Musalman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
You don't need to bring Indians in everything.At least you got toilet and safety for women unlike some Supa Powa.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't need to bring Indians in everything.At least you got toilet and safety for women unlike some Supa Powa.
This is south asia after all, neither perfect or worse.Safety for women ? Ehhhhhhhhh
Stable democracy isn't easy , it took a dictator to turn South Korea what it's today so honestly the same could be done in Pakistan or Bangladesh all you need is a man or women with actual vision to make the country developed and idc if they steal money in the process
How does Pakistan have that mindset? Their is no sense of civic duty and everyone is corrupt and looking out for themselves. I am not saying to get rid of democracy. I'm saying we should establish a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can even be an elective monarchy.
This is very true. But this all boils down to education. A new generation needs to be taught and cultivated the idea of civic duty. I have no idea what they teach in mosques or what sermons are given. But how about -How does Pakistan have that mindset? Their is no sense of civic duty and everyone is corrupt and looking out for themselves.
Dressing something differantly does not change it.I'm saying we should establish a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can even be an elective monarchy.
It is. Pakistan is a fractured, conflicted, mob of a country. It needs a strong presidential system with five year openings for public to take account of the ruler with 2 term ten year cap. Do your thing. Then at max 10 year cycle fcukin fade into history.hence a presidential system is not ideal either.
Great as an Idea but will never happen, I believe 2 terms as PM was also a rule but changed at some point - correct me if I am wrong.It is. Pakistan is a fractured, conflicted, mob of a country. It needs a strong presidential system with five year openings for public to take account of the ruler with 2 term ten year cap. Do your thing. Then at max 10 year cycle fcukin fade into history.
In Pakistan we get few faces being rehashed for 40 years. Each get a few months of wobbly rule and then tumble to be replaced by the other face who also then tumbles after few months. Decades go by with this game of music chairs. In the short installments these faces get they make merry with public finances then blame the other. Then when the army steps in they all gang up and point fingers at the army.
New Recruit
No, you can't have another body. That itself would be open to manipulation and would be used to make the President hang on with his finger nails for 5 years of his term which is not exactly conductive to stable rule.A president by having such power will be able to change laws such as fixed term or term limits to suit his own agenda. Unless you propose another body that creates checks and balances so that Presidential power can be challenged. However, that would bring us back to square one.
You're braver than me to appoint a President for up to two 5 year terms without checks and balances - that too someone likely to be from Sharif or Zardari clan.No, you can't have another body. That itself would be open to manipulation and would be used to make the President hang on with his finger nails for 5 years of his term which is not exactly conductive to stable rule.
If the a two five year term with 10 years was enshrined in the constitution and widely known I can't see any ruler being able to extend his rule beyond that. The Pakistani ecosystem militates against rule by one man beyond 10 years - even that is tall order. If you look at history even military dictators ran out of fuel in 10 years.
I am more concerned with giving a solid 5 year terms to the winner even if that happens to be Maryam, Zardari etc because they would gewt rinsed out.
Most of current Korean GDP is made during its democratic system while its earliest period development was the contribution of its dictatorship.
The main reason of the fast development of Korean chaebols is the gov preference and protection on those Chaebols, including imposing high tarrif on foreign products during its earliest period.
While Bangladesh and Pakistan give huge freedom on Chinese goods to come despite its main domestic industries arent yet strong enough.
So we should tax the Chinese more ?
Democracy doesn't work in Pakistan and a lot of other "developing countries" and we should abandon it for these reasons.
- Democracy works best in a nation state. A nation state is where the whole country is made of one ethnicity or one ethnic group. Although you could argue that Pakistan is a nation state because all the people in Pakistan are related genetically, the reality is many people only identify with their "sub-ethnicity". When you have a parliament with mixed ethnicity members, they all want to gain more autonomy and independence and we can see many political parties divided by ethnicity rather than actual political ideology. Pakistan has to rely on religion to keep people together and Islam is the only thing keeping this country from falling apart. The Ottoman Empire had to abandon their first attempt at creating a constitutional monarchy because they had too many ethnicities.
- Tribal mentality. A good portion of the population of Pakistan is not "educated". Most of the members on this forum have gone through some sort of western education so we have a different worldview than the village/tribal people of Pakistan. Although you could argue that there are more educated people in Pakistan than there are uneducated ones. Uneducated people reproduce more so they will always be a large portion of the population. One of the prerequisites for a functioning democracy is a high level of individualism among the population. Tribal people do not see themselves as individuals, they see themselves as part of their tribe/ethnicity. Therefore, it is easy to manipulate a lot of people's votes by just bribing or threatening the tribal chieftains or Zamindar land owners.
- People in Pakistan want a strong central figure to look up to. It is easy to cheat the government when it is just a bunch of corrupt politicians arguing and yelling. But People would think twice if the government was represented by one person. This has been proven by studies done in the Scandinavian and Arab kingdoms.
- Corruption. There will always be corruption in a democracy. Europe and America regulate this corruption and call it "Lobbying". They allow it because if they don't, people will be doing illegally and be much worse. Also their systems of democracy are much more centralized than Pakistan so they can actually get stuff done. However, corruption is so rampant in Pakistan that if we legalize it, nobody will care because we can't enforce the law because of this corruption.
So with all these problems, what is the alternative? Nobody wants a dictatorship. Instead, we should implement a semi-constitutional monarchy like Jordan has. Why a monarchy? Because a monarch is inherently uncorrupt able, his interests align with that of the state. He will be able to keep a check on corruption and make sure the parliament is giving what is good for the people and not just what they want. Some of the best countries in terms of stability, economic growth and happiness are monarchies. Just look at the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland. He will also provide a strong military figure that people can look up to and trust. Even if you are not a fan of military rule, you have to admit some of the most stable times in Pakistan was under leaders like General Zia ul Haq.
"A monarch? But isn't that backwards and undemocratic?"
This is what we call a genetic fallacy. Just because something is old doesn't make it bad and just because something is new doesn't make it good. Anyways, some of the top countries on the democracy index are monarchies. A monarch is not a dictator that can do whatever he wants. He has to follow the law and in a constitution monarchy, he can be deposed with a 2/3rd majority vote and/or a fatwa from the Grand Mufti or other top religious figurehead.