Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talk of fair refrendum???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abdali
    replied
    Originally posted by RealDeal:
    Abdali- mostly yes, but remember we are judging the Army by their comments, how they say they are honest people building Pak.

    When their actions PROVE otherwise, we have a right to say so.
    And what do you think BB and NS have been crowing?? that they are enemies of Pak...

    Leave a comment:


  • RealDeal
    replied
    Abdali- mostly yes, but remember we are judging the Army by their comments, how they say they are honest people building Pak.

    When their actions PROVE otherwise, we have a right to say so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abdali
    replied
    Originally posted by RealDeal:

    People who support the ref strongly are those who are directly benefiting, because its obvious our country has not developed at all in nearly three years of Mush govt.
    Incorrect!!! Same can be said for those who crow democracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealDeal
    replied
    We all know this referendum is just a 'formality'. Even Punjab Governer has already said the result is not in question.

    People who support the ref strongly are those who are directly benefiting, because its obvious our country has not developed at all in nearly three years of Mush govt.

    Leave a comment:


  • fantastic1
    started a topic Talk of fair refrendum???

    Talk of fair refrendum???

    http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

    A drama which has to be endured
    By Ayaz Amir

    Nazi party rallies, always spectacular affairs, were attended by the party faithful including, in later years, black-uniformed guards of Himmler's SS. The documentaries of those rallies made by Hitler's favourite film-maker, Leni Riefenstahl - who at a hundred is still alive and kicking - remain minor classics.

    Maj Gen Rashid Qureshi and other publicists of this government could profitably scan those films to see how propaganda should be made. But even at those rallies where the Nazi cult rose to its highest expression, no member of the German General Staff was ever seen. Even when the German armed forces swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler personally, the high command of the Wehrmacht was scrupulous in keeping its distance from the Nazi Party. The business of the Wehrmacht was war, something at which it excelled. Hitler worship it left to the party.

    Why this prologue? Because at General Musharraf's referendum rally in Lahore the other day, the Lahore corps commander, impressive in uniform, was also seen. Why? What pressing necessity drove him to attend an overtly political event? Why was the Peshawer corps commander seen sitting next to Gen Musharraf at the referendum rally in Bannu two days later? After all, Gen Musharraf addressed both these rallies as presidential-hopeful, not army chief inspecting the front.

    For that matter, why should Gen Musharraf himself be appearing at his referendum meetings in commando uniform? What point is he trying to make? We know he is army chief. We also recall the insurance policy Gen Zia took out: never to shed his uniform, an insurance policy which holds the like attraction for Gen Musharraf. Still, appearances count for something. Why put on uniform, and thus call into question what is left of the army's professionalism, for ends that are partisan and wholly personal?

    This is not an insignificant matter because if the mantra goes that the army is the first and last line of national defence, and that without it Pakistan will not survive, why so blatantly jeopardize the army's professional standing?

    Last year we had corps and divisional commanders involving themselves in the nazim elections, the first time in the history of the Pakistan army the top brass had stooped to such a level. Now we have corps commanders attending political rallies. What next?

    If the army is consciously to take to politics, then what we are seeing is fine. But let us at least take note of the consequences. Before us lurks not so much the Turkish model as the Indonesian example where the armed forces came to dominate every aspect of national life. They were into everything lucrative and even had representation in parliament. Starting from the coup of 1966 this model lasted for almost 32 years.

    Do we have this model in mind or are we still wedded to the doctrine of a professional army guarding the nation's frontiers in a climate made harsh and menacing by a domineering India? If it is the latter view that we hold, a closer look might have to be taken at the politicking which is ruining the army as an institution.

    That Gen Musharraf has embarked upon a personal agenda which has little to do with the law or the Constitution, or indeed with the circumstances of his rise to power, should be obvious except to the congenitally confused.

    This referendum is not about preserving anything because there is precious little to preserve by way of genuine reform or achievement. What is the light that has entered Pakistani lives over the last two and a half years? Although the government's propaganda guns are blazing away for all they are worth, the record on the ground is pretty thin.

    The only preservation is of power, by all and every means available. Even though Gen Zia's famous referendum of 1984 is etched in the popular mind as an object of ridicule, the present referendum is more audacious in several respects. Zia asked a loaded question about Islam, a 'yes' to which meant his endorsement as president for five years.

    The question this time is more straight forward but the polling method is infinitely more ingenious. No voting lists will hamper the electorate. Anyone above 18 can vote wherever in the country he or she chooses. There will thus be no check on multiple voting. The only bar to bogus voting will be the ink impression put on a voter's thumb. And how indelible that is, we all know. There have been referendums before but none so clever in its voting procedure.

    But all of this should have been foreseen. Strongmen are not famous for self-denial or for putting their power at risk. Their interpretation of democracy is the one most closely tied to their self-interest. Ayub and Zia travelled down this road before and Musharraf is doing the same. Pity those observers then, and there are not a few, who are saying they expected better of Gen Musharraf. Indeed. Should he have imperilled his position on the altar of their democratic sensibilities?

    If the obvious must be restated, Gen Musharraf's coup was not a response to any threat to the country. It came in response to a threat to his own position. And it arose from a feeling shared by the army high command that the cavalier manner in which Nawaz Sharif had tried removing the army chief was an insult to the army as a whole. This was it.

    The army command was not out to save the country or establish anything like 'real' democracy. These were after-thoughts on Gen Musharraf's part to justify his seizure of power long after the original impulse behind the coup had ceased to have any relevance. But there is no cure for the fallacies of the innocent mind. Even when it was clear that Gen Musharraf was casting himself in the mould of the traditional strongman - for whom power becomes an end in itself - there was no shortage of well-meaning souls who ascribed all manner of pious motives to him.

    The bankruptcy of such piety was never more evident than in the aftermath of September 11 when Pakistan's caving in to every last American demand was hailed by broad strata of the newspaper reading public as a supreme gesture of statesmanship. Pakistan had no choice, they chanted in unison, and Pakistan had been saved. A course of action embarked upon without much thought, and certainly without any awkward questions being put to the Americans, thus received the highest accolades.

    In the first flush of our pro-American switch the nation was assured that both our Kashmir policy and our nuclear assets had been saved (presumably from certain destruction). When only a short time later Pakistan was made to go through another switch, this time to renounce its 'jihadi' policies, Gen Musharraf was once again hailed as a statesman who was turning his back upon the 'extremist' policies of the past and returning Pakistan to the vision of the Quaid-I-Azam.

    Cutting links with the Taliban (a good thing in itself) never entered the military's mind before September 11. Renouncing 'jihadism' did not figure in our calculations prior to the international outcry which arose after the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament. Both turnarounds came about because of external pressure. Such have been the elements of military statesmanship.

    The outlines of the Faustian bargain we have made should, however, be clear. In signing up with the United States, the military government, beyond any payola for services rendered, has won something more important for itself: American approval. Not under the shadow of our Ghauri or Shaheen missiles but under the strategic cover provided by this American approval is this referendum taking place. As long as we play ball and hand over every Abu Zubaydah that crosses the US's line of fire, the military government can do no wrong in American eyes.

    As for continuity of reforms and real democracy, let us ask for a break.
    So i can put tail (oil) in my head and go to as many poling stations as i want and vote at all of them (not that my vote would count anyways. Talk of fair refrendum. HUH!!!



    ------------------
    Dress to impress, not to kill
Working...
X