Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46215)	5/20/2004 3:43:58 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Ike on why democracy failed in Pakistan about Shariffs and Bhuttos and merits of Indian leadership.. <Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor and chief television and media critic of The Wall Street Journal. > Tuesday, Aug 27, 2002 7:51 PM Mr. Varadarajan, I wish should know that 'democracy' suffers due to habit of our leadership to put a hand in the till. Political leadership of any country can get away with anything but 'monetary misappropriations.' Bhutto and my friend Shariff have two vices one lust for power absolute power and lust for money, a lot of it too. When Mr. Vajpayee came to Lahore I saw him for three days from a close distance the best thing about him I liked was his simplicity. His lack of interest in ostentatious ness, from Gandhi to Pundit Nehru the congress leadership could contain Army in the barracks because they did not build their own empires. Presently the Accountability bureau in Pakistan is sitting on pile of documents 18 feet high, rich with details of Bhutto Swiss accounts and Dubai Citi Bank accounts jointly opened in several blind trust companies, it is the habit of hand in the till that destroys the very fabrics of democracy in its nascent stage. Democracy is murdered by corruption, leaders who don’t like to pay tax, leaders who have massive externals acts but fail to declare them to fiscal authorities. It is this moral and monetary turpitude that helps Army to grow in influence. Whenever a PM is dismissed it is the opposition leader who makes a welcoming statement in favor of the incoming Chief of the Army staff. That exactly what Bhutto did on 12th of Oct 1999 and that is what opponents of Mr. Bhutto did when Zia overthrew him. Now all of them once out of the corridors of power like to sing the old folklore songs of restoration of democracy but democracy with the hand in the till does not seem to work. Mandela and Gandhi and great leaders have one thing in common, they have no self seeking empire building agendas, political course of action is action to serve nation and not to serve ones own interest, whenever that happens, ‘political apparatus’ is the largest sufferer and so does it helps compound the ability of the army to play its destabilization role far more effectively. Simplicity and care for masses is the ultimate test of any leader, our country has failed in that several times. <It is folly also to believe that, had Pakistan had a democratic government in power at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. would not have secured the level of cooperation from Islamabad that it did from Gen. Musharraf. No government in Pakistan's history--whether led by a man in uniform, or by an elected politician--has ever been hostile to the U.S., or uncomprehending of American interests. The U.S., furthermore, need not fear a government of elected fundamentalists in Pakistan. The voters of that country have never supported Islamists, > I agree, as if he has taken this page out of our mind, however I doubt that a political government would have had the courage and guts to take on the fringe element in the Pakistan Army that was strongly entrenched in bed with extremists like Mush did. The famous Mush ‘dot and buddy’ Pekinese twins in his arms send the right message to the world, he effectively told the world that here ‘I am not mounting the steed unfurling green banner with inscription of Allah-o-Akbar looking for sure short one way Jihad obliteration, with his dogs in his arms he gave an image of a moderate. A political leader with a dog in his arms would have hurt the sensitivities of the Army and Army would have definitely taken their time to make up their minds in the process they would have had helped devastating blow to infrastructure of country in no time. Realism of the majority generals was based on self protection and protection of their own institution, it was post 1978 circumstances that this army was heavily infiltrated with Jihadi thought for Jihad in Afghanistan, it had to be extraordinary events that this jihadi elements should have been removed, the cancer post 11th Sept was removed surgically, but a politically inept leadership corrupted to the hilt by self aggrandizement would have had difficulty delivering the goods. Dilly-dallying was the response of many a senior generals when they were confronted with the ultimatum to make their choice clear, with us or against us on 11th Sept. The Chief who happened to be the CEO or self declared PM or Executive overruled Osmani, Khalid Mehmood and Aziz objections rather sidelined the hardliners, a political leader could not have had the luxury to take a objective decision, he would have been undermined by the Army. It is sad but realistic that undoubtedly if Mush happed to be a fundo we could have seen Pakistan meeting the fate of Afghanistan in double quick time. No government ever before or in future can say ‘No’ to USA but post 11th Sept the process of double quick time response would have muddied the waters, this is of course exceptional circumstances and the world was spared to deal with a highly volatile situation. The political leadership of the country needs to now that politics is about serving and not making 10% on every deal, a nefarious reputation the Harvard educated Bhutto spouse Zardari gained. One major reason that we were never a true democracy although being first cousins of India by blood was due to first our ideology that allows for strong man and secondly our ostentatious nature of the elite. The Indian political establishment and the Congress party did not face this kind of dilemma the simplicity engrained in the Hindu traditions simply transpired through the political structure of the Indian polity. I being a democrat like to se a democrats but what can I do when democracy becomes a hand in the till of my national exchequer. It is this aspect that we hate about our leadership, they have been definitively undermined by the Army but the weakness is of their own making, every election has been controversial, Bhutto in last 12 years of democratic experience never accepted results that brought Shariff to power and called them engineered election, so was Shariff attitude, the inability to respect norms has led to the failure of the institution of politics. The inability to sit in opposition also is one of the major impediment to our freedom from the crutches of the Army. <Bear in mind, however--and this is a salutary note on which to end--that not one war has taken place between the two countries while an elected government was in control in Pakistan. > Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto our best of the democrats was brain behind operation 'Gibraltar' the failure of which led to 1965 war, it was his refusal to accept 'Mujib' as a majority leader that led to the 1971 war with India. Our democrats have not been that straight. The evil of Mush when it mattered the most post 11th and Pakistan was at cross roads ( nations in this decade like Iraq and Yugoslavia failed that test of reality- the faced a similar juncture and they screwed up big time, that is survival and these instincts are important to see in an ally- the mad drive to take the nation to hell like Khomieni did against Iraq in 1987 is dangerous the ability to compromise is as important as ability to take a stand) was a nice relief, he has helped tone down the extremism that undoubtedly was raised for its against self protection, that a proxy war may be waged without the involvement of the main body of the army against its arch rival India. Our democrats need some more training some kind of iron discipline and a co-habitation of the institution of army and politician may result into some kind of better governance, I think by ruling this period Army has realized that in this world they cannot pursue the agenda of waging jihad across, the fundamental change in philosophy of the armed forces is too visible, and hopefully with alliance of religious elites hoping to fall on wayside we can expect that new government in Oct may continue the policies of cooling down the extremism and bellicose posturing. Message 17925617