Pakistan needs Democracy, just not yours...it will have to earn itself.
Pakistan is in total turmoil. Within Pakistani borders we are facing bloody terrorist attacks, political instability, economic insecurity and social tension. Outside Pakistan the United States, European Union and India are showing their aggression towards the Islamic Republic in their own ways. So-called Muslim brothers do not seem to be helping Pakistan much, and some vocal Pakistanis believe the key to democracy is in personality worship, inherent corruption, "secular, Western-style" - and basically everything that would go against the fabric of Pakistan, i.e. its Islamic foundation. Pakistan is in turmoil, and how you interpret it would depend on whether you are an optimist, pessimist or realist. If you are an optimist, this would all seem like a natural stage in Pakistan's relatively young history as a modern state, so it would eventually succeed and grow into a global power. If you are a pessimist, you should have a countdown chart as to when Pakistan will be a failed state occupied by U.S, NATO and U.N. If you are a realist, then you should be in the "let's wait and see" stage.
I do not think Pakistan can become a true democratic state unless it forms entrenched democratic principles and values based on its own identity, history and modern reality. The problem with most - if not all - democracy movements in Pakistan is that they lack the Pakistan-centric fundamentals. Pakistani elites most vocal for democracy tend to have a habit of importing Western democratic principles when talking about democracy. Other elites are just corrupt and cannot gain from the current system - with its own type of corruption and problems - so they require a system that suits them. We need to recognize that Canada, United States, Britain, Germany, France and the others have built their democratic systems based on their history and identity. While it is good to show how prosperous these democratic states are, it is wrong to positivey highlight their styles of constitution, representation and principles in comparison to Pakistan's. Do remember all of these states have blood stained on their hands in the form of slavery, wars, aboriginal-persecution, forced assimilation of minorities and the many issues relating to the industrial revolution and European colonialism. Also remember that these countries became the "bastions" of good governance and the contemporary value of democracy only in the 1980s - after they were fully industrialized with a strong educated majority beginning to truly accept non-Whites - though that acceptance is in its infancy compared to how Whites are accepted in the Muslim World. I think that the movement for Pakistani democracy needs to be defined by those who truly understand the issues surrounding Pakistan, and undertaken by the people, civil-service, soldiers, professionals and elites with guidance from those who defined it.
Many would argue that a potential war with U.S/NATO and India - whether direct/conventional or assymetrical - would require a dictorial government. This would justify a total dictatorship by a military or military-backed government. Often the card of instability, economic recession and/or excessive civilian corruption was used by the military to justify their previous coups. Though undesirable to many, the military has been integral in Pakistan's modern history and to Pakistan's present situation - in both positive and negative events within modern history. Compared to civilian counterparts, the military is ahead in terms of organization, professionalism, sincerety to the people, technological research & development, economic and industrial capacity. The military is also ahead in many social aspects such as female and minority employment, and recently has sowed the seeds for blurred class-lines between officer and soldier. For Pakistan, the military is the standard bearer for the rest of the country to match; it is the only institution with links to all major players within Pakistani politics - the Islamic clerics, business community, secular elites, feudal elites, professional class, the average Pakistani and external players such as China. This unifying virtue cannot be ignored and it is wrong to say the military has no place in politics despite its obvious far-reaching integration into Pakistani social, economic and military course of development. As a true Pakistani democracy requires serious consideration of modern Pakistani history, and we must not sideline the military from the process of governance if we are to succeed as a democracy. Such integration of the military within Pakistani politics could finally put a rest to the issue of coups and military dictatorships.
Avoiding military dictatorships in the future should not be our democratic movement's only goal, because when the military was not dictating - it was the civilian establishments. To many the civilian dictatorships were worse than the military ones, and the fact that the civilian ones claim to be democratic - many pro-military elements see democracy with harsh suspicion. However one must realize the terms of politics and democracy are wide and generic enough for interpretation, and always open to variations according to one's history, identity and modern reality. In the end though, it is power to the people and exclusive respect to a weak minority that must be upheld. Some have justified the dictatorial rule by civilian and military establishments by highlighting the actions of the West since the start of the Industrial Revolution and European Colonialism. While it is blatantly true the West was not democratic by contemporary terms in the 17th to 20th centuries - and today considered forefronts of "democracy" - do remember their democracy came with total recognition of their history, identity and reality. Do we want Pakistan to be remembered for being 'another state that did the same as the West', or do we want to be the paradigm shift that is much needed in the Muslim world?
Most Pakistanis are Muslims, and those minorities are also victims of the same colonial oppression the majority suffered. Pakistanis as a whole have all suffered and truly not many are 'undeserving' to be Pakistanis. Pakistan was a former British colony, victim of Western interests and a declared Islamic Republic at the sharp edge of pro-Europe allegations - which are blatantly based off selfish Euro-centric interests. In the medium-history, Pakistanis have been victims to the crimes of Europeans and anti-Muslim elements, this is a fact. However I think all of the Muslim world - and in every sence, i.e. in society, arts, philosophy - has been attacked by its enemies. In the end though, to be Pakistani is to be a Muslim and/or victim of crime - may it be colonial oppression, terrorism and persecution that goes against the basics of Islam. To be any of that is to be a Pakistani, and it forms our identity. Today Pakistan as an entire state is being targeted; Pakistanis are viewed with suspicion; the state and its people are on the short end of the stick - and it is our identity. Why should we adopt the customs of those who are attacking us for our basic beliefs? Why should we adopt "secular, Western-style" when it goes against the "Islamic" basis of the Republic, and the fact that it was Westerners who crack-whipped us in the past? Why accept imposed slavery, are we not deserving of our own identity and freedom?
The land we call Pakistan is a cradle to one of humanity's earliest civilizations - the Indus Valley Civilization - and has been home to the Persians, Greeks (Indo-Greek Kindom), Central Asian invaders, Bhuddists from the Far East, Arabs and Turks in their various forms, i.e. Delhi Sultans, Mughals, etc. The region we call Pakistan has been part of great empires, and has spawned the birth of the Mughal Empire. Modern day Europeans are the descendants of the colonials who looted a big chunk of the world through back-stabbing, manipulation and opprsession - and are very proud of it. We Pakistanis are the descendents of brave horse-mounted conquerers who fought directly, poets who sung about equality, peace and mass-empowerment and philosophers who sincerely attempted to sythesize the teachings of Classical and Renaissance Europe to Islam, and our forefathers who opened their hands sincerely to the White man. Did Pakistanis go around in groups hunting down British residents after 1947? Did Pakistanis riot against Hindu and Christian minorities? Was there anything like the Holocaust or Gujrat massacres in Pakistan? So why should Pakistani democracy be based off Western fundamentals and principles? Pakistan's long-history is very different and much 'cleaner'.
Introducing democracy into Pakistan deserves a thorough and articulate study based off scholarly research and diverse input. Today with all the turmoil and problems surrounding Pakistan, the country needs solidarity and unity. Given our modern reality, perhaps a good solution would be to construct a "chrysalis" holding all the fundamentals needed for Pakistani democracy. That "chrysalis" would eventually hatch into a beautiful system after years of change and refinement within that "chrysalis". The "chrysalis" could be a joint-coalition party consisting of sincerely pro-Pakistan elements from the PML-Q/N, PPP and MMA - and take up the role of leading Pakistan in the medium-term as a symbol of unity. Issues of the military, Islamic clerics, business community, masses - essentially all socio-political players in Pakistan should be assimilated into the coalition party. Party leadership should be dictated directly by the people, and party membership should be based on a form of public-electoral system as well. The coalition party should commit itself to upholding the Islamic Republic, economic development and mass-empowerment. If it can hold Pakistan together well enough so that the internal and external threats are dealt with and buy enough time so that a Pakistani system of democracy could be properly developed, then Pakistan can claim its rightful spot as a Global Leader - the first of its kind among a world of Global Rulers.
Full Version: Pakistan Needs Democracy...
Source? .
QUOTE(Asad @ Jan 11 2008, 06:07 AM) 
Source? .
Me.
Aoa
It's a good analysis, mark. Could you clarify the last para, do you mean that there should only be one party - the coalition party - or this should be one of the the parties? You know a one party system.
w/salaam
It's a good analysis, mark. Could you clarify the last para, do you mean that there should only be one party - the coalition party - or this should be one of the the parties? You know a one party system.
w/salaam
QUOTE(noxiouspython @ Jan 11 2008, 02:18 PM)
Aoa
It's a good analysis, mark. Could you clarify the last para, do you mean that there should only be one party - the coalition party - or this should be one of the the parties? You know a one party system.
w/salaam
It's a good analysis, mark. Could you clarify the last para, do you mean that there should only be one party - the coalition party - or this should be one of the the parties? You know a one party system.
w/salaam
A temporary one party system from a merger of PPP, PML-Q/N, MMA, etc...with members elected into power on individual merit. The purpose - especially in light of a pending external war on top of internal strife - is to symbolically show unity, absorb diversity of opinion and begin implementing basic democratic reforms. For a few years it could buy time so that the people do recognize their identity, history and reality - the party would a guiding factor. The party can be the guiding hand in developing a proper Islamic State by defining the concepts, wording and ideology most suitable to the nation. We must realize that while democracy is a generic term, its basic principle is power to the masses. However to successfully ensure that power goes to the masses - both men and women - we need to properly understand the situation in Pakistan; the strengths and weakenesses of past and present systems; and logical solutions to current problems.
The Coalition Party should start from a neutral venue - preferably from a pro-Pakistan nation-conscious movement - and invite members deemed by inner-group consensus as sincere to Pakistan. Essentially each group - whether part of the majority or the minority - would have to agree in majority within their groups that person A, B and/or C deserve a initial invitation. Obviously such members would have be those elected or likely to be elected by the people. The hope is to draw a diverse pool of pro-Pakistan ideologies into a single organism. However to ensure that the party is already in power by the time it forms, the formation and declaration of a single-nation party would need to be supported and undertaken by the government. The party's goal would be upholding the Islamic fabric of the state and people, as well as undertaking development of the state - hence the Muslim Development Party (MDP) Once the party is in power, it should begin the blatant and most basic reforms/changes, of which should include:
1) Expansion of the Madrassah system to adopt secular/worldly systems of science, mathematics and liberal arts.
2) National/State assimilation of the Madrassah and implementation of standard-educational curriculum.
3) Technological modernization of the Madrassah to begin connecting Globalization to Islamic principles & values.
4) New electoral system based on district/city-'states' with elected MDP Nazim and "citizen assembly" of inner-district area representatives.
5) District concern at the Federal Level by forwarding a "District Demand Bill": e.x. MDP of Karachi requires funds, has 2/3 of citizen assembly funds, entitled to funds.
6) Commission a National Review Agency to study and submit a final report on all energy & technical infrastructure issues to the MDP.
7) MDP manifesto of unanimous agreement to NRA's study...finally undertake energy and infrastructure projects at mass scale.
8) Incentives to Feudal Lords with large tracts of land in the NRA-report by offering benefits to Pakistani Corporations (at standards) to undertake development. Particularly provide "preference points" to those Lords to fund scholarships for students whose parents work in a Feudal set-up. Hope to 'evolve' Feudal Lordships into Industrial Corporations that support advance education and benefits to industrial professional-labour class.
9) Establish a new constitution on redefined roles for institutions - esp. military & Islam.
10) Bar district by-laws relating to city-issues like parking, garbage, etc; all crimes should be defined under National Crime Ordinance based on Islamic Law.
11) Crime Enforcement exclusively undertaken by a "Civil Enforcement Authority" - trained under military discipline, organized by military ranks, educated in civil.
12) Joint Shariah and Secular Judiciary...local-branches at district levels as well.
13) Social support programs to poor/financially disadvantaged people...programs undertaken jointly by government, Mosque and secular civil society.
14) Establishment of Joint Interior Security Force to replace paramilitary, rangers, national guard, etc...trained specifically in local/interior security and disaster issues.
15) Divide current provincial system into many city-states/districts with a MDP Nazim and local Citizen Assembly...with each district with seat(s) in Federal House pending on population. MDP Nazim elected by people from competing MDP members. MDP Nazim appoints his/her Federal Representative.
16) Depose ISI, MI and IB...raise successor organization Joint Civil & Military Intelligence (JCMI) under direct authority of MDP.
17) Forward new Strategic, Economic and Political Policy...take up position of "Open Neutral Political & Economic Hub" to SCO, GCC, Turkic Union, E.U, U.S, Africa, Latin America, etc. Emphasize Pakistan's neutrality in issues led by non-Islamic State groups/countries, and emphasize Pakistan's willingness to lead in issues directly affecting Muslims. Essentially follow a "Pakistan 1st, Islam 1st" policy and begin moulding a separate non-aligned Islamic Strategic, Economic, Social and Political Group - a successor to OIC called the Global Islamic Cooperative (GIC).
QUOTE(Mark Sien @ Jan 10 2008, 11:42 PM)
Pakistan needs Democracy, just not yours...it will have to earn itself.
Pakistan is in total turmoil. Within Pakistani borders we are facing bloody terrorist attacks, political instability, economic insecurity and social tension. Outside Pakistan the United States, European Union and India are showing their aggression towards the Islamic Republic in their own ways. So-called Muslim brothers do not seem to be helping Pakistan much, and some vocal Pakistanis believe the key to democracy is in personality worship, inherent corruption, "secular, Western-style" - and basically everything that would go against the fabric of Pakistan, i.e. its Islamic foundation. Pakistan is in turmoil, and how you interpret it would depend on whether you are an optimist, pessimist or realist. If you are an optimist, this would all seem like a natural stage in Pakistan's relatively young history as a modern state, so it would eventually succeed and grow into a global power. If you are a pessimist, you should have a countdown chart as to when Pakistan will be a failed state occupied by U.S, NATO and U.N. If you are a realist, then you should be in the "let's wait and see" stage.
I do not think Pakistan can become a true democratic state unless it forms entrenched democratic principles and values based on its own identity, history and modern reality. The problem with most - if not all - democracy movements in Pakistan is that they lack the Pakistan-centric fundamentals. Pakistani elites most vocal for democracy tend to have a habit of importing Western democratic principles when talking about democracy. Other elites are just corrupt and cannot gain from the current system - with its own type of corruption and problems - so they require a system that suits them. We need to recognize that Canada, United States, Britain, Germany, France and the others have built their democratic systems based on their history and identity. While it is good to show how prosperous these democratic states are, it is wrong to positivey highlight their styles of constitution, representation and principles in comparison to Pakistan's. Do remember all of these states have blood stained on their hands in the form of slavery, wars, aboriginal-persecution, forced assimilation of minorities and the many issues relating to the industrial revolution and European colonialism. Also remember that these countries became the "bastions" of good governance and the contemporary value of democracy only in the 1980s - after they were fully industrialized with a strong educated majority beginning to truly accept non-Whites - though that acceptance is in its infancy compared to how Whites are accepted in the Muslim World. I think that the movement for Pakistani democracy needs to be defined by those who truly understand the issues surrounding Pakistan, and undertaken by the people, civil-service, soldiers, professionals and elites with guidance from those who defined it.
Many would argue that a potential war with U.S/NATO and India - whether direct/conventional or assymetrical - would require a dictorial government. This would justify a total dictatorship by a military or military-backed government. Often the card of instability, economic recession and/or excessive civilian corruption was used by the military to justify their previous coups. Though undesirable to many, the military has been integral in Pakistan's modern history and to Pakistan's present situation - in both positive and negative events within modern history. Compared to civilian counterparts, the military is ahead in terms of organization, professionalism, sincerety to the people, technological research & development, economic and industrial capacity. The military is also ahead in many social aspects such as female and minority employment, and recently has sowed the seeds for blurred class-lines between officer and soldier. For Pakistan, the military is the standard bearer for the rest of the country to match; it is the only institution with links to all major players within Pakistani politics - the Islamic clerics, business community, secular elites, feudal elites, professional class, the average Pakistani and external players such as China. This unifying virtue cannot be ignored and it is wrong to say the military has no place in politics despite its obvious far-reaching integration into Pakistani social, economic and military course of development. As a true Pakistani democracy requires serious consideration of modern Pakistani history, and we must not sideline the military from the process of governance if we are to succeed as a democracy. Such integration of the military within Pakistani politics could finally put a rest to the issue of coups and military dictatorships.
Avoiding military dictatorships in the future should not be our democratic movement's only goal, because when the military was not dictating - it was the civilian establishments. To many the civilian dictatorships were worse than the military ones, and the fact that the civilian ones claim to be democratic - many pro-military elements see democracy with harsh suspicion. However one must realize the terms of politics and democracy are wide and generic enough for interpretation, and always open to variations according to one's history, identity and modern reality. In the end though, it is power to the people and exclusive respect to a weak minority that must be upheld. Some have justified the dictatorial rule by civilian and military establishments by highlighting the actions of the West since the start of the Industrial Revolution and European Colonialism. While it is blatantly true the West was not democratic by contemporary terms in the 17th to 20th centuries - and today considered forefronts of "democracy" - do remember their democracy came with total recognition of their history, identity and reality. Do we want Pakistan to be remembered for being 'another state that did the same as the West', or do we want to be the paradigm shift that is much needed in the Muslim world?
Most Pakistanis are Muslims, and those minorities are also victims of the same colonial oppression the majority suffered. Pakistanis as a whole have all suffered and truly not many are 'undeserving' to be Pakistanis. Pakistan was a former British colony, victim of Western interests and a declared Islamic Republic at the sharp edge of pro-Europe allegations - which are blatantly based off selfish Euro-centric interests. In the medium-history, Pakistanis have been victims to the crimes of Europeans and anti-Muslim elements, this is a fact. However I think all of the Muslim world - and in every sence, i.e. in society, arts, philosophy - has been attacked by its enemies. In the end though, to be Pakistani is to be a Muslim and/or victim of crime - may it be colonial oppression, terrorism and persecution that goes against the basics of Islam. To be any of that is to be a Pakistani, and it forms our identity. Today Pakistan as an entire state is being targeted; Pakistanis are viewed with suspicion; the state and its people are on the short end of the stick - and it is our identity. Why should we adopt the customs of those who are attacking us for our basic beliefs? Why should we adopt "secular, Western-style" when it goes against the "Islamic" basis of the Republic, and the fact that it was Westerners who crack-whipped us in the past? Why accept imposed slavery, are we not deserving of our own identity and freedom?
The land we call Pakistan is a cradle to one of humanity's earliest civilizations - the Indus Valley Civilization - and has been home to the Persians, Greeks (Indo-Greek Kindom), Central Asian invaders, Bhuddists from the Far East, Arabs and Turks in their various forms, i.e. Delhi Sultans, Mughals, etc. The region we call Pakistan has been part of great empires, and has spawned the birth of the Mughal Empire. Modern day Europeans are the descendants of the colonials who looted a big chunk of the world through back-stabbing, manipulation and opprsession - and are very proud of it. We Pakistanis are the descendents of brave horse-mounted conquerers who fought directly, poets who sung about equality, peace and mass-empowerment and philosophers who sincerely attempted to sythesize the teachings of Classical and Renaissance Europe to Islam, and our forefathers who opened their hands sincerely to the White man. Did Pakistanis go around in groups hunting down British residents after 1947? Did Pakistanis riot against Hindu and Christian minorities? Was there anything like the Holocaust or Gujrat massacres in Pakistan? So why should Pakistani democracy be based off Western fundamentals and principles? Pakistan's long-history is very different and much 'cleaner'.
Introducing democracy into Pakistan deserves a thorough and articulate study based off scholarly research and diverse input. Today with all the turmoil and problems surrounding Pakistan, the country needs solidarity and unity. Given our modern reality, perhaps a good solution would be to construct a "chrysalis" holding all the fundamentals needed for Pakistani democracy. That "chrysalis" would eventually hatch into a beautiful system after years of change and refinement within that "chrysalis". The "chrysalis" could be a joint-coalition party consisting of sincerely pro-Pakistan elements from the PML-Q/N, PPP and MMA - and take up the role of leading Pakistan in the medium-term as a symbol of unity. Issues of the military, Islamic clerics, business community, masses - essentially all socio-political players in Pakistan should be assimilated into the coalition party. Party leadership should be dictated directly by the people, and party membership should be based on a form of public-electoral system as well. The coalition party should commit itself to upholding the Islamic Republic, economic development and mass-empowerment. If it can hold Pakistan together well enough so that the internal and external threats are dealt with and buy enough time so that a Pakistani system of democracy could be properly developed, then Pakistan can claim its rightful spot as a Global Leader - the first of its kind among a world of Global Rulers.
Pakistan is in total turmoil. Within Pakistani borders we are facing bloody terrorist attacks, political instability, economic insecurity and social tension. Outside Pakistan the United States, European Union and India are showing their aggression towards the Islamic Republic in their own ways. So-called Muslim brothers do not seem to be helping Pakistan much, and some vocal Pakistanis believe the key to democracy is in personality worship, inherent corruption, "secular, Western-style" - and basically everything that would go against the fabric of Pakistan, i.e. its Islamic foundation. Pakistan is in turmoil, and how you interpret it would depend on whether you are an optimist, pessimist or realist. If you are an optimist, this would all seem like a natural stage in Pakistan's relatively young history as a modern state, so it would eventually succeed and grow into a global power. If you are a pessimist, you should have a countdown chart as to when Pakistan will be a failed state occupied by U.S, NATO and U.N. If you are a realist, then you should be in the "let's wait and see" stage.
I do not think Pakistan can become a true democratic state unless it forms entrenched democratic principles and values based on its own identity, history and modern reality. The problem with most - if not all - democracy movements in Pakistan is that they lack the Pakistan-centric fundamentals. Pakistani elites most vocal for democracy tend to have a habit of importing Western democratic principles when talking about democracy. Other elites are just corrupt and cannot gain from the current system - with its own type of corruption and problems - so they require a system that suits them. We need to recognize that Canada, United States, Britain, Germany, France and the others have built their democratic systems based on their history and identity. While it is good to show how prosperous these democratic states are, it is wrong to positivey highlight their styles of constitution, representation and principles in comparison to Pakistan's. Do remember all of these states have blood stained on their hands in the form of slavery, wars, aboriginal-persecution, forced assimilation of minorities and the many issues relating to the industrial revolution and European colonialism. Also remember that these countries became the "bastions" of good governance and the contemporary value of democracy only in the 1980s - after they were fully industrialized with a strong educated majority beginning to truly accept non-Whites - though that acceptance is in its infancy compared to how Whites are accepted in the Muslim World. I think that the movement for Pakistani democracy needs to be defined by those who truly understand the issues surrounding Pakistan, and undertaken by the people, civil-service, soldiers, professionals and elites with guidance from those who defined it.
Many would argue that a potential war with U.S/NATO and India - whether direct/conventional or assymetrical - would require a dictorial government. This would justify a total dictatorship by a military or military-backed government. Often the card of instability, economic recession and/or excessive civilian corruption was used by the military to justify their previous coups. Though undesirable to many, the military has been integral in Pakistan's modern history and to Pakistan's present situation - in both positive and negative events within modern history. Compared to civilian counterparts, the military is ahead in terms of organization, professionalism, sincerety to the people, technological research & development, economic and industrial capacity. The military is also ahead in many social aspects such as female and minority employment, and recently has sowed the seeds for blurred class-lines between officer and soldier. For Pakistan, the military is the standard bearer for the rest of the country to match; it is the only institution with links to all major players within Pakistani politics - the Islamic clerics, business community, secular elites, feudal elites, professional class, the average Pakistani and external players such as China. This unifying virtue cannot be ignored and it is wrong to say the military has no place in politics despite its obvious far-reaching integration into Pakistani social, economic and military course of development. As a true Pakistani democracy requires serious consideration of modern Pakistani history, and we must not sideline the military from the process of governance if we are to succeed as a democracy. Such integration of the military within Pakistani politics could finally put a rest to the issue of coups and military dictatorships.
Avoiding military dictatorships in the future should not be our democratic movement's only goal, because when the military was not dictating - it was the civilian establishments. To many the civilian dictatorships were worse than the military ones, and the fact that the civilian ones claim to be democratic - many pro-military elements see democracy with harsh suspicion. However one must realize the terms of politics and democracy are wide and generic enough for interpretation, and always open to variations according to one's history, identity and modern reality. In the end though, it is power to the people and exclusive respect to a weak minority that must be upheld. Some have justified the dictatorial rule by civilian and military establishments by highlighting the actions of the West since the start of the Industrial Revolution and European Colonialism. While it is blatantly true the West was not democratic by contemporary terms in the 17th to 20th centuries - and today considered forefronts of "democracy" - do remember their democracy came with total recognition of their history, identity and reality. Do we want Pakistan to be remembered for being 'another state that did the same as the West', or do we want to be the paradigm shift that is much needed in the Muslim world?
Most Pakistanis are Muslims, and those minorities are also victims of the same colonial oppression the majority suffered. Pakistanis as a whole have all suffered and truly not many are 'undeserving' to be Pakistanis. Pakistan was a former British colony, victim of Western interests and a declared Islamic Republic at the sharp edge of pro-Europe allegations - which are blatantly based off selfish Euro-centric interests. In the medium-history, Pakistanis have been victims to the crimes of Europeans and anti-Muslim elements, this is a fact. However I think all of the Muslim world - and in every sence, i.e. in society, arts, philosophy - has been attacked by its enemies. In the end though, to be Pakistani is to be a Muslim and/or victim of crime - may it be colonial oppression, terrorism and persecution that goes against the basics of Islam. To be any of that is to be a Pakistani, and it forms our identity. Today Pakistan as an entire state is being targeted; Pakistanis are viewed with suspicion; the state and its people are on the short end of the stick - and it is our identity. Why should we adopt the customs of those who are attacking us for our basic beliefs? Why should we adopt "secular, Western-style" when it goes against the "Islamic" basis of the Republic, and the fact that it was Westerners who crack-whipped us in the past? Why accept imposed slavery, are we not deserving of our own identity and freedom?
The land we call Pakistan is a cradle to one of humanity's earliest civilizations - the Indus Valley Civilization - and has been home to the Persians, Greeks (Indo-Greek Kindom), Central Asian invaders, Bhuddists from the Far East, Arabs and Turks in their various forms, i.e. Delhi Sultans, Mughals, etc. The region we call Pakistan has been part of great empires, and has spawned the birth of the Mughal Empire. Modern day Europeans are the descendants of the colonials who looted a big chunk of the world through back-stabbing, manipulation and opprsession - and are very proud of it. We Pakistanis are the descendents of brave horse-mounted conquerers who fought directly, poets who sung about equality, peace and mass-empowerment and philosophers who sincerely attempted to sythesize the teachings of Classical and Renaissance Europe to Islam, and our forefathers who opened their hands sincerely to the White man. Did Pakistanis go around in groups hunting down British residents after 1947? Did Pakistanis riot against Hindu and Christian minorities? Was there anything like the Holocaust or Gujrat massacres in Pakistan? So why should Pakistani democracy be based off Western fundamentals and principles? Pakistan's long-history is very different and much 'cleaner'.
Introducing democracy into Pakistan deserves a thorough and articulate study based off scholarly research and diverse input. Today with all the turmoil and problems surrounding Pakistan, the country needs solidarity and unity. Given our modern reality, perhaps a good solution would be to construct a "chrysalis" holding all the fundamentals needed for Pakistani democracy. That "chrysalis" would eventually hatch into a beautiful system after years of change and refinement within that "chrysalis". The "chrysalis" could be a joint-coalition party consisting of sincerely pro-Pakistan elements from the PML-Q/N, PPP and MMA - and take up the role of leading Pakistan in the medium-term as a symbol of unity. Issues of the military, Islamic clerics, business community, masses - essentially all socio-political players in Pakistan should be assimilated into the coalition party. Party leadership should be dictated directly by the people, and party membership should be based on a form of public-electoral system as well. The coalition party should commit itself to upholding the Islamic Republic, economic development and mass-empowerment. If it can hold Pakistan together well enough so that the internal and external threats are dealt with and buy enough time so that a Pakistani system of democracy could be properly developed, then Pakistan can claim its rightful spot as a Global Leader - the first of its kind among a world of Global Rulers.
My thoughts are exactly the same. However, I am afraid it is too good of a dream to come true.
I strongly recommend that you forward this to President Pervaiz Musharraf for all what it is worth.
Nice job Mark. Nice analysis.
QUOTE(Mark Sien @ Jan 11 2008, 07:52 PM)
Me.
LOL (what better source ;-)
My compliments
Yesterday night I have seen a debate between Geo's MD and an Indian diplomat over India-Pakistan relation on TV (Times Now). While the Indian diplomat supported Musharraf and his administration's good governance but Geo's MD burst over India's support for Musharraf and dealing with him!!! He said India as a democratic country should not act like that (i would ask him what about the strongest democracy US?) and spread democracy in the region. He also said Indian govt betrayed both people of India and Pakistan with this approach! The Indian diplomat replied that Musharraf was far more realistic and peaceful about the issues within both countries than BB and NS. Atlast the MD started blaming the diplomat saying him one of the people who dont want peace between India and Pakistan!!!
BTW it was a good show! lol
BTW it was a good show! lol
My thoughts are exactly the same. However, I am afraid it is too good of a dream to come true.
I strongly recommend that you forward this to President Pervaiz Musharraf for all what it is worth.
Pakistani 11 member cricket team cannot stand together & you expect the PPP / PML-N / PML-Q & MQM / MMA, etc. to stand united !
Mark .. the idea is excellent but just look at us !
I strongly recommend that you forward this to President Pervaiz Musharraf for all what it is worth.
Pakistani 11 member cricket team cannot stand together & you expect the PPP / PML-N / PML-Q & MQM / MMA, etc. to stand united !
Mark .. the idea is excellent but just look at us !
The problem lies in a Euro-centric world...a lot of it boils down to that.
In 1947 Pakistan inherited the political structure dominated by a colonial elite...vassals to the imperial powers. At the highest possible level the formula of global governance is as undemocratic and oligarghic as they come...i.e. the U.N. The solution for Pakistan and the Muslim world lies within 1) Islam, and 2) self-realization...and 3) BALLS. Sadly we don't encompass any of that...NONE of us...
At the very least and very much possible...a Global Islamic Economic Cooperative involving Pakistan, GCC and Turkey would definitely form the precursor needed to a Caliphate. A GIEC would help maintain that multi-polar world and at least keep us on our toes with regards to Europe and China. On this note I am very optimistic because the foundations of the GIEC are being laid with increasing multi-lateral economic cooperation between Turkey, Pakistan & GCC. When you make the $$$ and stronger independence from others, then you grow the balls needed.
In 1947 Pakistan inherited the political structure dominated by a colonial elite...vassals to the imperial powers. At the highest possible level the formula of global governance is as undemocratic and oligarghic as they come...i.e. the U.N. The solution for Pakistan and the Muslim world lies within 1) Islam, and 2) self-realization...and 3) BALLS. Sadly we don't encompass any of that...NONE of us...
At the very least and very much possible...a Global Islamic Economic Cooperative involving Pakistan, GCC and Turkey would definitely form the precursor needed to a Caliphate. A GIEC would help maintain that multi-polar world and at least keep us on our toes with regards to Europe and China. On this note I am very optimistic because the foundations of the GIEC are being laid with increasing multi-lateral economic cooperation between Turkey, Pakistan & GCC. When you make the $$$ and stronger independence from others, then you grow the balls needed.
we doent need a democracy....the word democracy has no meaning.......define me 1 absolute meaning of democracy......you can not...the USSR was also democracy according to their respective constitution, the us is a democracy accrding to its constitution...th word democracy means #### all, nothing but a fazool word...the real important thing is a constitution upon which there is concencus, pakistan needs a stronger constitution, the present one is too lenient towards the gays...(ganga/bibi/dari wala etc)
Mark .... the idea is excellent but I think only PPP, PML(N) and some small parties should be fine and rest strictly in opposition in the Federal government.
But big question is who will be the president of Pakistan. My thoughts ..
But big question is who will be the president of Pakistan. My thoughts ..
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.