Is democracy the best form of government for Pakistan?

[MenInG]

In light of some of the electoral results of the past and of recent times, are you fast coming to the conclusion that we are not suited for democracy?

 

[sa88]

In light of some of the electoral results of the past and of recent times, are you fast coming to the conclusion that we are not suited for democracy?

Yes it is the best, but it needs a long uninterrupted run.

It took India 50 years to break the hold of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. But eventually they've made a chaiwalla PM and Modi is doing good work for India.

PML-N might win in 2018, they might even win in 2023. But after that? Eventually new faces will emerge especially if clueless people like Maryam Nawaz end up running Pakistan.

One man rule is very dangerous. Works well under a 'good' monarch (see Mughal empire under Akbar). Terrible under a bad ruler - see North Korea. Absolutely, no checks or balances and no way to get rid of the tyrant except through war and bloodshed. And eventually the bad ruler always comes.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In light of some of the electoral results of the past and of recent times, are you fast coming to the conclusion that we are not suited for democracy?

If majority give a verdict then that is the will of the people.Others may not like it but as long as the majority is voting for it, thats how they want the country to run.

 

[Pakistanian]

No, even a lot of my non-desi friends believe democracy isn't the best form of government.

 

[Pakistanian]

If majority give a verdict then that is the will of the people.Others may not like it but as long as the majority is voting for it, thats how they want the country to run.

Lol voting in an election isn't an endorsement of the process, voting in an election shouldn't be mistaken as voting for an election.

 

[Pakistanian]

Yes it is the best, but it needs a long uninterrupted run.

It took India 50 years to break the hold of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. But eventually they've made a chaiwalla PM and Modi is doing good work for India.

PML-N might win in 2018, they might even win in 2023. But after that? Eventually new faces will emerge especially if clueless people like Maryam Nawaz end up running Pakistan.

One man rule is very dangerous. Works well under a 'good' monarch (see Mughal empire under Akbar). Terrible under a bad ruler - see North Korea. Absolutely, no checks or balances and no way to get rid of the tyrant except through war and bloodshed. And eventually the bad ruler always comes.

Uh...whoever said "one-man rule" was the alternative? loool.

 

[sjahmed23]

Democracy would work once leaders like Nawaz fade away. Pakistani awam is too primitive for democracy but I think in long term it would be beneficial.

 

[Black Zero]

Democracy works best in Pakistan if it's led by a dictator (Ayub, Zia, Mush etc.)

 

[CricketCartoons]

Worst form of government. It gives the vote of a jaahil the same value as that of an educated patriot. Just like in western nations, where the vote of son of immigrants get the same value as that of the natives.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol voting in an election isn't an endorsement of the process, voting in an election shouldn't be mistaken as voting for an election.

I am talking about genuine voters.If people are indeed voting for X guy who is corrupt incompetent etc etc, you have to accept the result.Just because it doesnt get your approval doesnt mean its wrong.Like in India, in Pakistan also majority of voters are not letting their feelings known on the internet.

 

[LastManstanding]

If a country is lucky enough to get few dictators whose heart is in right place for consecutive terms, they can achieve more in 20 years than a democratic government in 50 years.

 

[Sidilicious]

If a country is lucky enough to get few dictators whose heart is in right place for consecutive terms, they can achieve more in 20 years than a democratic government in 50 years.

Can you name one country, who had a great dictator for a long period of time (20 years) and who was not a tyrant?

A dictator who comes into power with the best of intentions will turn into a tyrant because of the unlimited amount of power the person gets. Too much power corrupts, and thats why we need checks and balances. And thats why we need democracy.

 

[LastManstanding]

Can you name one country, who had a great dictator for a long period of time (20 years) and who was not a tyrant?

A dictator who comes into power with the best of intentions will turn into a tyrant because of the unlimited amount of power the person gets. Too much power corrupts, and thats why we need checks and balances. And thats why we need democracy.

There have been quite a few actually like King Idris(Libya 1951-69), António de Oliveira Salazar (Portugal 1932-68), Park Chung-hee(South Korea 1961-79) and Lee Kuan Yew(Singapore 1959-90) to name a few under whom the GDP of their countries grew at brisk rate.

 

[DRsohail]

There have been quite a few actually like King Idris(Libya 1951-69), António de Oliveira Salazar (Portugal 1932-68), Park Chung-hee(South Korea 1961-79) and Lee Kuan Yew(Singapore 1959-90) to name a few under whom the GDP of their countries grew at brisk rate.

ayub khan???

 

[DW44]

Democracy would work once leaders like Nawaz fade away. Pakistani awam is too primitive for democracy but I think in long term it would be beneficial.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too? Suffering through leaders like Nawaz is part of the process, there's no shortcut or easy way around it. You don't just get to have a Norwegian style ultra-clean, hyper-efficient democratic government from day 1 without first tolerating a hundred odd years of Nawaz and Zardari. Unfortunately, Pakistanis are too preoccupied with the here and now to care about the future, not that they're any good at predicting it given how politically and economically illiterate the average Pakistani is.

On topic, yes, it's the best system for Pakistan purely because of how much worse the alternative is. 10 years of Nawaz Sharif or Zardari is a preferable alternative to a single day of khaki rule. People expecting our military to pull off a Park or Chiang are overlooking the fact that unlike their militaries, ours is an active player in the economy and by far the biggest one at that so when they're in charge, they won't be doing Park or Chiang things, they'd be busy propping up the military's myriad businesses, whose survival hinges on a weak regulatory and legal environment, and making sure that when the dictatorship inevitably gives way to a "democratic" government, the civil-military imbalance is large enough that the military still gets to call the shots on issues of its choice.

 

[Chrish]

Democracy is meaningless without basic human right laws in place

 

[MenInG]

Singapore had a benign dictatorship and a democracy as well - seem to have done well

 

[Markhor]

Every dictatorship in Pakistan by the end of their tenures left a huge mess. Ayub left behind a legacy of economic inequality and massively exacerbated East Pakistani grievances, Yahya presided over the breakup of the country, Zia gave us the "gift" of religious radicalism and Musharraf left amidst an economic and security crisis.

In Pakistan the self-cleansing process of democracy has never been allowed to take root. The military intervenes and creates siyasi shaheeds out of these Bhuttos and Sharifs.

The military itself already has enough on its plate, it should focus on the many security challenges Pakistan faces instead of taking over the affairs of government yet again.

 

[DW44]

Every dictatorship in Pakistan by the end of their tenures left a huge mess. Ayub left behind a legacy of economic inequality and massively exacerbated East Pakistani grievances, Yahya presided over the breakup of the country, Zia gave us the "gift" of religious radicalism and Musharraf left amidst an economic and security crisis.

In Pakistan the self-cleansing process of democracy has never been allowed to take root. The military intervenes and creates siyasi shaheeds out of these Bhuttos and Sharifs.

The military itself already has enough on its plate, it should focus on the many security challenges Pakistan faces instead of taking over the affairs of government yet again.

Are you by any chance familiar with the sheer scale of their business interests?

 

[Syed1]

Considering the intellect level of the average Pakistani I would be in favour of any government that doesn't grant them voting right otherwise you will keep seeing the likes of Sharifs/Bhuttos/Zardaris getting elected again and again.

 

[Markhor]

Are you by any chance familiar with the sheer scale of their business interests?

Yes I didn't reference that as its probably for another thread.

Military should be a defence force only not a business, political, security and commercial enterprise rolled into one.

 

[DW44]

Yes I didn't reference that as its probably for another thread.

Military should be a defence force only not a business, political, security and commercial enterprise rolled into one.

I'd say it's relevant since a large part of the government's job is managing the economy and the when picking between the two systems of government listed in OP, a conflict of interest of this scale should make the idea of a military dictatorship a non starter.

 

[MenInG]

One size fits all democracy does not work.

We should be able to have different types - which suit each country.

 

[cricketjoshila]

One size fits all democracy does not work.

We should be able to have different types - which suit each country.

Interesting. How will you tailor democracy in Pakistani way?

 

[WebGuru]

 

[Madplayer]

Imo Pakistan needs a liberal authoritarian (yes, it sounds like an oxymoron). I mean a progressive dictator who believes that people should live freely irrespective of their religion.

Musharraf had showed such traits.

 

[WebGuru]

Imo Pakistan needs a liberal authoritarian (yes, it sounds like an oxymoron). I mean a progressive dictator who believes that people should live freely irrespective of their religion.

Musharraf had showed such traits.

Ayub and Mush both dictators had these qualities. But General Zia on the other hand made sure to give us PMLN and MQM

 

[Madplayer]

Ayub and Mush both dictators had these qualities. But General Zia on the other hand made sure to give us PMLN and MQM

Its the muslim culture/psyche which i believe has not reached a stage where a pure form of democracy would be accepted.

In the muslim world, There is always uncertainity of a coup de etat by the army and overthrowing of civilian administration if a conflict arises between the two. This can be disastrous for the nation for example in the 6 day war where Syrian army was filled with loyal but inept generals who failed to show any impact, one of the many reasons why Arabs lost.

Hence in such an environment, A safer bet would be to hand over power to a liberal dictator, preferably coming from the middle class like musharraf (correct me if i am wrong), who has close to absolute power. It has its side effects, that is acknowledged. But personally feel, for the next couple of decades, this is what is needed in Pakistan. BUT If a democracy thrives somehow, then its all the more good.

 

[WebGuru]

Its the muslim culture/psyche which i believe has not reached a stage where a pure form of democracy would be accepted.

In the muslim world, There is always uncertainity of a coup de etat by the army and overthrowing of civilian administration if a conflict arises between the two. This can be disastrous for the nation for example in the 6 day war where Syrian army was filled with loyal but inept generals who failed to show any impact, one of the many reasons why Arabs lost.

Hence in such an environment, A safer bet would be to hand over power to a liberal dictator, preferably coming from the middle class like musharraf (correct me if i am wrong), who has close to absolute power. It has its side effects, that is acknowledged. But personally feel, for the next couple of decades, this is what is needed in Pakistan. BUT If a democracy thrives somehow, then its all the more good.

Agree with you and our politicians are not ready to face accountability. They think accountability isn't the base of democracy and winning elections give them a chance to do whatever they want for next 5 years...

 

[Madplayer]

Agree with you and our politicians are not ready to face accountability. They think accountability isn't the base of democracy and winning elections give them a chance to do whatever they want for next 5 years...

Yes and the politicians are just a subset of the general population. Pakistan suffers from acute problems of regionalism and political realities like anti-incumbency have not come in to play just as yet. People support Noon league even after Nawaz was caught.

It was the same in India for a long long time after independence when congress ruled India for decades altogether with little accountability. People used to blindly vote for them. But when the political behaviour of Indians changed and more awareness came about, they started opting for alternatives which is generally just 1 different party. Boy does Duverger's law hold true or what lol

I dont think Pakistan can afford to wait like India did though because a weak and inept government in Pakistan is dangerous for the safety of people. Non-secular elements in Pakistan are far more violent than the ones in India. They are capable of full fledged massacres and Pakistan needs a heavy hand to deal with them. This cannot be done if the government is incompetent or if it is at loggerheads with the army.

All in all, i want democracy to thrive in Pakistan. i believe that because of socio-political conditions of the country, a liberal dictator is a better option at least for the next few years.

 

[Syed1]

Imo Pakistan needs a liberal authoritarian (yes, it sounds like an oxymoron). I mean a progressive dictator who believes that people should live freely irrespective of their religion.

Musharraf had showed such traits.

Mush was arguably the best ruler we had in 70 years. Unfortunately power got to his head.

 

[Markhor]

Mush was arguably the best ruler we had in 70 years. Unfortunately power got to his head.

Problem with Mush is that he started to view himself as a political player and made compromises to shore up his position that damaged his credibility. He did enjoy initial popularity because he projected himself as above the political fray and promised accountability after the 90s era of corruption and scandal.

Yet he allowed Nawaz Sharif to fly off to Saudi Arabia after the Royals intervened on Sharif's behalf. When trying to forge a coalition between the PML-Q, MMA and other parliamentarians after the 2002 elections - the NAB withdrew all charges against those who supported the government making a mockery of Musharraf's "accountability".

The NRO was the worst thing Musharraf did and was a blatant move to hold onto power by granting amnesty to the looters he decried when he came to office in 1999. He also damaged the independence of the judiciary by asking the superior court judges to take an oath on the PCO when the judiciary should be subservient to the Constitution instead of a military regime.

As for the economy, there was development however the only thing I'll say in mitigation for the 1990s governments (who were undoubtedly corrupt and inept) is that they had to endure international sanctions due to the nuclear programme and US suspension of aid after the Afghan War. Musharraf, like Zia before him, massively benefited from geopolitical events as 9/11 meant he became an indispensable ally in the War on Terror. Bush wrote off billions of debt, the nuclear sanctions were lifted and the aid starting rolling in. This was a golden opportunity to undertake radical economic reforms including of the tax system but was spurned and in the end Musharraf left an economy in meltdown.

 

[KB]

As for the economy, there was development however the only thing I'll say in mitigation for the 1990s governments (who were undoubtedly corrupt and inept) is that they had to endure international sanctions due to the nuclear programme and US suspension of aid after the Afghan War. Musharraf, like Zia before him, massively benefited from geopolitical events as 9/11 meant he became an indispensable ally in the War on Terror. Bush wrote off billions of debt, the nuclear sanctions were lifted and the aid starting rolling in. This was a golden opportunity to undertake radical economic reforms including of the tax system but was spurned and in the end Musharraf left an economy in meltdown.

Just to build on this, it is true that generally economic growth rates have been higher under military, rather than civilian, rule in Pakistan. Nevertheless, civilian rulers have often been encumbered by a doleful economic inheritance from years of military rule and the high growth rates during army rule have not been secured on robust and sustainable foundations.

This is not too suggest civilian rulers have not themselves mismanaged the economy. In the first decade the government, deeply cognisant of Pakistan’s meagre industrial inheritance at partition, understandably focussed on industrial development. However, they neglected agriculture, despite the fact that the majority of Pakistani livelihoods depended on agricultural income. While the growth rate for industry in the first decade was rapid, agricultural growth was sluggish, at less than 1.5% per annum and below the rate of growth of the population. In the next phase of civilian rule, during the 1970s, the Bhutto regime was beset by ill-luck. There were massive floods in 1973 and 1976-77. In 1973, there was a four fold increase in petroleum prices leading to rising import costs. Following the OPEC price rise, there was also a world recession depressing demand for Pakistani exports. And in 1974-75, there was a failure of cotton crops following pest attacks. At the same time some economists have criticised the Bhutto regime for a lack of an export policy and anti-industrialist outlook, which did much to unsettle private investors, leading to a significant reduction in overall private investment. The third phase of civilian rule, sandwiched between the Zia and Musharraf eras, was in many ways the lost years of economic development. With only slender growth in per capita income, and poor social development, Pakistan faced a mounting debt problem. After the Musharraf years, the PPP began a new period of civilian rule. Notwithstanding a troubling inheritance, in the first three years of the PPP government, there were four finance ministers, three governors of the state bank and four finance secretaries, but no substantial reforms in economy. Poor governance was intensified by some bad luck. Oil prices rose to $145.29 a barrel in July 2008 - the highest ever. The security situation continued to deteriorate. In 2008, the global economic crisis and international recession set in. In 2010, Pakistan experienced terrible floods affecting over 20 million people.

If this is all well taken, military rule in itself has not led to the creation of stable economic foundations. If the Ayub era has been branded as the decade of development for the impressive economic growth rates achieved, it must also be acknowledged that it was a decade of intensifying disparities between provinces and even within the Punjab itself and of a concentration of economic power in relatively few hands. Ultimately, Ayub’s grip on power was loosened by popular protests which undermined his legitimacy to rule. The so-called Green Revolution certainly fuelled substantial agricultural growth in sharp counter-point to the opening decade of Pakistan’s existence. But agricultural growth was highly uneven, dependent as it often was on the installation of tube wells, and benefited the relatively more well off in particular regions. The industrial strategy was also ultimately dependent on foreign aid inflows, to provide foreign exchange for purchase of imports and provide funds for infrastructural, water and power developments - for example the construction of the Tarbela and Mangla dams. Gustav Papanek, involved in public policy in Pakistan, admitted, ‘foreign aid contributed significantly to Pakistan’s growth from the late 1950s: without it, the rapid increase in development in the 1960s could not have been possible’.

The Zia era was also marked by impressive growth rates. Good luck played some part as Zia was a beneficiary from Pakistan being propelled to a front line status, following the Afghan war, as well as being fortunate to inherit the upside of certain economic policies of the predecessor regime which came to fruition in the 1980s. Public sector projects started under Bhutto had long gestation periods and came on stream during the Zia years. The 1980 were also the golden era for foreign remittance inflows. Like the public investment projects, ironically the foundations were laid in the 1970s. The oil boom of the 1970s led to substantial construction contracts in the Gulf states. Bhutto encouraged ‘manpower exports’ and actively sought closer ties with the Islamic world, which resulted in greater opportunities for employment abroad for Pakistanis. These inflows were augmented by a foreign aid which averaged $1.45 billion a year between 1978 and 1983. But the legacy of debt in this decade was inherited by civilian rulers who in grappling with the size of it, turned to IMF repeatedly from 1988 onwards, diluting Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Following the testing of nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan had fallen out of international favour and the state of its economy was troubled. But 9/11 ultimately led to the removal of sanctions. There was also an extraordinary degree of rescheduling of debt. $12.5 billion was rescheduled in December 2001. The previous highest amount rescheduled was in 1998-99 - under $2 billion. Remittances also spiked due to the US scrutinising accounts of Muslims. In 2001/2, $778m was sent to Pakistan from the US compared with $79m in 1999/2000. In 2002/3 the figure was $1.7 billion. Many economists feel these particular fortuitous circumstances played a large part in the economic turnaround of Pakistan. In addition, the legacy of the Musharraf years was not a bright one for the incoming democratic government. Even before the PPP took power, economic growth was beginning to slow down. During the caretaker government in 2007/8 the growth rate was now under 4%. Prices of oil and food crops began to rise but for political reasons such increases were not passed on in full. This meant the problem was left to the next government. Government borrowing from the state bank also reached an all time high which contributed to inflation. Economist Ali Cheema has also argued that in the Musharraf era, fiscal deficits were essentially pro-cyclical and therefore resulted in the economy overheating. He compares Pakistan to India, where he notes that for the first time, India managed to cut fiscal deficits during the period of high growth. He also argues that export performance was stagnant and deteriorated after 2006 leaving Pakistan’s current account deficit to be over 4% of GDP by 2006, which he argues was unsustainable. For Cheema, the PPP were therefore confronted by problems that were essentially the result of the Musharraf years.