Why We’d Miss Musharraf

[bhangra12345]

Don't read what I haven't written.
My argument is that people need a BASIC standard of education so that they can READ. They don't need to be university educated, just be able to read.

and ability to read, i.e. identify alphabets somehow makes them a person much better capable of voting!!

Actually Adolf Hitler believed his voters to be the most intelligent group of people that there is. He rejected democracy because he wanted to remain in power. You drawing a comparison between Hitler and not wanting democracy today is one of the most absurd comparisons i've read on here. It is a simple fact that democracy does not always work well, and is not always the best form of governance..it depends on whether you have the right parameters in place, which they are in the West, and they are coming to the right situation in a place like Pakistan. As an example, Turkey is ready for democracy, and they have it, they do not have vast areas of the population uneducated so they cannot read or write. Pakistan is not, not yet. But will be in about 10/20 years or so.

No country is ready for democracy from the outset, the conditions have to made and fought for by the country itself. The same 10/20 years were told during the Ayub's period, during Yahya's period, during Zia's period and it continues during mushy's period. No surprises in there.

There is never a perfect time to start practising neither is a perfect time for starting democracy.

Either a major even which catapults the whole nation in better or worse direction or divine intervention(read death) - excepting these two conditions, I do not expect Mushy to go away.

 

[roadrunner]

and ability to read, i.e. identify alphabets somehow makes them a person much better capable of voting!!

actually, yes it does. If say you have one man who cannot read a thing, another man who can read well. The second one buys a paper with all the recent political developments (let's assume it's a neutral paper), who will be able to make the better decision? The educated man, or the illiterate man?

No country is ready for democracy from the outset, the conditions have to made and fought for by the country itself. The same 10/20 years were told during the Ayub's period, during Yahya's period, during Zia's period and it continues during mushy's period. No surprises in there.

Noone said 10-20 years during Ayub's time, Yahya's or Zia's period. Pakistan was a long way of being able to run a good democracy at those times as was India (India still is which is why it's still such a poor country). I'm simply going according to literacy figures. From these you can see it will take this much extra time to get the basic literacy skills a democracy needs.

There is never a perfect time to start practising neither is a perfect time for starting democracy.

Yes, there is. Democracies do not suit all populations similarly. You need to set the "conditions" for democracy, and only then will democracy work will. If they are not set, then a good dictator is a better choice of government than iliterate people.

Either a major even which catapults the whole nation in better or worse direction or divine intervention(read death) - excepting these two conditions, I do not expect Mushy to go away.

Lol, that's your opinion. But Musharraf has already been granted permission to apply for a civilian role from the supreme courts. You'll find yourself to be wrong here too if you wait for a bit.

 

[bhangra12345]

actually, yes it does. If say you have one man who cannot read a thing, another man who can read well. The second one buys a paper with all the recent political developments (let's assume it's a neutral paper), who will be able to make the better decision? The educated man, or the illiterate man?

Those unread, illiterate people are much more clever than you give credit for. Education for me is not equivalent to literacy, both are completely different and you test not for education but for literacy in schools.

Noone said 10-20 years during Ayub's time, Yahya's or Zia's period. Pakistan was a long way of being able to run a good democracy at those times as was India (India still is which is why it's still such a poor country). I'm simply going according to literacy figures. From these you can see it will take this much extra time to get the basic literacy skills a democracy needs.

Your tongue in cheek attempt to get India did not work out right, because democary is independent of poverty and viceversa.
Project MUSE
excerpt from the article

the army's original intervention was a reaction to the "political chicanery, intrigue, corruption, and inefficiency manifest in every sphere of life." Only the army, he added, "could step into the breach. That was the only disciplined organization that could give the country the necessary covering fire, in order to enable it to steady itself and extricate itself from the evils which had surrounded it." Pakistan's first soldier-ruler claimed that his role, and that of his military regime, was to introduce necessary reforms and lay the foundations of a stable democratic system.

quite similar to the quotes of Mushy arent they? With respect to democracy, Pakistan is in the same stage/time warp as it was in 60's, no change. and the reason why mushy is not giving up his army chief post is also given there...

Mirza imposed martial law on 7 October 1958, a few months before Pakistan's first general election was scheduled to take place—yet this move would pave the way for his own removal from power. Twenty days later, General Ayub Khan—Mirza's army chief, who had imposed martial law on Mirza's behalf—ousted Mirza from the presidency. It is to avoid Mirza's fate that Musharraf insists on simultaneously holding the offices of president and army chief.

Yes, there is. Democracies do not suit all populations similarly. You need to set the "conditions" for democracy, and only then will democracy work will. If they are not set, then a good dictator is a better choice of government than iliterate people.

Lol, that's your opinion. But Musharraf has already been granted permission to apply for a civilian role from the supreme courts. You'll find yourself to be wrong here too if you wait for a bit.

The only condition required is that, the public and the leaders want to make it work, trust me, everything else falls in place in quite a smooth manner.

i.e. according to the PCO , which was authored and ordered by mushy himself. Dont forget, he got the courts to take a new oath under that PCO.

 

[roadrunner]

Those unread, illiterate people are much more clever than you give credit for. Education for me is not equivalent to literacy, both are completely different and you test not for education but for literacy in schools.

Good grief, what is wrong with you? Being illiterate does not mean a person cannot be clever. What it does mean is that the said person cannot read political papers, the internet, or whatever. Usually the same people are too poor to afford TV sets, radios (which give state sponsored stuff anyway), so their only source of politics are papers or hearsay. This is the point you're missing in what I'm saying. Somehow you managed to read that I wrote that illiteracy = dumbness - No, what you wrote now is that which you speak of,what illiterates cannot do is come to an informed decision because of lack of skills.

Project MUSE
excerpt from the article
quite similar to the quotes of Mushy arent they? With respect to democracy, Pakistan is in the same stage/time warp as it was in 60's, no change. and the reason why mushy is not giving up his army chief post is also given there...

I have no idea of the accuracy of what one person you've quoted is. But if Zia's or Ayub's rule had the aim of setting the reforms for democracy, they failed because they let the civilian governments take over prematurely. Even now Pakistan is not ready for democracy, but it's not far off.

The only condition required is that, the public and the leaders want to make it work, trust me, everything else falls in place in quite a smooth manner.

You're ignoring what I say and churning out some superficial idealistic nonsense, that is not based on any solid reasoning. That's alright, but it doesnt work however much trust you want others to put into your lacklustre argument without reason.

 

[Marathaman]

Yes, there is. Democracies do not suit all populations similarly. You need to set the "conditions" for democracy, and only then will democracy work will. If they are not set, then a good dictator is a better choice of government than iliterate people.

Firstly a dictator is never a "choice".

You are just trying to justify what has already happened. Democracy, perfect or imperfect, is almost always better than a dictatorship, unless some country gets really lucky (lottery really) and a so called "good" dictator comes to power.

 

[bhangra12345]

If you doubt the accuracy of that person, you can check his references. I have zero issues with that.

Can you give me 5 steps which Mushy, note Mushy, not Judiciary which is on the wrong side of Mushy, has taken which were not there before, for improving democracy in Pakistan?

 

[bhangra12345]

Good grief, what is wrong with you? Being illiterate does not mean a person cannot be clever. What it does mean is that the said person cannot read political papers, the internet, or whatever. Usually the same people are too poor to afford TV sets, radios (which give state sponsored stuff anyway), so their only source of politics are papers or hearsay. This is the point you're missing in what I'm saying. Somehow you managed to read that I wrote that illiteracy = dumbness - No, what you wrote now is that which you speak of,what illiterates cannot do is come to an informed decision because of lack of skills.

I do not about what you saw or felt, cutting the victorian elite crap out, their political consciousness is much more than us "literate, city-bred, tomboyish" types. They know what the real issues for them are, instead of some ideological crap.

 

[roadrunner]

Firstly a dictator is never a "choice".

I don't think I ever meant it that way

You are just trying to justify what has already happened. Democracy, perfect or imperfect, is almost always better than a dictatorship, unless some country gets really lucky (lottery really) and a so called "good" dictator comes to power.

Actually no it's not. If you have an illiterate and poor population, they will choose a leader that bribes them the most or even lies to them the most (for they cant see through). If you have a literate and well off population then it will be more difficult for them to get away with it. That is when democracy works. Under the first situation, it is better to have a dictator once in a blue moon, than to have an illiterate population constantly voting in the wrong people for whom corruption rules. This is the current situation in India, and was the situation in Pakistan in the nineties, but not now since it's gotten "lucky" as you say.