What's new

Why are Pakistanis afraid of democracy?

Yes it's Kufr's invention where in this system people go crazy, hence also called Democrazy and we have enough crazies in Pakistan in the form of Zardari & Co already running this system.
 
.
You summed it up nicely.

However, there is another problem. Soon you will see people here bringing up arguments that how pure Islamic Govt or some Khilafat is better for Pakistan.




power ''corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'' so which ever way of government a country has the power should be decentralized.
just my thoughts
 
.
I ask myself why so many people are against democracy in Pakistan or to say the least are afraid that democracy does not conform with Islam? Is it because they don't understand it completely? Or is it in fact against the tenets of Islam?
What does the school curriculum teach about democracy in the civics chapter? Is is present at all as part of the social studies?
Someone please answer...

A political democracy is one that acts upon the opinions and beleifs of the majority. Today, inn Pakistan the majority wants an Islamic country, if a secular system was imposed that wouldn't really be democracy at all. If anything such an imposed political system would be bordering dictatorship. Just because most of the worlds democracies are secular doesn't mean that to be democratic you have to be secular.
 
.
I just don't believe that democracy is such a high ideal that one should strive to achieve. It is deeply flawed. That point is logically made in Post #3(http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...-pakistanis-afraid-democracy.html#post1404202), the fatal flaws in democracy should be *logically* discussed and debated in the populace it is to be imposed upon.

And democracy isn't something that "blossoms" with time. Historically, no democracy has ever "matured". The US gained independance in 1776, have they matured yet, with people like Bush and Obama managing to use their skills with words and PR/public image, to repeatedly fool the ignorant masses?

What about Athens, the world's first democracy. They tried it for a few hundred years, they did terrible things, waged wars on weaker city states, killed people they didn't like(like Socrates), by *consent*, because someone convinced all the naive folks to go for it. An naive folks always vastly outnumber wise, informed people.
 
. .
LONG LIVE SOCIALISM............ IM A SOCIALIST!

And i think its the best system for Pakistan.

I'm reminded of this joke:

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

And not to leave out democracy.

SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.

MILITARISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate. "

BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the fung shui is bad.
 
.
The concept is simple its just that the things are not working out for Pakistan they blame democracy for the same. The reality is its not democracy in fact its the leaders which are the problem. Even when the communism failed elsewhere it succeded in China for the reason for the right leadership.

If Pakistan would have had the right leaders forget Democracy even the monarchy would have worked. The problem is not with the democracy but it is with the leaders and the democratic people who choose these democratic people.



In other words democracy is unnecessary and the leadership is the only problem?
 
.
The concept is simple its just that the things are not working out for Pakistan they blame democracy for the same. The reality is its not democracy in fact its the leaders which are the problem. Even when the communism failed elsewhere it succeded in China for the reason for the right leadership.

If Pakistan would have had the right leaders forget Democracy even the monarchy would have worked. The problem is not with the democracy but it is with the leaders and the democratic people who choose these democratic people.
Ahhh...The classic desire for a 'benevolent dictator'. If this type of personality is so common, there would be no need for 'democracy' to start. So let us know when you find this leader, aka 'God'.
 
.
The problem I see is people clearly do not understand that right people not getting elected in democracy does not means that democracy is wrong.

Basically democracy works well in a highly educated society, also it takes time for people to know politicians and their policies. In India also democracy was not felt like being succesful till recently. At one time only congress use to win, irrespective of what they did, now people have become smart. They have become aware of the process and they vote people in and out based on their performance. I feel this will get better as days pass.

This is clear example of giving process it's time, it takes time for such a big thing to work. Big in the sense, when 180 million people align properly to decide how to select who will rule.

Now I don't understand critics of democracy. All democracy means wishses of people will be considered in functioning of government. Now how that can be anti anything. If wishes of people are anti Islamic, does it not mean people are anti Islamic?
 
.
i would rather have dictatorship/communism/Socialism over demo(CORRUPT)crazy!!!:china::pakistan::china::pakistan:
 
. .
If democracy only works in highly educated societies why does the US try to force other nations to adopt democratic system?
 
.
In other words democracy is unnecessary and the leadership is the only problem?
In other words, the desire for a 'benevolent dictator' is a sign of a ideologically and politically lazy person. A 'benevolent dictator' is someone who is truly selfless in service to the people. If he is not omniscience, meaning all knowing, he surrounds himself with specialists who are equally benevolent and selfless and will advise him on the technicalities of their areas so this worldly 'god' can make wise decisions for this people. In return, the people become 'sheeple' because they have forsaken all critical thinking process and have complete faith that the regime will forever be benevolent, wise, and selfless.

Hey...!!! I just described North Korea...!!!
 
.
@Gambit Democracy has it's flaws, if you read up on it's history, it seems to have failed every time. I personally found it very facinating reading about what the US founding fathers had to say about it - they abhored democracy, even though the memory of being under the food of a tyrannical government was very fresh in their mind. They called democracy "mob rule". "Mobs" can democratically agree to ransack places and set people's stuff on fire, it doesn't mean it's right.

I don't think that democracy is a particularly good form of government. I feel that an informed and active populace is the key, that element can make governance work, regardless of whether it's a democracy or not.

I highly recommend you do some more research on this, you already seem like a very well-informed person on so many topics, it would be neat if you were equally well-read on this. I suggest looking at The Truth about Democracy[video=google;8001207403001272754]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8001207403001272754[/video]

And The War on Democracy
[video=google;-3739500579629840148]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148[/video]

I would love to hear any logical argument supporting democracy, in the context of the various logical points made in these two documentaries.
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom