Would you rather have a corrupt democracy or a military rule?

[Moiza]

The older generations are very much against martial law but you can see a great number of younger people favoring martial law. Discuss

 

[uberkoen]

The older generations are very much against martial law but you can see a great number of younger people favoring martial law. Discuss

Do you even know what Martial Law is?

A Martial Law and coup d'état are two different things.

Implementation of Martial Law involves curfews, suspension of Civil Law and Civil Rights and the application of military law. I don't think anyone would want Martial Law.

 

[Saeed]

Neither, why does it have to be a choice between two? Do you remember NRO? Last military leader brought the corrupt democracy.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Do you even know what Martial Law is?

A Martial Law and coup d'état are two different things.

Implementation of Martial Law involves curfews, suspension of Civil Law and Civil Rights and the application of military law. I don't think anyone would want Martial Law.

Agreed. However, they do fall under the same bracket where there is a military ruler.

 

[uberkoen]

Agreed. However, they do fall under the same bracket where there is a military ruler.

Not necessarily. There are two completely different things

 

[ExpressPacer]

Democracy is a failed system of governance where the upper class keep themselves in power, much like the pre-French Revolution times. It is only a simulacrum of everyone having rights where people are kept in an illusion and are forced to be obfuscated. Anyone with little knowledge regarding Marxism would be able to decipher this. However, military rule - while it is better the this simulacrum of "democracy" - is not the option either. Martial Law can turn out to be just like a Kingdom where the successor is from the dictators own family, but that's what happens around the world too.

The ideal system of Governance in my opinion would be an Ochlocracy. Nobody has anyone else to blame. Everyone is in power. Obviously, much like everything else in the world, an Ochlocracy has its problems but I think in this day and age, this would be the most suitable form of Governance.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Not necessarily. There are two completely different things

Perhaps. However, the prerequisite for a coup d'état is for a body of forces (Navy/Police/Army) to be in charge.

 

[Moiza]

Do you even know what Martial Law is?

A Martial Law and coup d'état are two different things.

Implementation of Martial Law involves curfews, suspension of Civil Law and Civil Rights and the application of military law. I don't think anyone would want Martial Law.

You get what I'm asking here so no point in arguing over details

 

[SandyB]

Option A - India

Option B - Pakistan (post Zia)

Each has its own merits and demerits , and these days you are seeing the extremities of How bad things get with either systems.

My take is that a Democracy is far better structured to be fair, but it has too many loopholes and variables, that making it work good, is too difficult .

In a military rule, there is only ONE variable - The military - If military is benevolent/progressive, you become a great nation, else you are in the dumps.

The results are in either EXTREMES with military rule where as you get more moderate results with democracy, moderate good or moderate bad, mostly bad and SLOW !

 

[TM Riddle]

Time to bring the good ol monarchy back.

 

[zyrus]

Among these two, Military.
Among other choices, Technocrats
Other option: one world, one nation

 

[Syed1]

The Chinese model is best for third world countries.

Pakistan needs to adopt a similar model but modify it a little bit to not be as dictatorial as the Chinese model. A team of technocrats and experts overseen by a directly elected president.

 

[TahirFan]

Would you rather have a corrupt democracy or a military rule

Sometimes there is some justification for a military rule

There is no justification for a corrupt democracy

 

[DW44]

Corrupt democracy, any day of the week and twice on Sunday (or Friday if you live in the garbage heap of human morality AKA the middle east). Levels of corruption correlate directly with the level of economic development in a given country, not the system of governance so in a third world country, a military dictatorship would be even more corrupt than a corrupt democracy. This is something we have already witnessed first hand in Pakistan.

The one exception would be a dictatorship like Park's n Korea or Chiang in Taiwan but that's not possible in Pakistan since the military has massive economic interests of its own and it needs week institutions to protect said interests, something that needs a weak(ish) economy since economic progress brings about institutional development. An example of this is the poor state of our railway. Railways all over the world make the bulk of their profits from cargo operations but our railways have been starved of lucrative cargo contracts by the NLC, a military owned competitor that gets the best contract using the military's clout (and more than a little intimidation and coercion) despite being more expensive and slower.

 

[Moiza]

The Chinese model is best for third world countries.

Pakistan needs to adopt a similar model but modify it a little bit to not be as dictatorial as the Chinese model. A team of technocrats and experts overseen by a directly elected president.

But every time you turn towards a dictatorial style rule you run the risk of another Zia episode.

 

[StreetSmart]

The Chinese model is best for third world countries.

Pakistan needs to adopt a similar model but modify it a little bit to not be as dictatorial as the Chinese model. A team of technocrats and experts overseen by a directly elected president.

Bhai the amount of dheetness in our awam is at peack even an tuchha person is doing corruption with all due respect we need a dictation who will not listen to any one following law and order

 

[jazba]

The older generations are very much against martial law but you can see a great number of younger people favoring martial law. Discuss

Excellent thread!

It's the dilemma that I've wrestled with over the last several years and based on the empirical data, martial law or rather Army led (AKA Musharraf) government would be preferred.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

The older generations are very much against martial law but you can see a great number of younger people favoring martial law. Discuss

Corrupt Democracy :-(

 

[Buffet]

Corrupt democracy is better by a huge margin.

 

[msb314]

Martial law for me - democracy does not work in 3rd world countries like Pakistan.

 

[Varun]

If military rule was so good for Pakistan why do they go bust 5-7 years in every time, leaving the democratic government that follows to pick up the pieces?

 

[Yossarian]

The older generations are very much against martial law but you can see a great number of younger people favoring martial law. Discuss

Where?

 

[Yossarian]

Martial law for me - democracy does not work in 3rd world countries like Pakistan.

OK as long as you have connections to the military, and those whose businesses depend upon supplying the military infrastructure, and thus hugely benefit from it. Do you have such family connections? Be honest now.

 

[Enigma_]

Democracy needs to time. You can't just have it for a few years and expect all to be fine. A military dictatorship has done nothing good for Pakistan. People that say it did are living in delusions and don't understand the geopolitical luck that took place during those times.

 

[kabbirann]

Very naive to think no corruption under military rule.
At least in democracy,the ruling class is answerable to you on election day.

 

[DW44]

Where?

Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

Corrupt democracy. Pakistan is what it is today because of military intervention, and not the corruption of the democratically elected governments. Military rulers have done more damage than people like Nawaz and Zardari.

 

[Waseem]

Corrupt democracy for sure, crooks like Zardari and Nawaz will eventually expose themselves and people will get sick of them including their hardcore supporters.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Democracy in its real sense.
Let the system run and heal itself.

 

[SandyB]

Democracy take a lot of time, to blossom and prosper. And a lot of trial and error to achieve progress. The corruption may/maynot be weeded out in between .

In a military dictatorship , once it gets corrupted, I don't think there is any going back .

 

[jeetu]

For democratic system to go really bad , all major components like judiciary , armed forces etc need to fail. While incase of millitary when it fails badly its population is pretty much doomed for a long time.

 

[enkidu_]

A theocracy like in Iran, which combines the best of these two.

 

[Chrish]

Chinese type communism would be better for India for a short-term fix.

 

[Major]

I would rather have corrupt democracy.

In corrupt democracy you could still be charged, an army dictator cannot be charged even if he is corrupt.


Plus, you learn from your mistakes in democracy. You make a mistak you could rectify it.

Look at turkey, when people will realise the voting they did recently was a mistake, they wont be able to rectify there mistake. I think the voting was some refrendum on erdogens presidency


Also army violates your rights as there is martial law.

Read the account of the ppp supporters who sufferred at the hands of zia

 

[Adil_94]

a corrupt democracy at least u can get the leader out and there is some form of civil society.

autocracies tend to go corrupt anyway due to no need for accountability to gain public favour like a politician. Autocratic regimes give people delusions of grandeur in 3rd world countries but they end up being just as corrupt as the civilians if not worse. Look at Pak armies multimillion dollar business empire built through them eating off the states resources.

But even in Paks democracy u cant say a word about the Army and people fawned over the likes of Raheel Sharif.

democracy takes time to mature.

 

[msb314]

OK as long as you have connections to the military, and those whose businesses depend upon supplying the military infrastructure, and thus hugely benefit from it. Do you have such family connections? Be honest now.

No but "connections" to democratic parties, chief ministers, politicians are far more common place in Pakistan and have led us to nothing but disaster.

Under our last military dictator - the country soared in terms of economic growth, employment, reduced crime and terrorism. It has been nothing but downhill every since Musharraf left in 2008.

 

[msb314]

If military rule was so good for Pakistan why do they go bust 5-7 years in every time, leaving the democratic government that follows to pick up the pieces?

I would argue it is the other way around.

Miilitary dictatorship has to pick up the pieces after every "democratic" leaves office. From Ayub Khan to Musharraf.

The exception being of course the end of Zia ul Haq's reign.

 

[msb314]

Democracy needs to time. You can't just have it for a few years and expect all to be fine. A military dictatorship has done nothing good for Pakistan. People that say it did are living in delusions and don't understand the geopolitical luck that took place during those times.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Varun]

I would argue it is the other way around.

Miilitary dictatorship has to pick up the pieces after every "democratic" leaves office. From Ayub Khan to Musharraf.

The exception being of course the end of Zia ul Haq's reign.

Whichever way you look at it, the military government falls apart in under a decade anyway. Why?

 

[SandyB]

A theocracy like in Iran, which combines the best of these two.

This to an extent is what the BJP/RSS is trying for in India.

Chinese type communism would be better for India for a short-term fix.

Nopes. We tried proper Communism in a few Indian states. My state Kerala had THE FIRST or SECOND elected communist government in the world back in 1956, yet all the special "features" classicism, casteism etc slowly creeped into the ideology and corrupted it , also the ANTI-GOD nature of Communism , didn't go down well with the minorities of Abrahamic faiths, who used the congress government at the centre to topple it . So communism more or less got diluted into an Indianised compromise.

The Indian society has been inherently casteist,classist for over a millenium, couple that with the idolisation of people in positions of power , it would mean that, the people who had power before independence would never voluntarily give up their position of advantage , instead , they would try and infiltrate the newly formed system . Of course it would mean ceding the advantage here and there, but over the long run they would still retain most of their power, but now legitimized in a more democratic system !

Just have a look at India , or pakistan for that matter , we did get rid of the overlords who ruled us (Brits, Europeans), and replaced them with homegrown ones (Nationalistic parties, army etc), yet have a good look at the system -HAS THE RULING CLASS CHANGED AT ALL?

A "Chaiwallah" may have become PM here in India,but the ruling class ie; people who perform day to day administration, who actually CALL the SHOTS w.r.t most of the things that affect our normal daily lives have more or less stayed the same from the pre-independance era .

The influential zamindars, diwans, the Kshatriyas, Brahmins, local royalty , priests with political influence all made a smokescreen where they seemed to sacrifice their power for the cause of Nationhood of Indian and Pakistan . But what they did was integrate themselves into the new government system .

Look at the past PM's that Pakistan had - Benazir, Nawaz , All are more or less from very rich, upper class and influential pakistan families, which were already influential pre-independance. Vast majority of elected representatives in many Indian states are still politically powerful families/communities/castes from the British era.

The rise of the RSS (or communism in the few communist states and caste based movements in Bihar, TN etc) has allowed a few non-ruling class people (Like MODI, Mayawati, ) to reach the upper echelons of power, but that has more to do with having a stable democracy that was allowed a continuous existence for 70 years unlike Pakistan's version.

The Chinese model is so successful mainly because they WIPED THE SLATE almost CLEAN with the cultural revolution. To replicate the same in India , would've meant a protracted bloody slaugther throughout India, by the peasant and labour classes (read lower castes, and poor minorities) aka the Majority taking up arms, capturing power and fighting against the ruling sects - Zamindars, Priests, princes and local ruling families etc, followed by a systematic destruction and weakening of Religious institutions like temples, mosques & churches. .

Would all this be possible in an already weakened and riot/protest hit India post independence, without absolutely destroying the entity of India ?

 

[shortbread]

Democracy needs to time. You can't just have it for a few years and expect all to be fine. A military dictatorship has done nothing good for Pakistan. People that say it did are living in delusions and don't understand the geopolitical luck that took place during those times.

Exactly, Democracy needs time! After nearly 70 years of existence the first peaceful democratic transfer of power only happened 3 years ago!

The Pakistani democracy is still very much in its infancy.

An unpopular government should be unseated by the power of people's vote.

 

[Markhor]

In a country like Pakistan where there is such a weak and inefficient judicial system that doesn't hold the powerful to account, corruption is inevitable under any system.

Let's not kid ourselves that corruption doesn't occur in the military which has exploited Pakistan's weak civilian institutions and failure to uphold the constitution in order to double up as a vast business empire completely unaccountable to anyone. One of many examples is the Elysium Holdings scandal. Investors paid for land that only existed on paper with the company being linked to the three brothers of Gen Kayani.

Under Musharraf, where do you want to start ? From the 2005 Stock Exchange swindle to the Steel Mills privatisation, 2006 sugar scam, alleged kickbacks in defence procurement, the doling out of military land to JUI-F leaders and personal staff, massive corruption in the 2005 earthquake funds to ghost pension scandal and so on.

I'm sure if you go back further in time you'll find further examples of corruption under military rule. So I don't know where people get this idea that democratic rulers have been uniquely corrupt. Nawaz Sharif was the product of military rule, as was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. All military rule has done is set the country back to square one, exploiting geopolitics (Mush and 9/11, Zia and the Soviet invasion next door) to give the illusion of stability and civilian institutions have never been allowed to strengthen. If you keep chopping down the stem then the flower will never grow.

The difference between Pakistan and prospering democracies is checks and balances. If you look at prospering democracies, there is a vibrant civil society, parliaments with authority, educated populations and strong, independent media that keeps the powerful in check. In the UK I'd like to see even stronger checks, but at least we know the PM has to answer to Parliament and the people, and there are real consequences for their actions. In Brazil, Dilma Rousseff got impeached for breaking budget rules and in Israel, PM Netanyahu got his house raided and was questioned by police for accepting gifts from a billionaire.

In Pakistan, the Sharifs know they can count on their vote bank in Punjab, PPP can always rely on interior Sindh, judiciary and media can be bought off or intimidated, and the constitution is a minor inconvenience so are never held responsible for their corruption.

 

[Buffet]

Whichever way you look at it, the military government falls apart in under a decade anyway. Why?

Merry go round allows for shifting of blame and it make sense to not hold direct power for too long when you can still control most of the things.

Pakistan would have been far far better off over the longer term if country had either democratic or army rule without interruptions for 40-50 years. Then you can't run away from taking responsibilities.

 

[James]

Bring back Absolute Monarchy :

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] great post.

 

[ocfan]

in case of Pakistan I shall prefer military rule over democracy.
Pakistan has progressed well in Military rule than democracy.

 

[Moiza]

in case of Pakistan I shall prefer military rule over democracy.
Pakistan has progressed well in Military rule than democracy.

I think Zia's era alone did more damage than all the democracies combined.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Mushy was leading us into the light.

We need to he realistic.

Our people are incapable of democracy, maybe another 50 years.

Only solution is military rule.

 

[Moiza]

Where?

This thread is enough on an example.

 

[Markhor]

Mushy was leading us into the light.

We need to he realistic.

Our people are incapable of democracy, maybe another 50 years.

Only solution is military rule.

Under Musharraf there was some economic progress but he benefited massively from Pakistan's geopolitical position post 9/11. US wrote off billions of debt and rescheduled much of it on very favourable terms.

Many of the nuclear sanctions in place that crippled Pakistan's economy in the 1990s were also lifted after 9/11. Despite also huge sums of external aid being pumped in, Mush govt never resolved the underlying economic issues like the pathetically small tax base, and the economy ended up in dire straits by the time he resigned.

As for corruption, I refer you to #42. There were numerous scandals under his tenure, worst of all was the NRO that allowed Sharif and Bhutto/Zardari to return and resume their looting and pillaging.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Neither.

What is needed is to bring religious people to rule and guide the nation. Pious, god fearing, moral people, which can be only expected from religious people. Not those who drink, gamble and womanize.
More power to Yogis and Maulanas.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Mushy was leading us into the light.

We need to he realistic.

Our people are incapable of democracy, maybe another 50 years.

Only solution is military rule.

Good news for those of us who pin our faith in the Chinese takeover of Pakistan.