Democracy vs Dictatorship, which suits better for Pakistan?

Discussion in 'The Pavilion' started by Del, May 9, 2019.

  1. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    I reckon Pakistan's gold years came by when Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf were at the helm. Country progressed in right direction and there were no significant economic crisis.

    Compare this to all these years of democratic governments, wherein country literally retrogressed. These so called "leaders" looted the country in every possible way to build their empires. And it doesnt ends here, now they have prepared their next generation in a hope that they will rule the country in coming years. Due to PML-N and PPP, financial crisis are so severe that there is no hope for any kind of improvement from this situation in near future. I can go on and on but it doesnt serve the purpose.

    The point what democratic governments have given to Pakistan after being in power for many years/terms?

    Why this parliamentary system should continue?

    People like Nawaz, Shahbaz, Zardari and other looters are architects of this system, and they have prepared their next generation to carry on their "business of politics", so why shouldn't this system end?

    I understand dictatorship is not the resolution, but what is stopping to implement Presidential (Islamic presidential) system? Why cant Pakistan develop a new constitution?

    Discuss...
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  2. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
  3. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
  4. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
  5. Patriot
    Offline

    Patriot Boom Boom

    Oct 8, 2014
    24,814
    dictatorship any time.

    People arent meant to have their voices and think for themselves now. Getting treated as sheep is better for them

    Musharraf second term was a disaster because he stopped being a dictator. another proof
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  6. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    Just for record, I rated your post funny due to highlighted part only.
     
  7. Savak
    Offline

    Savak Emerging Player

    Feb 26, 2013
    941
    Yahya Khan? I think you meant Ayub Khan.
     
    • Useful / Interesting Useful / Interesting x 1
    • List
  8. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    Indeed :).
     
  9. iho
    Offline

    iho Smooth Operator

    Aug 7, 2010
    4,178
    Dictatorship creates a good non-disruptive environment for progress and development however it doesn't address the alienation of the minority provinces as the military government is predominantly from Punjab and therefore other provinces feel disenfranchised and misrepresented in the progress of the country. Also, foreign policy decisions are made by a single person and we are not able to take advantage of the combined wisdom and representation of the parliament in the decision making.

    Ayub Khan's regime ended in the alienation of the Bangladeshi population that resulted in the division of the country.

    I have always mentioned, the country needs political stability which is a must for the progress. Progress can still be made to some extent in an environment where there is corruption (example India and Bangladesh) however progress cannot be made in an environment plagued with political instability and incompetence (example Pakistan).
     
  10. ASLI-PATHAN
    Offline

    ASLI-PATHAN Cricistan Khan

    Apr 26, 2011
    61,497
    I agree this system is a faulty system. Constituency based system is not representing the true representation of the people. For example there are total 10 constituencies. 2 constituencies have 25,000 voters each, 3 have 50,000 voters and the rest 5 have 100,000 voters each. Now party A wins 4 seats in the biggest constituencies and party B wins the rest 6 seats. Their votes count will be.

    Party A - 400,000 votes with 4 seats
    Party B - 300,000 votes with 6 seats

    So Party B won the elections with 6 seats and 100,000 less votes than Party A. How is this fair?

    A new system is required in which the total No of votes should be the deciding factor and the party with most votes should be the one to form government irrespective of less no of seats. This will be true democracy in my opinion.

    Dictatorship is not the answer. One mad guy at the helm can literally destroy the whole country.
     
  11. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    Now we have seen all major parties and their output. (I would still wait to see how long IK can go on and tolerate this BS system).

    That said, which party or political setup in this current mess can take country forward in your opinion? Because honestly, I believe this so called 'democratic system' is utter fraud, which doesnt support and represent a civilian.
     
  12. Disco Lemonade
    Offline

    Disco Lemonade Design Artist

    Dec 17, 2009
    5,490
    Countries with democracy have sustained independently. Countries with dictatorship can be easily compromised.
     
  13. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    So you are okay with how things are going on? Are you still willing to give more leeway to this rotten good for nothing system?

    Haven't you seen and learn enough in so many years man?

    And if all this is acceptable, then why people have blue tears in their eyes?
     
  14. iho
    Offline

    iho Smooth Operator

    Aug 7, 2010
    4,178
    this also happens in the US where the majority of the states are Red. 2 seats each from Senate mostly results in Republican Senate. So even the US system is not ideal however its better than dictatorship. So now let's talk about using Referendum approach where people vote directly for the president. In this case, the president voted will always be from Punjab as more votes will come from the larger province. So even that will not resolve the problem of minority deprivation. Different countries around the world have experimented with various democratic system approaches and the parliamentary form is the best representation system that has been widely accepted around the world.
     
  15. Disco Lemonade
    Offline

    Disco Lemonade Design Artist

    Dec 17, 2009
    5,490
    I believe it is true that our democracy is a sham democracy. It is controlled. Unless we address it, we won't be able to move forward. Think about it, countries like India and Bangladesh are as or even more corrupt than us. Then why is it that those countries have sustained itself both economically and politically, whereas we are hitting new lows every year. It is simple, the people want something else, the establishment have other ideas and vision. We are not the Saudis where we could just buy everyone and keep them happy. We don't have overflow of the resources to keep the establishment and the people happy at the same time. So we deprive the people of their power, and we also deprive them from the resources. What happens is what we are seeing in Pakistan. It's not going to work that the major or captains son would roam around in a Porsche and nobody would question them, but a politicians son will be tried in court for that. Both the military and the politicians are responsible for the mess we are in, and unless they both are accounted for, we will keep on regressing. It is true that the nawaz and zardaris are extremely corrupt, but they are as much corrupt as the colonels and generals are, maybe less.
     
  16. iAd
    Offline

    iAd Sultan of Swing

    Nov 9, 2012
    16,721
    At the end of the day the issue isn't whether we are a parliamentary democracy or a presidential democracy.

    The issue is the values we hold as a nation and frankly most of us have no issue with political parties being inherited by family members or engaging in corruption. As a nation we don't really have any democratic values to the extent we would be resistant to military courts, judicial activism and so on. Infact we cheer such gestures and I include myself in this too.

    Yes the current system is deeply flawed and needs correcting but if you think switching to a presidential system or even a dictatorship is a solution to the anything then you're just fooling yourself. Pakistan's problems as with any nations problems lies inherently within its people.
     
  17. Passionate Pakistani
    Offline

    Passionate Pakistani The Don

    Jun 10, 2011
    67,907
    If we look at Pakistan history, dictatorship has been better but our democracy isnt a real democracy either.

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
     
  18. ElRaja
    Offline

    ElRaja Talented

    Jan 12, 2013
    2,772
    empowerment of the people, and i mean economic empowerment, so the state is held accountable and very explicitly expendable.

    pakistan needs de-bureaucratisation, and de-regulation, and banks and financial institutes must be compelled to lend to develop businesses.

    for this the most paramount requirement is a functioning judicial system, and a state that can direct investment to value add industries.

    this would be most possible under a dictatorship, unfortunately it would require a dictator willing to make himself redundant, but that is highly unlikely.
     
  19. ahmedwaqas92
    Offline

    ahmedwaqas92 Youngsta Beauty

    Jan 1, 2017
    44
    Personally speaking, and I know that many of you might not agree with this, it does not really matter what form of government is employed in a country like Pakistan. At the end of the day no matter what sort of legislative or administrative system this country conjures, you are forced to fundamentally work with a society that does not embrace progression be it in a democratic or authoritarian form.

    When I was 19 I left Pakistan for greener pastures. Life was hard back in Karachi & I had to take a blind leap of faith to find better avenues so that I can improve the standard of living for me and my folks (back home). This pursuit led me to Malaysia, in which (after almost 7 years), I am Alhamdulliah doing pretty decent. The opportunities this country afforded led me to do a fair bit of traveling w.r.t. to work and that made me densely interact and exchange notes with quite a few ethnicities.

    What I have learned during this time, is that the success of a country is directly proportional to their adoption of progressive ideas which comes (not from the administrative or legislative policy) but from the employment of education as a critical analysis tool rather than an avenue to shove information into robotic individuals. Pakistan has now had 4 generations from the time it garnered its independence, yet our graduates, even at the highest echelons of institutionalized academics lack the essential ingredient of problem-solving. We are exceptional at following instructions (and hence take a liking to an authoritative regime more so) however it also paints a dire picture for our society of having no innovative pathways since innovation is mostly seen as disobedience and an inability to follow instructions (at home or school).

    If we really want Pakistan to get out of the rut it's in right now, we have to lock our egos and 'ways' into a virtual safe box and throw away the key. Then build a generation that does not pander to an instructive lifestyle and adopts critical thinking as the modus operandi for all walks of life. It's a slow process and it will take nearly a generation to get the ball rolling but it's not something that a change in governance would enable us to achieve overnight - As a matter of fact, a change in administrative design does not guarantee anything whatsoever.

    Russia and China both have authoritarian regimes however on any economic or inventive scale they are doing pretty well for themselves, so does that mean a regime type governance is the way to go for us? No! not at all, why? Because many African countries have the same authoritarian model in place yet they don't have the means to do anything whatsoever because they don't invest in their people like China and Russia have despite being completely authoritarian. Same goes with democracy, places like Greece, Uzbekistan, Congo all are democratic countries yet they aren't lighting up any economic trends globally yet at the same time places like Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea all are democratic states and (with substantial investment in their own people) enjoy the same progressive benefits that countries like Russa and China get even after being completely authoritarian.
     
  20. Mohsin
    Offline

    Mohsin Cornered Tiger

    Feb 21, 2010
    14,184
    Tbf Pakistan hasn't really had a 'proper' dictatorship...look in Africa or the historical dictators in Spain, Italy, S America and you'll see it's been immensely watered down rules yet also/still immensely over hyped by some quarters.
     
  21. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    I somewhat second you and you raised a very valid point, investment on education, which in my book falls under human development.

    Human development is itself a slow process, which has to be instill in upcoming generation(s). I am a developer, and critical thinking is part of my job. I can speak from experience, it takes years to develop this skill.

    That said, the way I see its also a failure of previous democratic governments who functioned very kludgy. A fundamental questions pops in mind, why they didnt heed towards this vital aspect? Based on all the corruption stories coming to fore from right, left and centre, I get the impression that they had no intention to do it. Why previous governments spent billions on infrastructure projects and totally ignored heath, education as part of human development? I reckon because they wouldn't get kickbacks if they've opted.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  22. mohsin88ali
    Offline

    mohsin88ali Talented

    Nov 8, 2017
    1,204
    That's looking at the problem with a very narrow view which BARELY scratches the surface of our problems.

    Now, don't get me wrong, i hate the politicians as much as the next guy but let me remind you, if you clothes have wrinkles, you IRON THEM OUT, NOT set them on fire......
    Same goes with the Democracy.

    And THAT so called "prosperity"??
    It was ONLY possible because Ayub had a whole other country/people (Bangladesh) to loot from and even than, he spent most, if not ALL of it on Punjab.

    And Musharraf? HE FREEKING SET THE WHOLE COUNTRY ON TERRORIST FIRE....
    You call THAT "progress"?



    Sent from my QMobile i6i using Tapatalk
     
  23. Disco Lemonade
    Offline

    Disco Lemonade Design Artist

    Dec 17, 2009
    5,490
    That is true, ayub took the share of east pakistan. zia used the soviet war money. musharraf used all the afghan war money. that is why we saw 'some' prosperity during their time.
     
  24. ahmedwaqas92
    Offline

    ahmedwaqas92 Youngsta Beauty

    Jan 1, 2017
    44
    Pakistan has a two pronged problem when it comes to the underlined question and all previous governments were comprised of either a pesudo democratic administration or a completely authoritarian/dictatorship by the armed forced. The reason why none of these governments worked on human development or education is because:

    (a) The Armed forces controls the masses via the proxy of religion (Tableghi Jamats & Molivs) while the ability to critically analyze a given problem fudges linear thinking, which is a primary aspect of how a religion controls individuals; it reduces assessment and instructs obidience. Providing any sort of pathway to develop mass scale critical thought process among the citizens of Pakistan would counter this advantage in the long run which is why whenever we were 'blessed' with a dictatorship they would never work on education and human development in academics.

    (b) The politicians in our esteemded previous democracies prey on the disenfrachised who are financially insuffient to make any long term progress out of poverty. The best way to help these pockets of 'votes' would be to provide them with a process of self sufficiency a.k.a. education that leads to these people becoming independent however on the flip side if they actually do that they would lose their votes as the ability to appraisal with logic and reason would most probably enable them to asses the corruption they do elsewhere. For this reason Politicians never made any progress in education as well.
     
    • Useful / Interesting Useful / Interesting x 1
    • List
  25. mohsin88ali
    Offline

    mohsin88ali Talented

    Nov 8, 2017
    1,204
    This...

    Sent from my QMobile i6i using Tapatalk
     
  26. Del
    Offline

    Del Cornered Tiger

    Dec 21, 2016
    10,105
    And why dont you elaborate from where people like Nawaz, Shahbaz, Zardari, Raja rental, Gilani, Khursheed shah etc made money?
     
  27. mohsin88ali
    Offline

    mohsin88ali Talented

    Nov 8, 2017
    1,204
    If someone kill with a knife, hacks its victims to pieces, VERY SLOWLY.
    And another puts a bullet in the head or the heart, killing the victims INSTANTANEOUSLY.
    Should the second person NOT be called a killer?

    Bad is BAD, no matter WHERE its from.

    Sent from my QMobile i6i using Tapatalk
     
  28. Mohsin
    Offline

    Mohsin Cornered Tiger

    Feb 21, 2010
    14,184
    Yet when more money was taken in just 5 years of PPP (one example), we saw no prosperity?
     

Share This Page