Please explain your choice with reasons.


=========================


Country more important than democracy

By Saleem Shahid

QUETTA, Nov 18: President Pervez Musharraf reiterated his stance on Sunday that the country was more important than the Constitution and democracy and that he was doing the important job of saving the country.

He said the Constitution and democracy were for the country, and not the vice versa.

Addressing the outgoing legislators of the Balochistan Assembly, tribal elders and senators after inaugurating the Surab-Basima-Hoshab highway, he said that all political parties should participate in the coming elections which would usher in a new era of democracy.

Balochistan Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani, outgoing Chief Minister Jam Mohammad Yousuf, provincial ministers and chief secretary K.B Rind were present.

The president said he had promised to the nation that assemblies would complete their five-year term and he had fulfilled the promise.

He said it was for the first time in the country’s political history that an elected prime minister had left the office and the power transfer was competed in a peaceful manner.

He thanked the outgoing legislators for electing him president for the next five-year term and expressed the hope that they would be elected again and would continue the policies of the present government. “I hope I will see you again when I come to Balochistan after elections,” he added.

Gen Musharraf said that in 1999, Pakistan was on the brink of economic disaster, but his government brought the country out of the crisis by taking correct decisions. He said the country had been in grip of terrorism and extremism for some time and his government had taken strict measures to crush them. However, he admitted that the measures had some adverse effects but these were necessary for the betterment of the country.

Gen Musharraf said his government had launched a number of development projects in Balochistan and spent billions of rupees to remove the sense of deprivation among the people of the province which was neglected by the past governments.

He said he would remain with the people of Balochistan and would not leave them alone in their hour of need.

“Terrorist elements in Balochistan have been eliminated and the remaining few would also be eliminated with people’s cooperation,” he added.

=================================================

I personally feel that given our culture, ideological background and mindset, we, as Pakistanis are better off in a dictatorship as compared to democracy.

I might be wrong, but I feel that we are more prone to be corrupted and controlled with democracy as compared to dictatorship.

What do you guyz think?

????

Ideally Pakistan should be a democracy based on majority rule of the people, however it lacks the necessary organization, system of representation and a "commitment" on part of the people. Start out with the simple fact that the majority of Pakistanis are field-workers, urban labourers and youth...yet those consistently coming in power are people like BB. This is a sham democracy on the lines of dictatorship by underworld dons or corporate empires like India and the U.S., respectively. Either Pakistan goes all the way with the ideal form of democracy - which would essentially be along the lines of the Guided Caliphates (Hazrat Abu Bakr to Hazrat Ali) - or we don't. We also have the issue of feudal dominance, personality worship and all sorts of stupidity flying around...what Pakistan needs is a clear definition of democracy.

Organization and system of representation are big. I think Pakistan should divide itself into 100+ small city-based districts, each with a central municipal centre. I believe the Federal system should directly represent the districts...so Lower House seats for each district (based on plain single-vote/seat system or population proportion). I believe the role of the state's institutions need to be reviewed given our past history and the military given a greater legal role in governance - perhaps with allocated spots in Upper House/Senate, Judiciary, etc. I believe a workers//students union needs to be institutionalized and given a de-facto number of seats in both Upper and Lower house - given that such a group would adequately represent the majority.

Concepts of citizenry and "right" to vote may need to be reviewed. Who can vote? Perhaps only those who pay their taxes? Perhaps those who worked with the civil-service - i.e. police, teacher, public medical staff - for a few years? Perhaps those who earn below a certain amount of money, but send their kids to school?

Democracy has so many pages that NEEDS to be looked at...yet our braniacs seem only focused on the authoritiaahh part!

Pakistan needs enlightened dictatorship. Along the lines of something like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, South Korea under Park Chung Hee or Malaysia under Mahathir.

Basically a strong leader who knows what he's doing...and is a capable leader...and a visionary in the fields of education, human resource and economics. Education especially needs to be improved so that a true democracy can take place in Pakistan at a later date.

Right now, Pakistan is a politicians playfield....it is ripe for thuggery and misguided following of a leader on communalist or other ideological lines and also corruption....democracy will mean pakistan will serve its leaders rather than the other way around.

People need to be educated and made aware of some basic knowledge as to what constitutes a good leader, what their rights as individuals are and also to ensure and enforce transparency from their leaders.

Why isn't there an option for 'Completely corrupt democracy'?

there is a big difference between dictatorship and Khilafat. please separate the two terms in the poll.

That's right...I'd say Khilafat approaches the ideal/perfect democracy.

Well i say not not both of these

Rather we should go for civilian-Martial Government wherein the head should be from Army and all matters relating to defence and foreign policies should be looked after them while all the civilian matters be looked after the civilain set up.

This would be pathetic and nearly impossible. What makes you think the army will look after the nations interest in foreign policy related matters? Power corrupts jana as you can see with mushy. There will be more problems caused than resolved from this. Who will make the budget for the defence? In which case money will be going out of the hands of the civilian setup in the defence establishment.

I believe the best thing for democracy in pakistan should be a New constitution which outlines the following

1) Ideology of pakistan should be protected by its Govt
2) A semi-Presidential form of govt Kept under check and supervised by a Parliament
3) Bigger senate with representatives from Kashmir, FATA, etc
4) Military shall take oath to protect the constitution and to serve the president
5) Independent Judiciary
6) More power to the provinces ie a Provincial counsel which can serve as the upper house of the provincial legislature

That I believe would be the solution to half our problems

Well not Imposible as
1. As far intrests of the nation yes it will as that is also in the inrest of the army. What is our perminent foreign policy issue is Kashmir which Army can never compromise (you can understand why its also benfits them.)

2. whatever foriegn policy the government makes and takes up our millitary is indeed taken into confidence over it so it wont be new thing. for example our Afghan Policy which was and is not completed without say of Army. Same is regarding India while all other matters that are not directly linked with Defence should be left to civilian set up.
3. as far money's going into hands of defence establishment well that is already with them regarding defence budget so nothing new.
3. But ok lets take up your view as right even than i said matial part of the government should only deal with Defence-Related matters and all economic and Development side should be left to civilian part.




1. this point is already in the constitution its another matter that in democracy you can do away with any artilce of the constituion if you have one-third majoirty in parliament.
2.well it will again give the party in power immense powers leaving the persident as a mere rupper stamp just like that in India.

3. well Senate dosnt have powers to ammend the constitution so it wont give much voice to FATA and Kashmir has already its separate Government and Paliament they have nothing to Do with Pak Senate :).
4. well mere oath taking dosnt have any weight :) but serving President part is good ;)
5. Judiciary can never be said Independent no matter whoever comes to power as Judiciary itself was and will remain part of politking. The Lawyers almost 98 % of them are affiliated with Political Parties so it cant not be axpected of them to work independently of fairly specailly after CJ issue which had clearly exposed the judiciary's leaning towards politics.
6. instead of power as it would risk the unity of the country, i say give the provinces their due share according to their resources instead of population as that can be done from other funds such as taxes and FDIs, loans and foreign aid. But the royality of resources should be given to the respective province without any objection.

Pakistan is not ready for democracy. Until then, I choose dictatorship.

Dictarorship & Khalifat together???

Wht kindda poll is this??


Silly rabbit, polls are for assh***s
(Just KIDDING... before some wacky MOD decides to add another 25% to my "warn level" hence banning me 4ever)


Here are some "mature " options:
List of forms of government

• Anarchism
• Aristocracy
• Authoritarianism
• Autocracy
• Communist state
• Democracy

Direct democracyRepresentative democracy

• Despotism
• Dictatorship
• Feudalism
• Kleptocracy
• Kritarchy
• Krytocracy
• Minarchism
• Meritocracy
• Monarchy

Absolute monarchyConstitutional monarchy

• Ochlocracy
• Oligarchy
• Plutocracy
• Republic

Mixed governmentConstitutional republicParliamentary republicSocialist republicCapitalist republic

• Single-party state
• Thalassocracy
• Theocracy
• Theonomy
• Timocracy
• Totalitarianism
• Islamic Khalifat

Many of us still continue to be impressed by the argument that seeks to pit ‘the essence of democracy’ with ‘sham democracy’. Why? Perhaps we are a little puzzled by the paradoxical fact that we have enjoyed more real freedom, and more economic and social progress under the present dispensation than previous ‘democratic’ ones

With the great ritualistic centrepiece of the democratic enterprise — The General Election — looming, some reflections on that most widely acclaimed principle of modern political organisation may not be completely out of place.

What is it about democracy that both compels everyone (well, nearly everyone; there is always a lunatic fringe) to pay lip-service to the concept, and at the same time often disagree on what it entails in practice? Is there a sensible explanation for the democratic deficit, and overwhelming prevalence of monarchies and dictatorial regimes in the Islamic world? Is there anything to be learnt from China in this regard? And then there is the nagging question of why our big neighbour has succeeded with the democratic experiment while we have failed in such spectacular fashion. Last but not least, there is that perennial mind-twister of a question: can ‘democracy’ work in Pakistan?

Now I will be the first to admit that there is nothing either new or clever about such boring questions (and anyone can go on adding endlessly to this list: the Iranian model? the Turkish solution? proportional representation? etc. etc.). Nor is this the place for conducting a Political Science seminar. So why bother with such a column?

I do so for one reason only, and with a single-point agenda.

There is a certain type of thinking in our elite class — best exemplified by that of the President and his supporters, and of bureaucrats and businessmen — that needs to be first challenged, and then persuaded, over a single issue of much importance.

Most of the world has already made up its mind on this question. But many of us still continue to be impressed by the argument that seeks to pit ‘the essence of democracy’ with ‘sham democracy’. Why? Perhaps we are a little puzzled by the paradoxical fact that we have enjoyed more real freedom, and more economic and social progress under the present dispensation than previous ‘democratic’ ones. Adding to this mental state is the hidden and unstated fear of allowing the ignorant masses to decide on complex issues beyond their understanding that affect the destiny of the nation. How should I deal with such thinking?

My argument for democracy is not going to be based on some high-sounding altruistic moral principle. Instead, I will rely on that most reliable and easy to understand idea: self-interest.

There are three steps to my case. The first is the fact of life that, no matter what the political set-up, the destiny of a nation is largely in the hands of its elite (whatever be its composition). That should largely take care of that unstated fear I mentioned above. For, in practice, the masses have the great good sense to know their limitations and are, as long as they are otherwise reasonably content with their lot, happy to leave such decisions to their leaders.

The second part of my argument says that in the modern world the best way for the elite to advance their own interests is, paradoxically, to advance the interests of the mass of the population.

Finally, I will argue what is the best (or, more accurately, the least problematical) practical way of achieving that objective.

Having already dealt with the first leg of the argument, it is fair to note that the feudal class, with their notoriously conservative and archaic mindset, is still a powerful component of our political elite. But their influence is on the wane, due to the social and economic transformations taking place.

What do the elite want for themselves? Like everyone else, the usual: health, security, prosperity, and personal freedoms. Up until fairly recent historical times, most of these objectives had to be secured largely on a personal basis, and often at the expense of another. For example, given virtually static economies, the best (and favoured) way of increasing wealth was to somehow usurp the income of someone else; health was a matter of employing servants to keep the house clean and being able to afford the best physician; and security and personal freedoms were protected by groups of paid armed loyalists. Look around you: many of us — particularly the feudal class — still operate on this basis.

But the modern way is better. Take the issue of health. When the plague hit Europe, the elite were as helpless against it as the poor. And if you want to increase your life expectancy (more accurately, that of your children), investment in public health and sanitation, not superior private medical care, will do a better job. Increasing your wealth? Businessmen will prosper painlessly if the purchasing power of the customers for their products increases. And, most often, a smaller share of a bigger and increasing cake is larger than a bigger share of a smaller and static one. The modern answer is, grow the economy by investing in developing human capital.

Similar arguments underpin the desirability of an efficient and trustworthy public law and order dispensation that the masses can be happy with. Remember, the elite will always still be able to extract that extra advantage from even such a system, given their extra resources: they can still hire the best physicians and lawyers, and still be better off even after paying taxes.

If we accept that the elites can best promote their own long-term self-interest by taking along for the ride their fellow citizens, then the only question left is: how can this be best achieved?

By promoting the belief in the masses (true or false, being largely irrelevant) that they actually are active participants in the system that controls their destiny. And, for this purpose, one needs both ‘the essence of democracy’ along with all the oft-maddening trappings of ‘sham democracy’.

And why is the trapping of electoral politics, and elections (the so-called ‘sham democracy’ bit), central to this whole exercise? Especially as we are agreed that all democracy is indeed ‘guided’, and that the elite class are its natural mediators? Because these mechanisms provide the external discipline needed to keep the elite from straying too far from the straight and narrow. Human nature being what it is, the elite class is bound to think of its own narrow interests first, and of today rather than tomorrow. These processes go a long way in helping minimise the dangers of what, in modern thinking, would amount to self-inflicted political wounds.

So I say to our elite classes; get modern in your thinking; it is in your own best interest. And don’t underestimate the true value of those trappings that make up a ‘sham democracy’.

any nation developed under a dictator?

We have split our country for this dictatorship and now we are half of Pakistan which Jinnah gave us.

Ayub Khan taught a good lesson to Fatimah Jinnah, she was also one of those who want democracy, she lost elections miserably and dictatorship won with huge margin.

Wht is the point having so called democracy in rest of half we have?

Musharaf must kill all democracy lovers and elect himself as a President or whatever for life so that we are free from the morons who want institutions to work.

Dictarorship zindabad and that too under Musharaf as long as he is alive.

I don't think currently we fall under either option. We aren't a text book definition of a democracy or a dictatorship. In dictatorships people don't have the freedom that is currently enjoyed in Pakistan today, yet in democracies we don't have the one man show that we see in Pakistan today either. The people do not accept dictatorship as a form of leadership, however democracy has failed us each and every time, it's like we are allergic to it.

The entire system needs an overhaul. We need a method of countering the military and the politicans. In most countries this is the police and the judicary. But In Pakistan we have seen the police and the judiacty to be more corrupt if not equally as corrupt as the politicans and some aspects of the military. Who will provide us overhaul? The politicans who will as a reuslt lose out on thier king like status? Or the generals that have promised each time exactly this yet have failed to deliver? Or should we put our eggs in the basket of the judges, who are in the market to see who can offer the largest payment for thier services?

Maybe we ought to ask the farm and urban labourers who form the majority of our population...instead of the financially lucky?

i am in favour of KHILAFAT in greatly... and why ou pu Dictatorship and khilafat in one option?

Like door to door consensus?

Who's going to bell the cat?
I mean, without Internet, and none of us sitting in rural areas, who's going to initiate the survey?

I don't know....but some of the pro-democracy parties can start spending money on such a venture...before someone in the government thinks of it lol!

In an ideal world democracy is the best solution for Pakistan where the majority of the public can decide who can best rule and develop Pakistan.But as we all have seen that majority of our public is uneducated and living in rural areas where most of the time they give votes to the feudal lord who in turn give their support to the highest bidder.This way the two major party PPP and PML(N) used to win the elections between the two and although both were equally corrupt and almost bankrupted Pakistan to the point of being labelled a failed state, they would have continued to loot Pakistan again and again as the results would have been the same.Either ganja or bibi would have won. It took western countries years and years of rule to iron out the best form of democracy in theold days until they were able to get a working democracy. For Pakistan right now to progress we need someone honest like Musharraf to rule for some years to come and hopefully not let ganja(bibi is already out of the equation) back in power.Hopefully when he leaves Pakistan might have new leaders emerging who actually care about Pakistan and not worry about how best to fill their pockets. EDucation of the masses is the top priroty.When the poor people are educted they will learn what their rights are and how to use them. Patience is required.We should not have democracy just for the sake of democracy. WHat Musharraf and the army has right now is workable with like minded political party who are ready to tow the line.

yes indeed but first you had make them understand what does democracy and dictatorship mean .
there are some rural areas where people even do not know what does a President or PM stands for.

Dictatorship has brought to Pakistan what democracy never bring, ie economic increase etc everyone who wants democracy but many dont even know what means this word called "democracy" some people think its some magic word which automatically bring money and stability to country just because Western is so called "democracy"

Muslims teach so called "advanced democratic western nations" how to sit at table and eat food we teach them how to talk and behave with people until 14th century Paris and London people was eating dogs and living in caves when Toledo and Granada (Alandulsia) had street lights and Ottomans was pounding Venice with gunpowder, muslims reach pincle of technology we dont need outside people to teach us what system we need in our country.

Pakistan is like beautiful firework, it started so well looked beautiful but vanished so fast I am too young to know but from storys I hear but when the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded in 1947 it was full of hope and future.

After partition muslims from India come here they dont know what is Pakistan but they leave all behind and come to Pakistan and make it what they want. They didnt even have proper goverment but they still have faith in nation, it was country and land which look after oppressed muslims and give them shelter and home it rival South Korea and Japan in the begining but then very soon after it fell into wrong hands and all went wrong. To say Pakistan let us down is naive and wrong but Pakistan the country never lived up to its expectations because we destroy it ourselves.

As long as there is Kalma and Islam there is Pakistan but we made it into very unpleasent country by destroying out own talent and now we want to re-elect the same people who is respondsible for its current state so means its our fault.

Not enough options to be honest. By the way Khilafat and dictatorship are both entirely different.
I would say Pakistan is a very corrupt authoritarian democrasy. Because thats not there i voted democrasy.