I did not say only democratic, there was NO form of continued rule at all. Not democracy, not auto-cratic, not martial. And the corruption you are pointing out is a by product of such brittle governance.
so your issue is that continuity is a necessity for good governance, not necessarily democracy? i think thats a change. again, you make a statement with no justification, continuity does NOT necessarily obfuscate corruption eg mubarak.
None of the examples you have given is valid as democracy. neither are the current and recent pakistani governments according to protestors - thats the point. Mubrak's overthrow and it's after math has nothing to do with Paksitan's case. yes it has - they are both cases of alleged corrupt regimes in alleged facade democracies. Mandela fought because his people did not even have a right in the government. thats why this march has been organised too according to the organisers. Gandhi fought foreign occupiers. he also fought the incumbent government - according to you he should have just let the system work its own way out.
And no, if it wasn't for a democratic set up, Imran would not have been able to campaign at all. so what? if it results in a continuation of corruption, having a token manufactured fixed minor presence means nothing. Would a military dictator allow any political parties to campaign? It would not have been possible in any other system except democracy. Social media, internet, everything is controlled under a military dictator perhaps you should tell mubarak that, or any of the other dictators of the arab spring - youre wrong as evidenced by those examples.
And your following of Imran has made you so blind that you do not see what kind of precedence this is setting. You say Imran is only calling for free elections, but when tomorrow Imran is in power, any corrupt guy can get a mob of few thousands and demand another election. You are so lost in claims of how great his character is that you do not understand that the system he is setting is one where anyone dis-satisfied with any government can bring it down. And Imran Khan has no where near the universal support the likes iof Mandela or Gandhi had. Even now, many in the dharna are made to wait against their will yes, yes, youve made this statement a billion times. every time ive asked you to provide some evidence of revolutions that have led to revolving door precedents, everytime youve ignored that request and bleated the same response. show us evidence of how everytime there is a peoples revolt, it sets a precedent of unstable government. why dont you try to justify the statements you pose as fact for once. the argument about how imran has no real support is bogus too - if he did indeed have no support, then why all the fuss? who cares if he calls for civil disobedience? the fact that he clearly has enough influence that the government is worried. you dont know how much, i dont know how much, but we do know its enough to have them panicked.
You say revolutions do not have negative effects but you fail to notice that Pakistan history has been nothing but revolution every few years. Zia even hanged a Prime minister for irregularities. In fact, it is almost like a banana republic with a revolution every few years till the word has lost all meaning. firstly they were largely coups, not peoples revolutions. secondly they happened because of the incompetence of a government elected in a rotten democratic system. thirdly, the difference in this particular case is that this is the first time it is being led by a person who no one, including his detractors, can accuse of moral or financial corruption.finally, just because some revolts dont work doesnt mean that none do as per the examples of s africa, india, arab spring, and pretty much every developed western democracy. This hasn't happened in South Africa, or in India or anywhere else. Everywhere you saw a "revolution" it was on a ruler who was in place for decades or one kind of rule for centuries. which is preciely what is going on here, we've seen quotes of how the pp and pmln are allegedly in an oligharchic relationship, and certainly the corruption cases against both party leaders seem to suggest there is merit in those allegations. There was no revolt to remove a government who wasn't there for even a year morsi says hello.
What is obvious to me is that you are taken in by the romantic notion of a revolution which changes everything over-night. So much so that you cannot see that this might not be what majority of Pakistan wants or even be good for Pakistan in the current time
)
