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 (46351)	5/29/2004 3:26:29 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

<<Constitution-making is a classic Muslim crisis. The demand for the ‘shariah’ is a latent emotion that becomes overpowering after the achievement of a state. Pakistan began as a secular state under the Quaid-e-Azam, then trimmed its sails a bit under Liaquat Ali Khan and his Objectives Resolution, only to fall in the trap of General Ziaul Haq and his ‘shariah’. The worst years of Pakistan were experienced under the ‘shariah’ and the jihad it unleashed in the region. The irony is that after the Muslims have achieved a legal shipwreck they tend to go into denial and refuse to accept that the ‘shariah’ is responsible for it. Indeed, often they insist that the shipwreck is due to a scarcity of shariah rather than an abundance of it. When Ayatollah Khomeini imposed his ‘shariah’, the Pakistani clergy started coveting it; when Mullah Umar went one better on him in Afghanistan, Pakistan began yearning for Talibanisation. No one learns any lessons; in fact, lessons don’t even register. That is why the news that Iran’s ‘shariah’ has abolished ‘rijm’ (stoning to death) and Egypt’s ‘shariah’ has allowed ‘riba’ (bank interest) has not reached Pakistan.>> Najam Sethi;;

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46351)	5/29/2004 7:04:38 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Let me say something which is likely to generate controversy. Pakistan cannot become a democracy without it also becoming a liberal society. Who can best introduce liberal values in Pakistan? I think President Pervez Musharraf can dailytimes.com.pk The roots of dictatorship in Pakistan —Ishtiaq Ahmed Pakistan has an abysmal record as a democracy. Elected governments have been few and none was allowed to complete its term in office. Considering that India and Pakistan attained freedom almost on the same day, the failure of Pakistan and the success of India as a democracy poses an intellectual puzzle that needs to be addressed. I prefer a democratic government. I believe government should be based on the consent of the governed, which they should be able to exercise freely through the secret ballot by voting for the party they think best represents their interests. Also, democracy should train its citizens to accept dissenting opinion and the freedom of conscience and opinion, and the legal system should uphold rational principles of justice. Such a sentiment for democracy may not be shared by those who believe a man of destiny is always needed to lead Muslims (an idea presented by Akbar S Ahmed as the ‘Salahuddin model’ in his book on Jinnah) or those who believe that the purpose of founding a state is to ensure the supremacy of dogmatic Islamic law. Whereas we have no way of ascertaining if the people of Pakistan want democracy, since their will has not been tested over a long period of time, there is no doubt in my mind that the ruling strata of Pakistan have little faith in democracy. Rather they find it convenient to crush the spirit of the people through feudal oppression and an intellectually suffocating, obscurantist interpretation of Islam. The Pakistan movement emerged as a serious force only after the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940. The two-nation theory was a rejection of the principle that government should be based on political majorities and minorities following the outcome of an election, in which the former has the right to rule and the latter to act as the legitimate opposition. According to constitutional theory, such majorities and minorities are expected to be based on political programmes and not permanent ethnic or religious divisions. The Muslim League argued instead that democracy would lead to permanent Hindu rule since Muslims were a minority. It alleged that Congress was not a secular, nationalist party but a Hindu one. It justified its own right to be the counterpart Muslim communal party. According to its reasoning Hindus and Muslims were not only two religious communities but also two different political parties. The Congress protested such reasoning but the British accepted it and conceded Pakistan. The League assumed a mass character only during the 1945-46 election campaign. Later, when it began ‘direct action’ on January 24, 1947 against the Khizr ministry it was protesting the fact that although it had won the highest number of seats in the Punjab it had not been supported by the other parties in forming a government. It therefore resorted to angry slogan-mongering such as ‘Khizr Kutta hai, hai, Khizr Dulla hai, hai’ (Down with Khizr the dog, down with Khizr the pimp); ‘Lei kai Rahein gai Pakistan, Jaisey liya tha Hindustan’ (We will get Pakistan the way we took Hindustan); and ‘Pakistan ka Narah kiya? La Ilaha Illilla’ (what is the slogan of Pakistan? It is that there is no god but Allah). In the din of daily demonstrations and agitations Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s sober vision of a secular, democratic Pakistan could not be properly propagated among the masses. The early death of Jinnah on September 11, 1948 and the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan on October 16, 1951 proved to be too great a loss for the young nation. Their successors were at best sublime mediocrities. They made a mockery of parliamentary politics. Before long the British type of vice-regal system based on the supremacy of the civil service and the army over the representatives of the people was firmly re-established in Pakistan. Consequently, neither before attaining independence nor after gaining it could Pakistan develop a tradition of constitutionalism and institutional democracy. On the contrary, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto employed his parliamentary majority to get the heterodox Ahmadiyya sect declared non-Muslims, thereby lending legitimacy to the politics of majoritarian tyranny. The military strongman General Muhammad Zia-ul Haq’s long rule of eleven years effectively did away with all vestiges of liberalism and Pakistan became an intellectual desert where nothing creative and artistic could prosper. People took out their frustration by telling bawdy jokes. The blasphemy law, separate electorates, Islamic laws on rape, compulsory chaddar for female newscasters and so on introduced by Zia-ul Haq provided enough grounds for fanatics to unleash their fury against hapless non-Muslims and women. Neither Benazir Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif did anything to remove such laws from the judicial system, although they had come to power after winning elections. In fact Nawaz Sharif made the crime of blasphemy punishable with death and by spearheading the so-called 15th Amendment in the National Assembly of Pakistan was set on a course which would have taken Pakistan even further towards fundamentalism. Under the circumstance, it is clear that elections by themselves are no guarantee that Pakistan will become a democracy. Modern democracy is unthinkable without the individual being invested with certain inalienable rights; therefore, without a liberal foundation democracy can degenerate into a majoritarian tyranny. In other words, a responsible and stable democracy grows out of a firm foundation of liberal values — individual rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism and on — and not the other way round. Under the circumstances, let me say something which is likely to generate controversy. Pakistan cannot become a democracy without it also becoming a liberal society. Who can best introduce liberal values in Pakistan? I think President Pervez Musharraf can. He enjoys extraordinary powers and can therefore more easily do away with the laws on rape, blasphemy and so on. He has already abolished separate electorates. If he were to rescind the reactionary laws of Zia-ul Haq he would have created the basis for a future elected government in Pakistan to continue with liberalisation of social values and political culture. Hopefully such a government would then dare to say no to populist exploitation of Islam. Only then can we exorcise the ghosts of authoritarianism, fundamentalism and dictatorship from our body politic. The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46351)	6/1/2004 10:28:05 AM
From: malibuca	Respond to of 50167

we can some rights and freedoms being accorded to women The host of this thread addresses the need for rights to be accorded to women in Muslim nations and exalts the efforts by Musharraf to address this issue. Can we start with rights and freedoms being granted to women in Pakistan before we solve the problems of the rest of the Muslim world? Once again, Musharraf does his double-speak on this issue. He has called for another review and re-examination of the degrading treatment of women in Pakistan – which equates to another commission being set up to study the issue. Never mind that a commission that he appointed in September 2000 came out with some specific recommendations that Musharraf did not bother to implement. Ardeshir Cowasjee, a highly regarded journalist who writes for Dawn which is the premier English language daily in Pakistan published an article “Don’t Mock the People” which exposed the hypocrisy that permeates this Musharraf move. Here are some excerpts from the article. If you read these excerpts and the full article it will be apparent that far from womens' rights being address in Pakistan - as implied by the host of this thread - what one is seeing is more foot-dragging and lip service from Musharraf. The violation of human and of women's rights, Hudood Ordinances, blasphemy laws, jirga justice and many other bad discriminatory laws, rules and regulations concerning all this fill our statute book. Over the years, men have met and met again and again, commission after commission has sat and recommended repeals and amendments, but the bullies and bigots have forever held sway. And now, what does our all-powerful president-general do? We must assume that some sort of popular demand, surely that of all the national human rights groups and possibly of many such international groups, and of our various bodies that protect the rights of women, prompted President General Pervez Musharraf to call for yet another review of the Hudood Ordinances while speaking on May 15 at a convention on the "Sensitization and Adoption of Human Rights Standards". By a review and re-examination he obviously means the setting up of yet another commission. Now, we know he is a busy man, we know he has myriad problems that beset him, but surely he has not forgotten that in September 2000 he himself established a National Commission on the Status of Women, nominating as its chairperson the retired high court judge, Majida Rizvi. Her mission, and that of her fellow members, was to "review" the laws and policies that undermine the status of the women in Pakistan and to eliminate "all forms of discrimination against women." In September 2003, the report of Musharraf's own commission was made public. These were later explained in public in October 2003 by Musharraf's chosen commission chairperson. Whilst addressing a seminar on the Hudood Ordinances in Lahore, Ms Rizvi clearly stated that these pernicious ordinances must be repealed because they are "unIslamic on the one hand and make a mockery of Islamic justice on the other." Her commission recommended the repeal of the ordinances as they are "against the injunctions of Islam and discriminatory against women and minorities." The laws promulgated by General Ziaul Haq had "promoted injustice instead of justice and denied women the rights given to them by the Holy Quran." As clear as daylight. How can the general ignore the recommendations of his own commission? Reportedly, of the 15 members appointed to this commission, 12 recommended the repeal of the ordinances, two wished them to be amended and one asked that the recommendations be "given effect". What does that tell the general? So why on earth is he calling for yet a further "review"? dawn.com

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46351)	6/1/2004 10:39:56 AM
From: malibuca	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

It is a disgrace to live under dictatorship but I would rather accept a benevolent dictator under doctrine of necessity a evil that needs to be digested, who is ready to address the issues facing mankind This is the constant rationale of those who head up totalitarian regimes around the world – and this has been so throughout history. Name a dictator who did not come to power arguing that a dictatorial form of government was an imperative for his country, at least, until it was ready for democracy. In its essence, it assumes that the people don’t have the maturity, good sense, etc to select what is best for their country. The beauty of democracy is that when the people make a mistake and elect the wrong leader they have the right to dismiss that individual when the next election comes. Democracy does not offer any guarantee that the people may not choose unwisely – it offers the assurance that when the people make the wrong choice or if there is a more promising alternative, they are able to change the government. The host of this thread has mused about why Pakistan has not been successful in promoting democratic ideals through its history - but part of the answer lies in the kind of justification that he extends to legitimize Musharraf’s autocratic rule in Pakistan. The only ray of hope is that the intelligentsia in Pakistan, for the most part, don't agree with the host of this thread. I know of educated Pakistanis - even those who felt that the last democratically elected government was terribly corrupt and incompetent - who were utterly despondent when Musharraf went back on his promises and sought to consolidate his power.