no offence taken. but im not going to trawl through all these pages.
i cant see any possible reasoning myself at all. i asked indiafan a question about the inviolability of the democratic process when it came to assad of syria and mubarak of egypt, to which he seemed to suggest they weren't appropriate examples - a ridiculous convenience. there are plentiful examples of failed democracies, mock democracies, oppressive democracies, unjust democracies, despotic democracies and even many of the presently functioning ones are not without severe criticism.
the democratic system in pakistan as it stands is rotten.
theres any number of statistics to show how poor the international standing of pakistan is, which evidences very thoroughly the fact that the system is rotten. theres any number of reports of massive widespread abuses of power and embezzlement too, and of cases of corruption levied against leaders who have been sent to jail as a result. the perspective that it is a perfectly good system that has not been allowed to flourish is unproven too - it could just as well be argued that the reason there have been so many coups is precisely because the system allows for massive corruption which necessitates intervention.
there simply isnt any proof for a stance that democracy in pakistan in its current guise is an inviolable holy grail. theres plenty of evidence for the opposite.
the obvious response to this is if not 'this democracy' then what? i would argue that it is extreme myopia if not outright 'undercooked' thinking that would place democracy, let alone pakistani democracy as it stands, as the only system that is fair. note, the consensus measure of an optimal system of governance in this context, is about it being fair. that principle of fairness then supersedes anything else, including the mode of governance. it is far fairer to have a just and benevolent autocrat/demagogue/dictator than to have a corrupt elected ruler - by definition. if not this democracy, than something fair, just and uncorrupt - thats by far and away the utmost priority. this doesnt mean that democracy is wrong, it means that its not always right, particularly in any manifestation.
and that is the crux of my answer to the two questions. whatever ik's sins - and they are all debatable as to whether they are in fact sins - they are tiny in terms of importance in comparison to the sins of any feasible alternative in the shape of the pmln and ppp on account of zardari and sharif. it beggars belief that the focus should be on pakistan's paper cut, which is imran (using language deemed offensive, or stepping onto some controversial ground, or calling for a protest of civil disobedience) rather than focussing on the heart attack, amputation, stroke and haemorrhaging that is the corruption of zardari and sharif.
thats why people who read these critiques of imran are flabbergasted. they are pinned on abstract notions of democratic ideals, into which the current grotesque version is believed will magically mutate, and it does an immense disservice to the real issues that are holding back pakistan in the dark ages. if you'll forgive this disgusting but i think precise analogy, its an astonishing focus on the broken finger nail of a woman being gang raped.
with regards to democracy around the world, it doesnt take much investigation to understand that the developed democracies in the west stretch back several hundred years, in general, and its no coincidence that they were born in a time when there were roughly four or five global empires that raped and pillaged the rest of the world. the implication being that wealthiness and a well oiled democratic machine are not coincident. everything runs on money. in the absence of principle, money is the always the deciding factor. its also no coincidence that the most well functioning democracies in the world are switzerland and the scandinavian block - both areas that are very wealthy and have very well educated populations.
just look at the facts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/10535508/Pakistan-politician-pays-10-in-taxes.html
pakistan has one of the lowest collection rates of taxes in the world. they raise 9% of gdp in taxes versus 36% for the uk - how on earth are you going to have a system change when it allows so many of its principle beneficiaries with a history of corruption and embezzlement to benefit so brazenly from it?
to that extent, just look at what has happened in pakistan. a quick google of zardari or sharif and corruption will result in a litany of issues. these numbers are immense. anything from several hundreds of millions to billions. but its not as simple as to count the cost to the country by adding up their ill gotten gains, mansions, and swiss bank accounts - there are plentiful stories of how much the country has had to suffer. zardari tried to sell minerals to i think an australian consortium for a figure of about $7mm from my sources, on assets worth close to $100mm. on that one deal alone, if the accusations are correct, thats a loss of close to $100mm to the country. benazir forced wapda to buy a tanker of polluted oil pulled from th gulf after u think the first gulf war when the iranians set fire to the gulf. it went around the world with no buyers. benazir received a $5mm kickback for forcing wapda to buy it, and they suffered $400mm worth of destruction to plant and materials as a result of forcing through sub standard fuel. thats a cost to the people. the hundreds of millions in defaulted loans that that the sharifs have embezzled are well documented even in bbc documentaries already posted on pp. thats a cost to the people.
the point is that for a country that has a stunted economy that exports about $30bn worth of goods, a hit of what amounts to something close to billions a year is devastating. its taking education away from children, food away from the poor and welfare and medical assistance away from the destitute. as a sixth most populous nation on the planet, pakistan has the human resources to be competing on the world stage. instead we compete for the lowest of all measures, in terms of foreign indebtedness, safety, corruption and so on.
just to look at those numbers in a different way, a third of the pakistani population survives on less than 50c a day. if the number that is embezzled is just a billion a year, and its likely to be multiples of that, and if that billion was to be spent on that third of the population, thats somewhere close to 10% more for these incredibly poor, destitute people, 60 million of them.
thats why by far and away the most important thing for pakistan is to be rid of corruption, and why there can be no rational choice other than imran, irrespective of these small misdemeanours he's accused of. the only rationale i can find for an opposing view is if it comes from someone benefitting directly from zardari and/or sharif, or from someone who is unaware of the scale and severity of those two leader's crimes.
given how long this circus of the current system has been going on for, and given how many skeletons are hiding in the cupboards in the national assembly, no wonder they are united in an opposition of imran. it doesnt take much thought to comprehend what it would mean for these people if a party like the pti were to come into power and they were to be held accountable.
its another fallacy that the pti supporters in general are under the spell of some kind of messiah complex, but IF we were to agree that corruption was the biggest issue killing people, starving them and obliterating happiness and prosperity for the 180mm people - who else is there to put stock in than a man who is pristine in terms of his corruption - cleanliness and a man who has stood for principle and people building world class hospitals, turning down offers of power, and sacrificing his own family?
if we are talking about crimes that are so huge in the scheme of things, that they hold back a hundred plus million people for the benefit of a few, its completely understandable that those criticising the men wanting justice are looked at with disbelief.
lekin haqeeqat mein to woh har shai pe qaadir hai 
So i just want to confirm she used that word?
