No announcement yet.

Democracy -- Democracy -- Democracy ( In Pakistan)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Democracy -- Democracy -- Democracy ( In Pakistan)

    Very intersting and eye opening article for those who have some knowledge of Pakistani Politics.
    One gets literally fed up these days with the harangue for democracy by the so-called champions of democracy and it is indeed amusing to see their pathetic plight helplessly craving for democracy and giving the impression to the masses that they are simply 'dying' to serve them. For this they are adopting all means fair and foul with the least qualms for their principles, ethics or morality. They are conniving behind closed doors with their erstwhile political enemies in forming flimsy political alliances that would crumble even before the ink dries on the paper that these alliances are written upon.

    Every Zaid, Umar and Bakr is commenting upon every thing under the political sun and considers him/herself to be the wisest whiz kid around in the art of politics. They are shouting themselves hoarse that the Constitutional amendments can only be made by the parliament and not by an individual.

    May one ask which Parliament ?

    The parliament which was once termed as worse than a fish market ?

    The parliament who killed its Deputy Speaker with the arms of the chairs ?

    The parliament whose members are held hostage in Swat, Chhanga Manga and Dulia camps ?

    The parliament whose honourable member, though one of the biggest feudal lords yet loses in his own constituency and gets elected from far off Narowal( Punjab) where the 'voters' even do not know his name but are ordered to 'elect' him by an other feudal lord.

    The parliament whose honourable members are well known for horse trading and can sell themselves for petty permits and quotas ?

    Come on,have a heart.

    Are these parliamentarians even worth touching, let alone amending, the sacrosanct constitution of a country ?

    If they can do so, why can't General Pervez Musharraf, who is :-

    (1) allowed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to do so,
    (2) keeping all informed and involved by holding discussions with them about the proposed amendments,
    (3) determined to bring in democracy from the grass roots level,
    (4) determined to make that democracy work honestly and most efficiently in the best interest of the country. Not to get off its tracks, as he calls it.
    (5) determined not to let the army take over ever again,
    (6) also determined not to let the Prime Minister or the Parliamentarians go astray and indulge in corrupt practices of here-to-fore.
    (7) more knowledgeable and capable than most parliamentarians,
    (8) trained for years to carry out a detailed analysis of a situation and then execute a plan of action to achieve the best possible results,
    (9) honest down to the marrow of his bone. Can any one raise a finger against him or his team even for the corruption of a penny ?,
    (10) sincere to the masses and has long reaching plans for their amelioration,
    (11) selfless and not power hungry - despite what the politicians are trying their best to project him otherwise,
    (12) bold and wise to keep India at bay despite all odds against him and Pakistan.

    Now, my dear politicians, which one of the above things Pervez is doing wrong ?
    Why don't you let him carry on with his programme?
    Why are you simply dying to restore the democracy of your style?
    to serve the masses or to grab the power and do all that what you have been doing before ?
    Loot and Plunder. You have a hope !

    Show Forgiveness, speak for Justice and avoid the Ignorant.

    [This message has been edited by TARIQ786USA (edited August 04, 2002).]
    °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸

    A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    that's why democracy has to include people. otherwise feudal lords and mafia will take over the parliament and the government. so you're saying you'll settle for dictatorship and when that falls, then to feudal mafia and then dictatorship and then on and on and on! In the mean time people suffer, country gets more and more backwward and the mullahs, generals and feudal lords get fat. My compliments on your absolute and total surrender to chaos.


      quote from Dr Farrukh Saleem:

      I'll just restrict myself to empirical evidence alone. To begin with, let us take an account of wars during the second half of the 20th century. In this 50-year period, there have been some three-dozen international conflicts including the Falkland Islands War, Iran-Iraq War, Vietnam War, Korean War, Indo-Pak War of 1965 and 1971, Yom Kippur War, Suez War, Rwanda-Burundi War, Bosnia-Herzegovina War and the Soviet-Afghan War. Then there have been several bloody civil wars including the one in Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Columbia, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Nicaragua.

      In the Falkland Islands War it was Argentina versus the United Kingdom. Democratically elected Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher versus Lieutenant-General Loepoldo Galtieri who had captured the presidency by force. In the Iran-Iraq War neither of the combatants were democracies. Both the Vietnam War and the Korean War were a case of a democracy against non-democratic regimes.

      In 1965, it was General Ayub Khan against the democratically elected Lal Bahadur Shastri. In 1971, it was General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan on the one side and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the other. In the Yom Kippur War, Israel, a democracy, was on one side while Egypt and Syria, both non-democratic, were on the other (Egypt and Syria were backed by Iraq and Jordan and financed by Saudi Arabia). In the Suez War, it was Egypt's non-democratic leader Gamal Abdel Nasser against the democratically elected Prime Minister David Ben Gurion.

      Empirical evidence spread over the past half a century suggests at least three things. First, democracies don't fight with each other (they do however fight with other non-democratic regimes). Second, democracies, almost always, win wars. Third, non-democratic countries are prone to civil wars.



        People of Pakistan won't take this article easily, which is written by Red. Col.

        Anyway, he made good points


          Tariq I agree with you 100%.....

          Alas!!!!! that people back home can not understand how this military governament has done its best for our survival specially in these trobeled times.

          "The west and our neighbours would have eaten us for dinner if musharraf wouldnt have played his cards rite".