic so I will leave it there...



"but history will see Musharraf as an exception rather than the rule"

Yes perhaps, and this is why I said to you...

"So, will it be incorrect to infer that Army ruling the country was the main reason that held Pakistan back. A civilian Govt might have extracted more from these two strong allies than a few fighters and artillery."

Well not necessarily, because the civilian option was poor as well. Also, military rule is not necessarily counter-productive, and I would point to Gen. Musharraf's period of rule as a primary example, during his rule Pakistan experienced great economic growth with an average GDP growth rate between 2003-2007 at 7.0% +/-, and major FDI, and further privatizing of the economy. And other things..."



Edit:
"not necessarily" because as Gen. Musharraf has proven there are exceptions. Also there are exceptions in the case of South Korea. Read the history of Gen. Park Chung Hee in South Korea and his economic agenda and how he was able to strengthen S. Korea's economy...

 

[wtf]

Pakistan was on a true growth trajectory until the 70's. Until then Pakistan was the capitalistic answer to India's socialism.
After that came the Bangladesh war which slowed down the country - not due to war losses, but due to political strife before the war. After the war, Pakistan was in an even better position (economically) because Bangladesh was generally poorer compared to West Pakistan.Afghanistan war and the funding/support of the US also helped it grow. The real slowdown did not happen until after Ayub Khan but many issues were older.

I would say what really kept Pakistan back are 2-3 things
1) Lack of land reforms - If I can use India's example, states with reasonable land laws are richer. I think this may be a big factor in Pakistan.
2) Focus on Islamic wars - While it served Pakistan to start a fight in J&K on Islamic grounds, it also poisoned the society at home. I would say that it encouraged a gun culture and money flows to Madrassahs instead of schools. It also took out women out of the workforce who would otherwise have contributed economically.
3) Military spending and talent flow onto military - I posted a paper to another thread which showed that a percentage of GDP spend on military cut the economic growth of Pakistan by 0.65%.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Mevrick i think whats holding Pakistan is Pakistan never had seriously committed to be a true friend..either be a complete true friend or be a complete enemy..there is no other option never will be..we say we're china's best friend no sir we are confused not that we don't want to be but a confused nation..if we want to be really friends with China we must embrace them fully and let dump Americans once and for all or either be with the Americans..when America tells Pakistan i think they are half right and ofcuz always half wrong but again what is our foreign policy..? need to clearly state who is friend who is foe and how do u make up relationship with ur true friends the recent dumping or not giving importance to China by this govt is evident..
Anything related to the success of nation is dependent on its true friendship..
from economy to armed forces and other reforms..we are being dictated as long as ur dictated u WILL NOT GET SUCCEEDED...once ur in position to dictate that is when ur in driving seat...

 

[Patriot]

I'll reply to this in detail later on today however Today Pakistan situation is not so bad.The infrastructure in main cities is good, the military is powerful considering that we started with nothing and had very little infrastructure in West Pakistan i think it's pretty good achievement (With a fragile political situation)

 

[sob]

Well not necessarily, because the civilian option was poor as well. Also, military rule is not necessarily counter-productive, and I would point to Gen. Musharraf's period of rule as a primary example, during his rule Pakistan experienced great economic growth with an average GDP growth rate between 2003-2007 at 7.0% +/-, and major FDI, and further privatizing of the economy. And other things..."

But it is important to note that during this period 2003-2007 there was an unprecedented boom in the global economy which was primarily led by availability of cheap money. Billions of dollars poured into developing countries.

This is true for both India and Pakistan. Most of the boom during this period was due to the massive foreign investment. So to give 100% credit to one person for this IMO is not correct.

 

[forcetrip]

1. Pakistani Army have held the Power with no idea how to grow the country succesfully. Stagnating growth involved in costly border wars and an ARMS race that Pakistan simply cannot win.


4. Lack of education and no growth in Pakistans edicational base to develope the leaders of the future.

​

I am not against the army coming to power purely because this society deserves just that .. Controlling the amount of population we have in this strip of land will require 3 times the resources and infrastructure than a developed nation. Whereas we do not even have a quarter of these said resources, let alone infrastructure. Pakistan cannot afford to get caught in spending billions on weapons which will be erased by a foreign power in a matter of minutes. The good fight is being taught to us by our uneducated and misguided enemy in the north .. if you cant fight with all of the worlds technology then you have to learn to fight without it.. India cannot fight what we have inside our borders .. hell, even we are having a problem fighting that.. stop buying these useless planes and redirect all those resources for major education drive, complete overhaul of our present educational institutes.. if your child is not in school, you go to jail or something of that nature .. maybe we will come out of it in the next 20 years..

P.S - If it was upto me I would Scrap both the Airforce and Navy. Make a 1 million man elite SSG unit equipped with only the best money can buy. Im joking .. but still .. I would ..

 

[muse]

A1Kaid

"1. USA has its main ally until recently yet failed to use them like Japan & Korea did to attract $billions in FDI for industril growth."

The U.S has not been to us a very genuine ally, it has betrayed Pakistan in the past before, so their loyalty is questionable. And when Pakistan did have relations with U.S it was mostly with the Pakistani Army and it's Generals, and funding was more for military procurements and spending, not necessarily to build infrastructure and modernization plans (perhaps there are some exceptions). Let's not forget this is the same country that sanctioned us, or as Gen. Colin Powell put it Pakistan was "sanctioned to the eyeball".

Isn't it time to get over this "betrayed us" BS? I mean to say, how has this line of thinking helped Pakistan? All it seems to have done is empower those who seem to want the US to help Pakistan attack and win over India - shouldn't the substance of relations with other countries be more than this sort of childishness?

Pakistan could today have been past Korea, instead it is a basket case? The answers we all know are due mostly to the kinds of economics our politicians have followed -- it is a version of populism, where in "pro poor" (in other words "poor" must be good, why else would we be "pro" it?) meaning "feel good" policies such as giving portionsof the treasury away to politicians and their cronies in support of luney tunes policies which have served only to distribute poverty.

If Army intervention is not desired, let us be honest about the conditions and behaviors that brought about the intervention.

I wil however' agree with you that Army intervention had a major flaw which is that it was not concieved as change that would be institutionalized, a system, if you will.

What's holding Pakistan back is what has always held it back, a beholdenness to economic models that do not work - Pakistanis have lived by their wits and by their labor and business acumen for more than 7000 years, but yet since the PPP and it's nationalizing ofd the economy, Pakistan have stumbled from crisis to crisis.

Fact of the matter is that politicians have sought to instiute a great theft of assets that belonged to private citizsens of Pakistan, such a theft can never be allowed to succeed - indeed it will not be allowed to succeed, the wealth of private citizens of Pakistan must be returned to them and the thieving politician be damned.

You will note that when Pakistan pursued structural change during the Musharraf era, Pakistanis from around the world and other investors poured funds into Pakistan and took these funds out as soon as the thieving politiicans took over -- ask yourself, WHY??

The answer is simple, investors know who will protect their money and who will steal it - investors recognize what kind of frameowrk will help Pakistan and what kjind of framework is designed ot facilitate theft, the transfer of private assests and the creation of public liabilities.

Had Pakistan concentrated on economics, would it not have been in a stronger position to have it's strategic and political policies actually benefit those it was intended to benefit??

Idiot ideas of perpetual war developed to mask theft have now led Pakistan to near ruin -- Lets us be mindful that the purpose of our nation is to uplift itself, and with itself all those who wish her well - our purpose is not to inflict war on the Indian, but to deter and defend, so that our legacy may have better more dignified, more civil, lives than we have had.

The U.S as a very large source of private investors could have helped us achieve our goals, but no one is going to help countries who cannot and will not defend their own property and that of others.

Pakistan, it is the great hope of so many in the world, will one day, soon, come back it's senses, come out of the evil spell it had come under, and when it does, it will find the rest of the world ready to help it.

 

[muse]

Institutions and religion

By Kunwar Idris
Sunday, 03 May, 2009 | 08:30 AM PST | In Pakistan’s political context, faith has proved more divisive than unifying.

Survival without military & mullah Is Pakistan a failing or a failed state? This question is being asked the world over. Folks at home contemplate the same question in more direct terms: is the country going to break up once again?

A non-committal answer, somewhat like ‘teetering on the brink’, makes everyone get on with business as usual as best as they can. The interests of those abroad and those at home, however, are poles apart.

On behalf of the world, Hillary Clinton is worried about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of advancing terrorists. The worry at home is less grim but more poignant. People running away from violence in Swat, Dir, Buner and other battlegrounds wait and wonder when they will be able to return home and send their children to school.

The American fear and the misery of the displaced families at home both arise from the inefficiency and indifference of the institutions of the state. Individual ambition and wrong policies have diminished our institutions but they still exist and sometimes make their existence felt as they are deeply rooted in history. Pakistan, therefore, can still pull back from the brink if our political leaders and parties even now concede the fundamental truth that countries are sustained by institutions, howsoever weak, and not by individuals, howsoever strong.

It is for reasons of institutional support that the world at large and the people at home draw comfort from Gen Kayani’s promise of ‘victory against terror and militancy at all costs’ but cynically dismiss the debate in parliament as mere bluff and bluster. The army as an institution has suffered the least damage and has also been able to withstand political onslaught and recover from the humiliation of defeat.

Unlike the armed forces, the political, legislative administrative and judicial institutions are no longer feared or respected. When Prime Minister Gilani feels persuaded to declare that ‘we in parliament are no puppets’ he surely knows that the people think they are. And when an outraged minister, Babar Awan, asserts that the law of Pakistan reigns supreme in Swat despite the special regulation, he knows full well that it does not. Gunmen do not read the law; they see it enforced — but nobody is doing that.

Pakistan remains exposed to all kinds of internal stresses and foreign blackmail because its political leadership has not been able to make certain essential decisions relating to the structure of the government and its policies. All institutions, the Supreme Court included, appear transitory and divided. For more than a year we had a chief justice in office and another riding the crest on the streets.After a long and costly tussle it was agreed by all to restore the parliamentary character of the constitution but the National Assembly after a long, desultory session adjourned without forming an all-party committee which was to review Musharraf’s 17th Amendment that had made it presidential in all but name.

Thus while the parliament is said to be supreme and the prime minister, so to say, is the chief executive, to the people at home and governments abroad it is President Zardari who really matters.

It has also been agreed among all parties that the provinces must get greater autonomy and a new formula is said to have been devised for the distribution of federal revenues among the provinces. But in more than a year not even a tentative move has been seen in that direction. The future shape of the local government and the restoration of the district/divisional administration as it stood before Musharraf disbanded it also remain subject to speculation or haphazard action.

Greater provincial autonomy will surely have a calming effect on the anger and insurgency in Balochistan where time is running out and in fact has run out if Governor Magsi is not being an alarmist. And the political agents in the tribal areas with their enhanced power and prestige can revive the hierarchy of the elders that has broken down under the pressure of armed militants and their doctrinal patrons. The best chance of bringing peace back to the tribal areas and Malakand Division (Swat, Dir, Buner, Chitral, etc.) lies in dealing with the tribes through their own elders following their own traditional codes and treaties with the government — not under special regulations.

The puritanical social values imposed by the militant clerics would give way to normal conservative but tolerant and hospitable behaviour once the tribal hierarchy regains its lost authority. The army can kill or drive away the infiltrating fighters but only an autonomous political service would be able to organise the tribes to exclude the fanatical mullahs from the power structure.

Besides reinstating the rule of power vesting in institutions and not in individuals, parliament and the Supreme Court must undertake a review of the relationship between state and religion. It is hard to deny that violent campaigns for Sharia directly flow from the constitutional provisions that make Islam the state religion and also bind the state to bring all laws ‘in conformity with the injunctions of Islam’. Maulana Sufi Mohammad can justifiably claim to be fulfilling a responsibility that is imposed by the constitution on all citizens.

The path to terror in Swat and elsewhere is blazed by the constitution of Pakistan itself. In Khyber Agency, rival lashkars are pitched against each other with their competing interpretations of Islamic injunctions. Some 35 years ago the parliament of Pakistan determined that the Ahmadiyya community was not Muslim. Is it not poetic justice that Sufi Mohammad should now determine that the lawmakers of Pakistan, one and all, are infidels?

Come to think of it, all parties claiming to be religious are, in fact, sectarian and the Taliban is the most violent manifestation of this. In Pakistan’s political context, faith has proved more divisive than unifying. It is a different matter though of not much concern to Sufi Mohammad that the vast majority does not agree with him on what those injunctions are. Sunnis belonging to what is commonly known as the Barelvi school and Shias (who are believed to be one-fifth of the population) openly denounce Sufi Mohammad’s campaign and accuse the government of abject surrender to his blackmail.

As fanatics make a desperate bid to capture state power and Pakistan’s religious parties and divines watch helplessly, can Hillary Clinton be faulted for imagining that one day, and soon, men like Fazlullah, Baitullah Mehsud and Mullah Omar might be controlling Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?

kunwaridris@hotmail.com

 

[Bane Blade]

1. USA has its main ally until recently yet failed to use them like Japan & Korea did to attract $billions in FDI for industril growth.

The 2 nations in question have been invaded by the US and declared cleared by them whereas Pakistan is being seen as a very different friend that the US at times attack and a times defends and untill a stable friendship isn't made nothings possible.

2. China is their GREATEST steadfast friend yet CHINA grows at incredible rates for 3 decades whislt Pakistan goes backwards. WHY has china not been help to translate its massive success in their great ally.

They actuall have helped develop a lot of things for Pakistan and they are continuing to do so unlike America China doesn't keep repeating all the work it has done anywhere.

3. Massive ARAB suport on their doorstep being a very large iSLAMIC NATION you wud think that particularly Saudi with its outraegous wealth could have turned parts of PAKIASTAN INTO DUBAI.. Yet nothing concrete.

They have gotten alot of subsidy from the Arab Nations and has also been chosen over others to provide work force for the Arab world.

1. Pakistani Army have held the Power with no idea how to grow the country succesfully. Stagnating growth involved in costly border wars and an ARMS race that Pakistan simply cannot win.

WE are competing with our life in this arms race and we will continue the race untill we practically die out I not for a minute feel that we don't need to improve our defence untill India continues to do the same.

2. Aleination of the west preventing outside FDI due to various combination of Army politics and growth of islamic fundementalism.

Europe at the moment is in a tough position to help itself and whenever their is a boom alot of investment is done in Pakistan as well reflection of that can be seen quite often.

3. No foesight from a string of leaders who are simply keen to loot the country and have no idea how to grow and nurture democratic institutions.

In Britain the MP's expenses is no different they are no less looting the country just as much we need time to understand I pray that things get better over that time.

4. Lack of education and no growth in Pakistans edicational base to develope the leaders of the future.

This is the right point for mentioning and I feel that htis needs to be given utmost importance however untill its educated don't teach the educate the government is going to keep enjoying its rule over uneducated fools.