Why democracy doesn't work in Pakistan and other developing countries and why we should implement a monarchy

[Chhatrapati]

@jamahir Now this will be some thread for you.

 

[CatSultan]

The first thing we should do is switch to a presidential system instead of a parliamentary one. Even if you aren't a monarchist, you have to agree that the presidential system is better. @peagle @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The first thing we should do is switch to a presidential system instead of a parliamentary one. Even if you aren't a monarchist, you have to agree that the presidential system is better. @peagle @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

It depends. Every system sounds good in theory, but has a flaw in practice. E.g., if Zardari becomes President, he can freely assign his goons to the government, and then make his position for life. We humans have limited knowledge, so we can't tie every loose end, and in Pakistan's case, even one of those loose ends can cause us a lot of problems.

 

[omi]

The only form of Government that should be implemented in Pakistan is a Technocracy. Kick all the politicians and bureaucrats out. They are good for nothing. Crooks, Liars, shitheads. Not one of them has any vision. I can guarantee you ask any one of these what their plans are for the next 5 -10 years in their particular constituencies or for the country and they wont be able to answer. How will the coming water shortage be solved? Nothing. How will the population be managed? Ghair Islami. What measures can be take to strengthen our middle class segment, jis kay kandhon talay sab roti kha rahay hain? L.

 

[peagle]

The first thing we should do is switch to a presidential system instead of a parliamentary one. Even if you aren't a monarchist, you have to agree that the presidential system is better. @peagle @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

I agree with everything @Bilal Khan (Quwa) said word for word,
In addition, I would emphasize that the parliamentary system is perfect for Pakistan because of the tribal/baradari nature of our society, it creates space for each section of the society to play an influential role even when not in power. This allows them to feel they are part of the system, exclusion is never a good thing, especially in developing societies because it breeds separatism.

There is an impression that the system is not working, in my view, it is doing a splendid job, now don't laugh too hard lol.
The apparent instability we see, I think is part of the process and a result of releasing the shackles of our governance history. These things create ripples, we are just seeing those ripples, they will smooth out with time, time and patience go hand in hand. So, rather than worrying all the time, sit back, relax give the system some time, show some patience and enjoy the drama lol

With a presidential system, we would have exactly the problems highlighted by Bilal.
Under a what-if scenario, and if we ever venture on that dark road, I think the South African presidential system is worth looking at, South Africa is the only major country that practices it, plus few minor ones. It is a hybrid parliamentary/presidential system, without the prime minister, I won't go into details because I do not support it, but if anyone is interested they know where to look.

 

[Hiptullha]

No

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@CatSultan

Should it be an Islamic monarchy or let's say a Caliphate rather than just any kind of monarchy?

Regards

 

[Indos]

@CatSultan

Should it be an Islamic monarchy or let's say a Caliphate rather than just any kind of monarchy?

Regards

Real Chaliphate is a democracy. Before early Muslim chose Abu Bakr as Chalip, there is debate and voting while Umar, Ustman, and Ali were chosen by consensus/aclamation based on previous Chalip preference, but it was a basic democracy system and not yet as developed as recent democratic system.

Muslim society is indeed ahead and much advance during its earliest period compared to other civilizations in its period.

 

[SpaceMan18]

Real Chaliphate is a democracy. Before early Muslim chose Abu Bakr as Chalip, there is debate and voting while Umar, Ustman, and Ali were chosen by consensus/aclamation based on previous Chalip preference, but it was a basic democracy system and not yet as developed as recent democratic system.

Muslim society is indeed ahead and much advance during its earliest period.

My country of Bangladesh feels like monarchy lol , family rule

 

[Musalman]

What we need is a stable democracy with no third party interference.
We need grass root level local body system, so that new and good leadership emerge.
Once the system is in place, the bad elements will automatically be booted out.
We do not need a monarch, military dictator or anything else.

 

[SpaceMan18]

What we need is a stable democracy with no third party interference.
We need grass root level local body system, so that new and good leadership emerge.
Once the system is in place, the bad elements will automatically be booted out.
We do not need a monarch, military dictator or anything else.

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

 

[Menace2Society]

Democracy doesn't work in Pakistan and a lot of other "developing countries" and we should abandon it for these reasons.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

There is no one trust worthy enough in our gene pool thats for sure.

Until Pakistan gets a handle on external "ideological" influences this train will never leave the station. A vassal to whoever is the flavour of the month is the best that can be achieved. Pakistani ideology is strong bit misaligned.

 

[Musalman]

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

Well the stable dictator ruined us, the first dictator marginalized the nation. The 2nd divided the country into two by denying government to the rightful party. Third created the Kalashinkoff culture in Pakistan. The 4th pushed Pakistan into a civil war, due to which we are now the poorest in the region.

 

[X-ray Papa]

Well the stable dictator ruined us, the first dictator marginalized the nation. The 2nd divided the country into two by denying government to the rightful party. Third created the Kalashinkoff culture in Pakistan. The 4th pushed Pakistan into a civil war, due to which we are now the poorest in the region.

At least you got toilet and safety for women unlike some Supa Powa.

 

[SpaceMan18]

Well the stable dictator ruined us, the first dictator marginalized the nation. The 2nd divided the country into two by denying government to the rightful party. Third created the Kalashinkoff culture in Pakistan. The 4th pushed Pakistan into a civil war, due to which we are now the poorest in the region.

Well I guess that sucks , I guess for you guys stable democracy works maybe

At least you got toilet and safety for women unlike some Supa Powa.

Safety for women ? Ehhhhhhhhh