Why We’d Miss Musharraf

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Pakistanis and muslims----our history is that of dictators---either benevolent or otherwise---we even had elected premiers like daddy Bhutto, Benazir and Nawaz who acted like dictators and here we have a
millitary dictator who is more democratic than the civilians before him. Two of the premiers daddy Bhutto and Nawaz wanted to become benevolent dictators ie "CALIPH" but they failed in their endeavours because the politicians went abegging to the millitary house to intervene.

Our political parties are ruled by dictators---Benazir---elected as chairperson for lifetime for her party----Nawaz Sharif and brother Shahbaz amongst the leader of their faction---so my question is that " where is the democracy now"---how can these two preach democracy when there is none in these two parties at the top tier.

Why has the the party leadership not been passed onwards-----our parliament is for five years and same for the priemiership-----it has not happened in the past but that is the goal that we are striving for.

Our present assemblies have changed the ordinance by majority vote that----no 3rd term for premiership for the same person------the elected members must also have a minimum of a BA/Bsc degree or equivalent qualification of pakistan. So, why are these two people in the running for the position of premiership. These so called democratic leaders don't want democracy to prosper----it is just about them and theirselves alone---they have no love for democracy.

 

[roadrunner]

I am sure if nawaaz or BB used the same excuse it would be fine by you.

This makes no sense, like a lot of what you have posted.

As i said before your points have been answered a hundred times but they seem not register.
Just one example is your insistence on believing contatary to CNN,BBC,ABC,Reuters,AP ect that there where no economic sanctions on pakistan before mushys takeover.......something as simple as this one point you can't accept then whats the point of me wasting my time answering your loaded questions.

You know as well as I do that you're twisting words again. You really should take up contortionism, you might be able to earn a living aside from your regular pittance. This is what you said, that initiated the debate ..

Originally posted by dabong1
Did it have something to do with sanctions that where placed on pakistan due to the nuclear testing carried out by nawaaz?
Or maybe it was an accumulation of sanctions over the past decade on the civilian government due to them not moving on core issues like the taliban,nuclear weapons,kashmir ect under military/domestic pressure.

In case you missed it..You said "Or maybe it was an accumulation of sanctions over the past decade on the civilian government" ..: I simply pointed out this was an outright lie, which it is.

I then pointed out that the nuclear sanctions were not applied on NS's government - they were not, the India-Pakistan relief act could be enforced for one year following the nuke tests, and clinton did exactly that. He temporarily lifted economic sanctions on Pakistan till 1999 when Musharaf took over. Why not do some research?

The letter further noted that in July, Congress passed section 902 of the India-Pakistan Relief Act of 1998, which authorized the President to waive the application of U.S. sanctions to India and Pakistan, and that on December 1, 1998, the President waived the sanctions after determining that the waiver would increase the likelihood of progress toward U.S. nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The President's waiver authority ends on October 21, 1999.
NEWS RELEASE 99-054; APRIL 19, 1999

Note this is a US government website. I find it funny the way you'll quote CNN, when it suits your line (even though you've given no link).

In fact, the true story is that NS's government had virtually NIL economic sanctions.. Virtually all the economic sanctions were on Musharraf's government between 1999 and 2003.

 

[roadrunner]

A law that a dictator.... Zia like mushy who took power by force then made himself president implemented,only for another dictator to get rid off it.
Would a democratic party bring such a law in.....i doubt it ,only a dictator would have used such law.

It's funny the way you claim to be not against Pakistan Army, when you class all leaders of the PA as the same. Anyhow, let's overlook this huge dollop of hypocrisy. Would a democratic party have implemented it? you think the MMA would not have??

PESHAWAR, Feb 3: An MPA of the ruling Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal on Thursday tabled two private bills in the NWFP Assembly suggesting that music and dance in public places and educational institutions, and using photographs of women in advertisements be declared penal offences punishable by up to five years in prison along with a fine of up to Rs5,000 and Rs10,000, respectively.
MMA MPA seeks law against music, women's photos in ads -DAWN - Top Stories; 04 February, 2005

In fact, if you knew the reasons behind the "drive to Islamization", you'd know the laws which were created by Zia were created through different processes compared to Musharaf. The laws such as Hudood were created by Saudi scholars, and the proper process was side stepped so that saudi funds could be obtained for the soviet fight. Your argument goes something along the lines of....all of Zia's sins are Musharraf's sins..a ridiculous notion to anyone with an unbiased perspective.

Are these the same courts that mushy gave the Oath of Judges Order 2000,It required the judges to take a new oath of office swearing allegiance to military rule,the ones that refused like Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui where forced out by mushy.........are these the actions of the one you think respects the courts so much.

In 2000, Pakistan's consitution had been suspended, because civilian governments were temporaily usurped. Under constitutional conditions, judges would swear allegiance to the constitution. It was only due to there being no constitution that they had to swear allegiance to an individual. This has since been abolished again under Musharraf's rule.

Musharraf suspended the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,Musharraf accused Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry of abuse of office and tried to get rid of him.....evidence turned out be untrue.........another example of mushys love and respect for the courts and judges.

Your line of argument is again twisted. The truth was that Musharraf had every right to suspend the CJ - this was never in question despite what the media reported. What the courts found, was insufficient evidence to convict the CJ. This does not mean he was not guilty. It means that they did not feel Musharraf had enough evidence to be sure he was guilty of those abuses of power. According to the Consitution of Pakistan, Musharraf only needs to be of the SUSPICION that Chaudary was abusing his power, to call the SJC to look into the matter..there was therefore no abuse of power by Musharraf in this case, and the fact he accepted the court decision is a first for any president in Pakista's history.

 

[roadrunner]

So your saying that Nawaaz and BB would have joined al qaeda/taliban and attacked the US?
Any leader in there right mind would have done what mushy did prior to 9/11,but would have not followed his silly plan forced on him by the US of sending pak army into FATA.

So you're accepting that Musharraf should have sided with the US against AlQ/Taliban. Then what has now changed? Why should Musharraf side with the AlQ/Taliban in FATA? Your argument is flawed as usual. Lacks logic.

 

[roadrunner]

Both of you are probably correct to some extent. Dabong presented an excerpt of Musharraf's statement where he regretted some irregularities that he had heard had taken place - your experience could have been one of them, but RR and Jana are suggesting that with such a large number of international observers (and their own experiences), such irregularities were probably not widespread enough to invalidate or shift the result. Bear in mind that irregularities have occurred in U.S elections too, and our institutions and systems of checks and balances are a far cry from those of more developed democracies.

The majority of the 2002 elections were fair. it's the first time in the history of polling in Pakistan, that international observers have been allowed to monitor the elections. They were not present for the elecitons of the previous government..incidentally I don't believe edi for the record.

 

[roadrunner]

When people rush to defend General M. and his brand of Dictatorship and demean BB, Nawaz Sharif (irrespective if they were corrupt) to an outsider like me who takes democracy for granted where even Parlimentarians are not above law the message which screams in my face is that the erudite including the Generals think that comman people are not intelligent enough to choose their leaders. I would have loved it if the General Like Nelson Mendela would have spent his 5 years in strenghtening the judiciary, Election Commission and the policing in Pakistan and then like a true leader let the Pakistanis decide whether they wish Mrs BB or Nawaz Sharif as democratic leader. By doing side deals with them he has stooped to their level. I agree with Dabong that the General has lead Pakistan into a quagmire of problems like Afghanistan, USA cronyism etc but I also admit he came with the best intentions and somewhere down the line circumstances never let him complete his tryst with destiny. Frankly Pakistan has lost 5 years of valuable time.

You hit it on the head and didnt even realize it Pakistan as a nation is not educated enough to choose its leaders as yet. The literacy is 60%, but increasing well. When it gets to 90+%, it will be ready for democracy. as it stands there's not enough literate people to make an informed choice about which government is best for them - corruption rules, and that forms the basis of some of the politicial parties.

 

[Asghar]

How come BB was corrupt 7 years ago and now suddenly the Gen M likes her ?

Best Regards

President Musharraf does not like her. He is doing his duty as President in talking other political parties and PPP have a big say in Parliament. He is dealing with the party only, just a shame she is still the leader.
Instead of moving democracy in Pakistan forward she is just acting selfish and wants concessions for herself first which she is not going to get. She refused to let members of the PPP join in Government (ministry positions) in 2002 because there was nothing in it for her.

 

[Always Neutral]

President Musharraf does not like her. He is doing his duty as President in talking other political parties and PPP have a big say in Parliament. He is dealing with the party only, just a shame she is still the leader.
Instead of moving democracy in Pakistan forward she is just acting selfish and wants concessions for herself first which she is not going to get. She refused to let members of the PPP join in Government (ministry positions) in 2002 because there was nothing in it for her.

So if someone is corrupt you make a deal with them or do you put them in jail ?

Best Regards

 

[roadrunner]

So if someone is corrupt you make a deal with them or do you put them in jail ?

Best Regards

Reason he has to make a deal with her, is because she occupies a large share of the vote in Sindh. If she was not so popular with the people of Sindh, Musharraf would not be having to make deals with her. Likewise for the MMA in NWFP (but that popularity is over).

 

[Always Neutral]

Sorry my friend with due respect to you. You donot do deals with people who are corrupt. You jail them. If you make them leaders and PM's they will be blackmailed by foreign agencies and only Pakistan will be the looser.

Best regards

 

[F.O.X]

Sorry my friend with due respect to you. You donot do deals with people who are corrupt. You jail them. If you make them leaders and PM's they will be blackmailed by foreign agencies and only Pakistan will be the looser.

Best regards

This is Pakistan, & people over here dont seems to understand this. thats Y i always said that our people are cabable of choosing their leader.

Regards
Wilco

 

[Always Neutral]

This is Pakistan, & people over here dont seems to understand this. thats Y i always said that our people are cabable of choosing their leader.

Regards
Wilco

Dear Wilco,

You need to start a thread on Jeffery Archer a member of Parliament of UK who went to jail. He initially even managed to fool the courts.

Corrupt Politician go to JAIL not London or Saudi A on tickets paid by PIA.

Best regards

 

[roadrunner]

Sorry my friend with due respect to you. You donot do deals with people who are corrupt. You jail them. If you make them leaders and PM's they will be blackmailed by foreign agencies and only Pakistan will be the looser.

Best regards

Look, Pakistan's system needs the leader to have a clear majority. If there is no clear majority, then alliances need to be formed. Musharaf has expressed his displeasure with Bhutto, but in the end who else does he have to choose to get a majority?

 

[roadrunner]

This is Pakistan, & people over here dont seems to understand this. thats Y i always said that our people are cabable of choosing their leader.

Regards
Wilco

Not really. Bhutto was a bad choice, so was NS. But then again, voter turnout was very low, so perhaps the people knew they could only choose bad apples and didnt turn out to vote. Still 33% voting is 33% stupid vote for those two. I still think more education will let Pakistanis make better decisions.

 

[F.O.X]

Not really. Bhutto was a bad choice, so was NS. But then again, voter turnout was very low, so perhaps the people knew they could only choose bad apples and didnt turn out to vote. Still 33% voting is 33% stupid vote for those two. I still think more education will let Pakistanis make better decisions.

Exactly!
the most numbers of the voters are Illiterate, bcoz the ones who are litterate dont bother to cast their vote, bcoz they have no choice.

I Agree, that till our people are not educated they cannot decide what to do next.

Regards
Wilco