Why has democray been sidelined so often in Pakistan?

[typewriter]

In Pakistan, It seems more like 10 years of democracy followed by 10 years of dictatorship. It's as if military rule is a given if things don't work out in 1 decade's time & the dictator is thrown out approximately after 10 years.

What seems to be holding Pakistan from moving forward with true democracy? Or is democracy unfit for Pakistan?

 

[IceCold]

If something is working well in one place does not mean by default it would work fine in another. You may have corrupt politicians, but ours are even below the word corrupt. The policies driven by these politicians are against the national interests of Pakistan and hence after repeated failures army is forced to come in. Actually these politicians are the ones that pave the way for the army to come in and that is pathetic to say the least.

 

[blueoval79]

If something is working well in one place does not mean by default it would work fine in another. You may have corrupt politicians, but ours are even below the word corrupt. The policies driven by these politicians are against the national interests of Pakistan and hence after repeated failures army is forced to come in. Actually these politicians are the ones that pave the way for the army to come in and that is pathetic to say the least.

I agree with you ....for the first time.... every time a democratically elected government fails to deliver....it paves way for the Army or any other non democratic form of leadership to take controls...

 

[FaisalAyaz]

Well this is unfortunate for the country.

 

[third eye]

Democracy as the world knows it appears not gel with Islamic countries barring a few exceptions in SE asia.

 

[Nemesis]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the calibre of leaders in a country. For example, If India didnt have leaders of the freedom movement like Nehru leading us post independence, i have no doubt that India would have become a tin-pot dictatorship.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, Jinnah (irrespective of how Indians may feel about him) died before he could make Pakistan a secular democratic nation that he had envisioned.

 

[third eye]

Ok, going by this anology, did ALL muslim nations have a Jinnah who died too soon ?

 

[aboutimeee]

Democracy as the world knows it appears not gel with Islamic countries barring a few exceptions in SE asia.

Whats Islam got to do with anything. for example look at our beloved Zardari, hes any thing but Islam.

As Nemesis said, in my opinion if Jinnah had lived a few more years we would be in a different Pakistan but it was not to be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the last 60odd years, India has been fully democratic no matter how corrupt their politicians might be and how inefficient they work. Barring the emergency - which was a controlled military state still powered by an elected leader - democracy seems to be here to stay. Whereas in Pakistan, It seems more like 10 years of democracy followed by 10 years of dictatorship. It's as if military rule is a given if things don't work out in 1 decade's time & the dictator is thrown out approximately after 10 years.

What seems to be holding Pakistan from moving forward with true democracy? Or is democracy unfit for Pakistan?

The biggest problem with your thread is in the comparison you draw with India.

What does democracy in Pakistan have to do with India?

Pakistan and India are different nations with different political and social dynamics and different people.

What works in India will not necessarily work in Pakistan and vice versa.

While the subject is interesting, linking it to India serves no purpose.

The title has been adjusted to reflect that and the discussion from her on out needs to be on Pakistan, not India.

 

[third eye]

The biggest problem with your thread is in the comparison you draw with Pakistan.

What does democracy in Pakistan have to do with India?

Pakistan and India are different nations with different political and social dynamics and different people.

What works in India will not necessarily work in Pakistan and vice versa.

While the subject is interesting, linking it to India serves no purpose.

The title has been adjusted to reflect that and the discussion from her on out needs to be on Pakistan, not India.

I think what is meant is that we began from the same start line..

I agree that we are ' different' in as much as what we did after we left the start lins & the decsions we took.

 

[third eye]

Whats Islam got to do with anything. for example look at our beloved Zardari, hes any thing but Islam.
[url="

- zardari drinking[/url]

As Nemesis said, in my opinion if Jinnah had lived a few more years we would be in a different Pakistan but it was not to be.

Do you grude him for having a drink ?

More than half the pakistani's I have met drink. Does killing innocents ( as the talibs are doing in the name of Islam) make a person a better muslim ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think what is meant is that we began from the same start line..

Even that is disputable since the two nations did not start off with the same literacy levels, industrialization, resources, infrastructure, government infrastructure ...

Yes there were similarities, but also huge differences and disparities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Leave Zardari's drinking preferences (or anyone else for that matter) out of this thread please.

 

[ajpirzada]

reason is our corrupt and incompetent leadership which always bends too much towards US (despite anit american sentiment in pakistan) to look for short term solutions thus annoyin pakistani public to an extent that they would welcome their exit. then our generals take charge of the throne but geo political situation (USSR war and 9/11) forces them to bend too much towards US and therefore leadin to the same results - others exploitin anti US feeling to get back in power.
this is one way to look at it but not the only one.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I do not know Pakistan's history in enough detail to understand whether or not the military interventions were, in fact, necessary. That is, were some or all of the military takeovers opportunistic on the part of men like Zia? Could the civilian political system have worked itself out of the "emergency" if given a bit more time by the military? Perhaps the Pakistani military establishment has too high an opinion of itself. That is, they have developed a culture that inculcates a sense that they alone can save the nation. A culture of contempt for the civilian politicians as being corrupt and incompetent. Perhaps the military generals are equally incompetent to manage the affairs of the civilian government and they are saved from the temptation of being corrupt by their cushy lifestyles in their senior military enclaves paid for by the GoP.