Why has democray been sidelined so often in Pakistan?

[aboutimeee]

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 ?

No my good friend, I dont have a grudge against anyone drinking, i don't give a rats fart. i was merely replying to

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

i was saying that our leaders whether civil or dictator being corrupt and unsuccessful has nothing to do with them being Muslim.

its like saying that if you know English you will have a higher life expectancy. while by analyzing data this statement will be true there is no link between English and health rather the fact that English speaking countries like USA, England, Canada and Australia are more Economically developed.

Does killing innocents ( as the talibs are doing in the name of Islam) make a person a better muslim ?

No sir i never said that, they came go to hell for all i care.

 

[ajpirzada]

democracy doesnt take into account moral side of any person. lik Iqbal said- democracy counts ppl not weighs them. wise=selfish
ppl (most of them being self-centred) will always vote for someone who promises short term benifits and no one will look at the larger picture.

 

[third eye]

democracy doesnt take into account moral side of any person. lik Iqbal said- democracy counts ppl not weighs them. wise=selfish
ppl (most of them being self-centred) will always vote for someone who promises short term benifits and no one will look at the larger picture.

Yes you have a point,but what are the options for the ppl ?

Go with a dictator who feels he doing right or stay under the heels of a dictatorial party with a red flag who also is a dictator ? Kings are history now..not that they were much better.

 

[Enigma SIG]

Oddly, in my analogy the engine is the economy, finances is the gas tank, the guages are the press etc. The only role I can think of for a military is the horn !!! Maybe not quite exact. If I may stretch my example a bit, I would say that Pakistan is the case of a small high-revving motorcycle.
They zoomed about a lot (Pakistanis would say because Indians challenged them to race with them or taunted them). Now the battery was drained by the horn and they stopped midway. After that they have decided that it is a better idea to push the bike, charge the battery and keep the horn running (so that they can scare away the old Indian motorcycle) rather than try and ride it again.

Interesting analogy; a little truth in there; made me laugh quite a bit

The problem with Pakistan is we have feudalists ruling us all along; there are a few good people who genuinely want to make a difference to the country; but they are not the decision makers.

The jagirdars rule Pakistan like a monarchy under democratic tags. First of all we have to remove this "Jagirdar" system; then only we can hope for a change.

 

[third eye]

Interesting analogy; a little truth in there; made me laugh quite a bit

The problem with Pakistan is we have feudalists ruling us all along; there are a few good people who genuinely want to make a difference to the country; but they are not the decision makers.

The jagirdars rule Pakistan like a monarchy under democratic tags. First of all we have to remove this "Jagirdar" system; then only we can hope for a change.

how strong is the jagidari system ? Read a book called ' My feudal lord'..wonder how authentic was it ?

Why haven'tland reforms been initiated ?

 

[niaz]

Regret to say that many times I have asked myself the question as to why so few Islamic countries are truly democratic. Just look at OIC countries and you will find monarchies, dictators or military government. Turkey does have democracy but non elected military has the power to interfere. Iran has semblance of democracy but candidates have to be vetted by non elected Council of Guardians. Pakistan and Bangla Desh play hide and seek between military dictators and elected governments. One of the reasons could be an inherent belief that democracy is against Islam.

Historically it wasn’t so. Because greatest of all administrators (Hazrat Omer R.A.) had a council of advisors (Shura) to help him govern the growing Islamic Empire. However with the advent of Umayyads, Caliphate became hereditary. In other words rest were really kings and Khalifas only in name. Many religious personalities therefore consider democracy un Islamic (Sufi Mohammed is a glaring example) and subconsciously, Muslims the worlds over have probably a similar inborn feeling.

During my Kuwait years I had opportunity to discuss many different subjects with Kuwaiti colleagues. One fellow argued that he didn’t like democracy because in many democratic countries consented sex between male partners was not illegal. Probably that is why countries such as Iran have a Guardian system. However when a non elected body is higher than parliament it is not democracy, is it?

 

[ajpirzada]

Yes you have a point,but what are the options for the ppl ?

Go with a dictator who feels he doing right or stay under the heels of a dictatorial party with a red flag who also is a dictator ? Kings are history now..not that they were much better.

in ideal situation i would like a wise person heading our country. doesnt matter if he is a dictator or an elected leader.
for now democracy is fine. atleast you have got an option to remove the leader given all are morally corrupt.
i think there should be some kind of a moral check in democracy. i dont know wat will that be but there should be. wat can that be??

 

[Enigma SIG]

how strong is the jagidari system ? Read a book called ' My feudal lord'..wonder how authentic was it ?

Why haven'tland reforms been initiated ?

Well; all the political parties in pakistan are run by jagirdars so i guess the jagirdar system runs pretty deep. Secondly; there is no democracy in the parties; see NS, zardari, altaf and many others; self proclaimed chairpersons of their respective parties. Then we have the lota system; where people keep changing loyalties for a few bucks.

Land reforms havent initiated because most of the people in the parliament are jagirdars themselves or are affiliated to jagirdars in someway or the other; they will never put out a reform which strips them of their lands; so sadly i dont see that happening in the future.

We need a people's revolution to fix this bloody mess
To quote a line from one of shehzad roy's songs referring to the common man in Pakistan: "In ko mat jagao ye kisi zaruri kaam se so rahe hain"

 

[aboutimeee]

Well; all the political parties in pakistan are run by jagirdars so i guess the jagirdar system runs pretty deep. Secondly; there is no democracy in the parties; see NS, zardari, altaf and many others; self proclaimed chairpersons of their respective parties. Then we have the lota system; where people keep changing loyalties for a few bucks.

well said Imran, there is no democracy in the parties, just another form of dictatorship, here you run for Prime Minister and for President in America, if you don't win you step down and next time someone else has a go but in pakistan people "Own" parties and one man or woman gives orders and all the MPs just follow there supreme leaders until they are killed. The whole system is controlled by just a few families. Come on thats not democracy and thats why it fails. and may i remind you that its not only in pakistan every developing and third world country has this same problem.

 

[Khajur]

First of all there is no perfect democracy,most are far from it .

Problems for democracy in pakistan, has been its repeated interruptions.
And total lack of respect for civilian leadership shown by pakistan armed forces.

So one sees the back and forth pendulum like movement between civilian and military leadership when taking the reigns of the govt in pakistan.

once I read a comment on this forum by a former PAF officer describing all the ingredients one need to have a good democracy and how pakistan severely lacks in them...ironically one nation needs to practice democarcy for many... many decades to develop and better those ingredients that are characterists of a good democarcy.

Indian case is very different .A country of its vast size and even bigger diversity cant be anything but a liberal(of varying degree) democarcy.Those who ignored this aspect of india and tried to be dictatorial in the past, only learned their lessons the hardway.

 

[jeypore]

The "need" does not work. People need the same thing everywhere more or less. (Maybe less need for freedom in a religious society, but that is debatable). A lot of people would want all this, but unless they somehow manage to set up a system which will deliver their wants it does not seem to work.

There is a big difference between Need and to satisfy there Wants. Let me explain, The people who want Need tend to strive for betterment for themselves. In essence they need a good gov't structure (Democratic gov't) that gives them the room and freedom to create. Entrepreneurship is a perfect example, where the gov't should give a better enviroment for them to work.

On the flip side people who are striving for satising there wants, tend to be leeches, they want the gov't to provide for them. These people live in constant victimization and lethargic state. Socialist and Communism struture is best for these type of people. Simply zombies.

 

[MilesTogo]

democracy doesnt take into account moral side of any person. lik Iqbal said- democracy counts ppl not weighs them. wise=selfish
ppl (most of them being self-centred) will always vote for someone who promises short term benifits and no one will look at the larger picture.

you are contradicting yourself. you are saying people have a moral side and at the same time you are saying the people are short-sighted and self centered.

 

[zubair723]

Yes you have a point,but what are the options for the ppl ?

Go with a dictator who feels he doing right or stay under the heels of a dictatorial party with a red flag who also is a dictator ? Kings are history now..not that they were much better.

Couple of 1000 yrs back there were ROMAN & GREEK Republics, why did'nt they survive ? Its just a cycle going on & on

 

[niaz]

Its is possible that until the 19th century an empire was the most natural form of government. Nearly all the old democracies such as Roman and Greek and also the Islamic Caliphate gravitated towards hereditary monarchies. At that time wealth generation was thru agriculture. Any country with feudal system would always end up as a monarchy or an empire because first you need to do grab arable land by force and then use force to keep it in the family. This needed a strong ruler at the head and vassal lords as second tier. Even the first French republic did not last very long.

Until 18th century, most economies were either agriculture or trade based. Even then trade based economies such as Venetian empire and Britain were slowly evolving a democratic form of government. USA, initially a British colony was the first truly democratic state without any privileged class such as Barons or counts and she has been democratic since her independence.

Since the industrial revolution, a new class of people (proletariat) entered into the society in large numbers. As soon as workers organized themselves into unions where officers were elected thru ballot box, democracy became the norm.

In the Capitalist system, entrepreneurs like to pay as little as they can and get maximum work out of the workforce. Workers on the other hand like to get paid maximum but work as little as possible. Both sides were forced to organize themselves for collective bargaining. Democratic system of electing representatives who look after the interest of members was therefore inevitable. When extended to the general population, this becomes democracy. IMO Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand.

After the fall of communism, there is no other alternative system of government available to the industrialized countries but democracy. We will therefore see that all industrialized countries will sooner or later gravitate towards democratic form of government. China in an exception but I wonder for how long.

Pakistan has long been an agrarian economy with most of the legislature coming from the land owning gentry. With increased industrial activity and urbanization of the population, we will see democracy finally taking hold in Pakistan as well.

 

[Abdul Ali]

The last post by Niaz was greatly informative in the economic insight of history. Very well put.

I recently finished reading my first book on our country's history, although a brief version at that, and was left distressed at the muddled record of our leaders.

However, let us not forget the circumstances involving our initiation into the world of nations in '47. We were at a disadvantage from the outset in being deprived of our fair share of resources from the British, and add to that the outflux of best & brightest during partition.

Outside of the military, there seems to be a tribal rivalry amongst the provinces. Is our country truly united because of this.

Additionally, their is a worldwide demographic imbalance. Just browse a list of developed countries and notice what sticks out among them.

In our defense, I would struggle to name other nations as young as us who have reached the status of a developed nation, or even on the doorstep.

I'll leave it to more insightful folks to divulge how to establish a more progressive state going forward.