Details of Pakistan's Military Coups?

[below_freezing]

---

---

When and how many occurred?

How did they start?

How did they remove the civilian government?

Were they successful in remaining free of foreign influence?

Did military governments turn power over to civilians quickly?

Did they have a hugely negative impact on the economy?

[Mech]

1.After every civilian govt.

2.Power hunger and Islam.

3.Coercion, threats etc. Here's an interesting fact....there is not one Pakistani president who hasn't been killed or exiled. Not even the military dictators.

4.Tell me you're joking!

5.Not a chance in hell.

6.Well, their economy speaks for itself.

[below_freezing]

1.After every civilian govt.

2.Power hunger and Islam.

3.Coercion, threats etc. Here's an interesting fact....there is not one Pakistani president who hasn't been killed or exiled. Not even the military dictators.

4.Tell me you're joking!

5.Not a chance in hell.

6.Well, their economy speaks for itself.

#3 sounds like South Korea!

I'm seeing great things on the horizon for Pakistan...

[fatman17]

1.After every civilian govt.

2.Power hunger and Islam.

3.Coercion, threats etc. Here's an interesting fact....there is not one Pakistani president who hasn't been killed or exiled. Not even the military dictators.

4.Tell me you're joking!

5.Not a chance in hell.

6.Well, their economy speaks for itself.

iskander mirza was asked to leave - self exile in england
musharraf is in self exile.

---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

1.After every civilian govt.

2.Power hunger and Islam.

3.Coercion, threats etc. Here's an interesting fact....there is not one Pakistani president who hasn't been killed or exiled. Not even the military dictators.

4.Tell me you're joking!

5.Not a chance in hell.

6.Well, their economy speaks for itself.

the ecomomy thrived under mil-rule - the growth was double that of civilian govt?

[nuclearpak]

1.After every civilian govt.

2.Power hunger and Islam.

3.Coercion, threats etc. Here's an interesting fact....there is not one Pakistani president who hasn't been killed or exiled. Not even the military dictators.

4.Tell me you're joking!

5.Not a chance in hell.

6.Well, their economy speaks for itself.

The ecnonomy grew like a rocket under military especially mushy. In his early years when he had a sincere Shaukat Aziz and did not get into contacts with the Chaudries the economy was one of the fastest growing in the world.

Or does an Indian know more on Pakistan?

[below_freezing]

However, is it easy to get rid of military rulers? Thats the danger - they become a permanent dictatorship.

[Patriot]

3.Coercion, threats etc. Here's an interesting fact....there is not one Pakistani president who hasn't been killed or exiled. Not even the military dictators.

Complete BS - Both Ayub and Yahya lived in Pakistan..We also have Farooq Leghari, Ishaq Khan and other Presidents who live in Pakistan.

---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

However, is it easy to get rid of military rulers? Thats the danger - they become a permanent dictatorship.

As long as Pakistanis support the Military guy he will stay because Pakistan Armed Forces will support the guy but if Pakistani People want him to go he will resign due to pressure from Pakistan Armed Forces..Usually Military Governments come in when people are in favor of Military Government like the situation right now.The dictatorship in Pakistan is not like Stalin's Dictatorship.

[A1Kaid]

Under military rule of Musharraf and the Prime Ministership of Shaukat Aziz the economy was spectacular Pakistan from 2003~2007 had an average GDP growth rate of 7% and in 2005 Pakistan had the second largest growth rate in World second only to China. Billion of dollars worth of FDI it was under Musharraf's presidency the Gwadar port was ushered in and made operational (though of course more work still has to be done there), privitization of enterprises, banking/credit reform, etc.

In fact the World Bank had upgraded Pakistan's credit rating during those years, because Pakistan was successfully paying off it's debt.

It was also under Musharraf rule investment in education increased.


Though of course Musharraf's rule didn't come without negatives those these negatives were ultimately brought upon by foreign influences which pressured him.


As for transition from military rule to civilian rule, Pres. and General Musharraf did voluntarily step down and held elections, though there was pressure abroad for him to step down after he declared martial law for security reasons and to try and minimize political opponents not to mention Supreme Court Justice Iftikar Chaudry. Looking back now i think it was good to remove SCJ but it should have been done through legal means.


On a scale of 1-10 and understanding the situation, I would give Musharraf a 7/10. He had many challenges during his Presidency and he tried hard to face them.


PS I am not necessarily a supporter of Pres Musharraf and PM Shaukat Aziz but their economic policies really benefited Pakistan.

[below_freezing]

Do you think that your military governments were more or less influenced by foreign actors than your civilian ones?

[Oscar]

Do you think that your military governments were more or less influenced by foreign actors than your civilian ones?

More ..
The issue being that unlike civilian governments.. military dictators have to consistently work to prove their legitimacy to the rest of the world. However... the difference isnt much.. due to the inevitable need for all Pakistani rulers to secure their position internally.
So whilst on the surface Military dictators have seemed defiant at times.. their compliance to any foriegn influence meant a defacto compliance of the state.
for a civilian ruler.. his position is constantly under observation by the Military.. so to gain the military's acceptance the civilian government has to bend over backwards further to a foreign influence so that the foreign influence can use its favor on the military to keep the civilian ruler in power.

[nuclearpak]

Under military rule of Musharraf and the Prime Ministership of Shaukat Aziz the economy was spectacular Pakistan from 2003~2007 had an average GDP growth rate of 7% and in 2005 Pakistan had the second largest growth rate in World second only to China. Billion of dollars worth of FDI it was under Musharraf's presidency the Gwadar port was ushered in and made operational (though of course more work still has to be done there), privitization of enterprises, banking/credit reform, etc.

In fact the World Bank had upgraded Pakistan's credit rating during those years, because Pakistan was successfully paying off it's debt.

It was also under Musharraf rule investment in education increased.


Though of course Musharraf's rule didn't come without negatives those these negatives were ultimately brought upon by foreign influences which pressured him.


As for transition from military rule to civilian rule, Pres. and General Musharraf did voluntarily step down and held elections, though there was pressure abroad for him to step down after he declared martial law for security reasons and to try and minimize political opponents not to mention Supreme Court Justice Iftikar Chaudry. Looking back now i think it was good to remove SCJ but it should have been done through legal means.


On a scale of 1-10 and understanding the situation, I would give Musharraf a 7/10. He had many challenges during his Presidency and he tried hard to face them.


PS I am not necessarily a supporter of Pres Musharraf and PM Shaukat Aziz but their economic policies really benefited Pakistan.

Shaukat Aziz was himself a very established banker and not the average politician who is a finance minister with a degree in civil services!!. When he caught up with the Chaudry baradran, things went pear shaped.

[blackops]

I would love to see mushy back in power though he did kargil but he was a good leader many people in jk told me the militants were almost gone under him also PM MMS and he were in talks to end the kashmire issue

[below_freezing]

---

---

I would love to see mushy back in power though he did kargil but he was a good leader many people in jk told me the militants were almost gone under him also PM MMS and he were in talks to end the kashmire issue

civilian governments in the developing world are unfortunately are weak and squishy. they often need the support of either foreigners, the military, or both to remain in power. India's pretty good in this way. The military does not threaten the civilian government.