Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: What imperils democracy?

Share             
  1. #21
    Member NazamKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    679
    Thanks
    338
    Pakistan Australia

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    We do need to look at alternatives as the current version of democracy and or governance throws up a leadership that has no idea or simply does not want to govern

  2. #22
    Mod VCheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    739
    Thanks
    503
    Pakistan United States

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aryan_B View Post
    I dont think its a question of 8 dont exist we probably have many many many more than 8. But there are even more who will become an impediment and represent vested interests
    You are correct that there are many, many more good people than just 8. But the question is how many of them are anywhere near the positions of power described in the article needed to improve the system overall?

  3. #23
    Mod VCheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    739
    Thanks
    503
    Pakistan United States

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by NazamKhan View Post
    We do need to look at alternatives as the current version of democracy and or governance throws up a leadership that has no idea or simply does not want to govern
    Pakistan has tried both the civilian and military forms of government with abysmal results. It is time for a uniquely Pakistani hybrid solution.

  4. #24
    Member NazamKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    679
    Thanks
    338
    Pakistan Australia

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Well it would be nice to have some insanity as someone said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

  5. #25
    Mod VCheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    739
    Thanks
    503
    Pakistan United States

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by NazamKhan View Post
    Well it would be nice to have some insanity as someone said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
    That doesn't make sense. Do you mean it is time for sanity?
    The Following User Says Thank You to VCheng For This Useful Post: NazamKhan


  6. #26
    Member NazamKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    679
    Thanks
    338
    Pakistan Australia

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by VCheng View Post
    That doesn't make sense. Do you mean it is time for sanity?
    Sorry for typo of course thats what I meant
    The Following User Says Thank You to NazamKhan For This Useful Post: VCheng


  7. #27
    Member greencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,912
    Thanks
    963
    Europe Pakistan

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Radical? Yes. Workable? Absolutely. All Pakistan needs is eight good people (four civilian, three military), one each responsible for the Finance, Interior, Commerce, Social Services, Foreign, Defense and Energy ministries, led by a Prime Minister. Call it whatever you like, democratic, technocratic, unity, hybrid, bizarre, travesty, but think about it as the only viable way left to Pakistan if it is to flourish, not merely survive, in the 21st century in an evermore competitive global village.

    [MENTION=53]VCheng[/MENTION] how do you propose we choose these 8 people?

  8. #28
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by VCheng View Post
    the pros and cons of democracy in Pakistan have made for never-ending discussions. What are you thoughts on a hybrid system such as I suggested earlier on "another" website?

    =======================================

    EIGHT GOOD PEOPLE.

    A suggested way forward for Pakistan, with three short term and three long term goals clearly identified, has been previously presented : Where to go from here? . Since that short article was written, the Army has taken clear and effective steps to go after all terrorists without discrimination, and their supporting mechanisms, whether they be political or financial. Importantly, it has also begun paying attention to creating a credible narrative to counter the terrorist's propaganda, thereby fulfilling the three short term steps suggested. There is also some evidence to suggest that three longer term suggested goals of going after armed militias maintained by political parties, and countering and reducing the suffocating and overbearing imposition of radical interpretations of religion over public life and in the military are being worked upon, slowly, but surely.

    Given these very encouraging trends, it is perhaps a good time to look forward to identify broader goals for the entire nation and how they can be implemented stepwise. Obviously, many details will be left out in the interests of brevity, but the overall framework should be sound enough to be discussed for implementation.

    Over the past decades, Pakistan has continued to struggle against quite adverse odds to take its rightful place in the region and internationally due to its internal turmoil in defining mechanisms of governance and power sharing between critical institutions of the state, including the military. Rather than reiterate the causes and problems of how Pakistan go to be where it is, it is far more important to decide where to go next, now that we are indeed where we are: a broken government, a non-functioning justice system, a hopelessly inept political class and an over-stretched military, all overlaid on rising social misery and widespread corruption that permeates all levels. Indeed, this list of failures is enough to give ample cause for many to say that solutions do not exist, but there is no other choice. These problems must be resolved, if Pakistan is to begin to rise to its potential, finally, three-quarters of a century after independence.

    The never-ending tussle over power between the civil and military centers of power must be stopped. Given the realities on the ground, Constitutional idealism, desirable as it is, must give way to a working power sharing agreement, with the military's role in formulating foreign and defense policies formalized by assigning the relevant portfolios to two senior Generals. The civilian side must be limited to only these ministries: Finance, Interior, Commerce, and Social Services. That is it, a total of seven portfolios, plus the Prime Minister (there is no miscount, one more will be described later). Doing this is important for a number of reasons, the most important being creating the correct impression that no one is operating illegally or regard themselves as being above the law. Such a change at the top will take time to establish at the lower levels of both government and society, but has untold benefits in the long run by establishing the rule of law. Also, the concept of legalizing what has been shown to work rather than pining after unattainable idealism is important to realize for everyone. In the same vein, the issues with the judicial system can wait until the time for the present arrangement of military courts is drawing to a close in about a year and a half, given that the most pressing need for convicting and sentencing of terrorists can be dealt with effectively until then.

    Given the multitude of other problems, made worse by a ever rising population with rapid urbanization, there is one key element that underwrites the solutions to all of them: Energy. Every other problem can be mitigated effectively if and only if there is an ample supply of reliable and plentiful energy supplies of all kinds. Given how far Pakistan is lagging behind in this crucial area, and all the adverse effects thereof, this must be assigned on a war footing to the military. It is the only working institution that remains capable of dealing with the many issues plaguing this vital sector, from corrupt power deals, to unreliable distribution and rampant theft.

    Radical? Yes. Workable? Absolutely. All Pakistan needs is eight good people (four civilian, three military), one each responsible for the Finance, Interior, Commerce, Social Services, Foreign, Defense and Energy ministries, led by a Prime Minister. Call it whatever you like, democratic, technocratic, unity, hybrid, bizarre, travesty, but think about it as the only viable way left to Pakistan if it is to flourish, not merely survive, in the 21st century in an evermore competitive global village.

    Eight good people. In a nation of over 200 million, is that too much to ask and hope for?

    First of all, lovely to be reading you again, I look forward to increased level of participation from you.

    1. This is not about pro or cons of Democracy in Pakistan - What has not worked and I think it's time to acknowledge this is Westminster on the Indus -- It's not just alien, it's dysfunctional.

    2. Military cannot be the solution to the problems of Pakistan, it can be a part of the solution for sure, after all, it's not like the PAKMIL have been forward thinkers, many of the problems Pakistan experience today are the result of the institutionally regressive thinking PAKMIL have produced, extremism is just one of the those problems, as is the lateralization of struggle, think about Karachi and Lahore than the whole "Mohajir" BS and the Sectarian BS of the PounJab.

    3. In another forum, I had a thread, about what is India and What is China --- the effort was to start a genuine discussion of novel ideas - for one thing, What is is the need for Two houses of Majlis?? One can understand it in the UK with Magna Carta and lords, but what is the need or function of it in the context of Pakistan?? Why two? Why not eight?? But wait we are jumping the Gun - What is the function of the Majlis?? If the Majlis is a law making, Law refining body, can or ought those not trained in the law, be sitting in Majlis?? Whoa, easy there, WHICH LAW? Shariah??

    4. In the earlier point we asked why not multiple houses in Majlis, each increasingly more authoritative, whose function is to refine laws and to legitimize solutions that are adopted given the context of Pakistan - Wait a minute - What is "Context of Pakistan" ?? It is the uniqueness of the history(ies) and problems and solutions of the Pakistani nation state. Today Pakistan is not just beset by unrestrained political struggle as illustrated in the cover given to terrorism by political parties, but also a Balkanization of Pakistan, the inability and unwillingness to commit to the economic development of Pakistan has given rise to a hopelessness in Pakistani society. The politicians sell Utopia of "Welfare Islamic State", the Tax payer, a increasing small number, reacts by expressing greater skepticism not just to the idea of taxes, but of the viability of a Pakistan. Don't believe me, just ask where the smart money of Pakistan is at - where ever it is at, it's not in Pakistan, it takes Chinese and other risk takers to move in Pakistan, Pakistani money meanwhile is where it thinks it's safe to be, i.e. not in Pakistan.

    We are all aware and can enumerate a whole host of problems, but it's the number one problem of Pakistan, that is to say, the structure, the design, the purpose of politics in the service of GOVERNANCE, that is most fundamental issue in Pakistan --- the solution(s) may well require some understanding by the military, but first and fore most, it is politicians who must ask and answer what is the purpose of politics in Pakistan, any answer that is is not, the creation and refinement of laws to serve in the governance of Pakistan, is the wrong answer.
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: Greenstar,NazamKhan


  9. #29
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Better late than never:



    A Belgian disease in our midst
    Syed Talat Hussain
    Monday, November 30, 2015
    The writer is former executive editor of The News and a senior journalist with Geo TV.



    They are not two peas in a pod; in fact they are poles apart. One ranks very high in the human development category: 21 out of 187 countries; the other very low: 146 out of 187. One is bulging at the seams with almost 200 million people – and counting, the other is just 11.2 million people and worried about declining demography. One is ageing; the other is youthful. One is located in Western Europe’s highly prosperous zone; the other is in South Asia’s chronically underperforming sphere.

    Yet in post-Paris assessments, parts of the tales from these two strikingly dissimilar lands are so similar that one can easily be mistaken for the other.

    There is much that Pakistan can learn from the role of Belgium in the wave of terror sweeping across Europe, even though the two countries confront different levels and complexity of terror threats.

    Andrew Higgins’ ruthless and detailed account (‘Terrorism response puts Belgium in a harsh light’) in last week’s New York Times makes several central points that fit Pakistan’s situation.

    One point relates to ownership and responsibility. Let’s look at Pakistan first. While the office of the prime minister represents the whole country, critical areas of responsibility – and with it ownership of the multi-dimensional counterterror strategy – are undecided. Provinces – for instance Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – always talk about the central authority’s jurisdiction over regions like the Federally Administered Tribal Areas as the crux of the problem to put a permanent lid on organised groups’ criminal and terrorist activities.

    The federal government, however, speaks of provinces not performing their duty to dismantle local terror networks, and alleges that this dereliction of duty ends up prolonging terrorism’s destructive life. The debate between the federal government and the Sindh government is most instructive in this regard. Even repeated rounds of bilateral and personal meetings between the prime minister and the chief minister have not drawn detectable lines of their core jobs.

    The army’s deployment under various legal covers for combat missions creates an illusion of unity of policy. And because all legal authority to carry out counterterror and counter-insurgency operations flows out of the overarching Article 245 of the constitution – POPA, ATA, FCR – or generic concepts such as ‘threat of war’; therefore, a sense of policy cohesion exists.

    But absence of institutionalised and clear-cut division of labour among the federating units in this fight against a unified enemy undercuts consistency and productivity of effort. The endless squabbling between and among the provinces and the federal authorities often resembles police station heads arguing over a crime scene in the grey area demarcating their territorial limits. With local bodies being elected all over the country this issue of ‘who is to do what’ is likely to get even more complicated.

    That’s what happened in Belgium.

    Higgins writes: “A month before the Paris terrorist attacks, Mayor Françoise Schepmans of Molenbeek, a Brussels district long notorious as a haven for jihadists, received a list with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area.

    “The list, based on information from Belgium’s security apparatus, included two brothers who would take part in the bloodshed in France on Nov 13, as well as the man suspected of being the architect of the terrorist plot, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a Molenbeek resident who had left for Syria to fight for the Islamic State in early 2014.

    “ ‘What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists,” Ms. Schepmans said. That, she added, ‘is the responsibility of the federal police.’


    Another similarity of challenges facing Belgium and Pakistan relates to the devolved nature of the federation. Belgium is the ultimate ‘devolved state’. Pakistan’s centralism has been diluted by the 18th Amendment. Generally, this is accepted as a good thing. However, it is not always that a politically correct system automatically becomes a fully functioning system. I-don’t-care-because-I-don’t-share is exactly the kind of a system that terrorists look for.

    Says Higgins about Belgium: “The federal police service, for its part, reports to the interior minister, Jan Jambon, a Flemish nationalist who has doubts about whether Belgium – divided among French, Dutch and German speakers – should even exist as a single state.

    “As Brussels remained locked down for a fourth day, facing what the authorities say is its own imminent terrorist threat, the failure to stop two brothers clearly flagged as extremists before the Paris carnage highlighted tribal squabbles...


    “...with its capital paralysed and its political elite pointing fingers over who is to blame for letting jihadists go unchecked, the country is again being ridiculed as the world’s most prosperous failed state.

    An Italian newspaper called itBelgistan,’ and a German one declared Belgium ‘kaput.’ A French writer, Éric Zemmour, suggested in a recent radio interview that instead of bombing Raqqa, Syria, the self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State, “France should bomb Molenbeek.””

    Now consider Pakistan’s situation. All national coordination bodies are dormant. The much-famed National Security Committee (NSC) had its last meeting a year ago. (Among the many comical reasons cited for its deliberate paralysis one is brittle civil-military ties; another is sour relations among federal ministers who don’t speak to each other, with at least one of them occasionally choosing not to engage with the prime minister either!) The Defence Committee of the Cabinet, while still existing, has been replaced by the NSC and therefore is dysfunctional.

    The Ministry for Inter-Provincial Coordination with its elaborate 43-subject mandate barely breathes. The Council of Common Interests under this ministry is even more dead. Its requirement of a must-meeting in a 90-day span has not been fulfilled for three quarters now. The National Counter-terrorism Authority’s acronym, NACTA, reads more like Not-Active-Again. This is supposed to be a premier body overseeing all policy and coordination related to counterterrorism matters but instead has been reduced to a joke. (Born in 2013, Nacta’s website is still under construction and has no full-time boss)

    The apex committees are just a showpiece and amazingly have no legal ground or even notification to justify their existence. These were announced by the formidable ISPR, reflecting more institutional power play than a desire to bring different elements of policy in sync with each other.

    There is no intelligence grid where civilian and military intelligence could be pooled. Police departments in provinces and at the federal level have no mechanism or platform to streamline their activities and learn from each other’s experiences. Pakistan practically exists as a five-in-one state.

    Now consider Belgiu
    m. Reports Higgins: “With three uneasily joined populations, Belgium has a dizzying plethora of institutions and political parties divided along linguistic, ideological or simply opportunistic lines, which are being blamed for the country’s seeming inability to get a handle on its terrorist threat…to the system’s rising chorus of critics, the scale of the lockdown itself – the security alert has closed schools, many shops and the subway system in Brussels – is a reflection less of focused authority and actionable intelligence than of diffuse incoordination….responsibilities tend to overlap with only fuzzy rules for who is supposed to do what.

    Yet another problem in Belgium that we in Pakistan are totally familiar with is politicisation of decision-making to a point where small personal agendas stump larger goals.

    Higgins’ piece has a few remarkably instructive quotes. One says: “Everything in Belgium is politicized; you cannot have an administrative function, particularly a senior one, if you don’t have a political affiliation.

    Another says:It had been obvious for years, particularly under a Socialist mayor who governed until 2012, that militants were making inroads there, but nobody wanted to know because this did not fit their political agenda…Intelligence services, too, have struggled with the same political calculations and constraints….it works more or less normally, but when something so unpredictable like terrorism happens, all the institutions collide.”

    And then the final lines:This is the Belgium disease…everyone always says it is not their fault....”

    Sadly, this is a Pakistani disease too. We need to find a cure – and quickly.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: NazamKhan


  10. #30
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    An example of "military Genius", we continue to suggest that armed forces ought to use specialized schools as force multipliers, a smarter soldier is a better soldier, a better person -- in this particular case below, notice how clueless is the Commander of the relationship between values and material well being, and how the lack of material well being is a motivating factor in insurgency and terrorism :



    General Aamer seeks youth’s role for model society

    - Tuesday, December 01, 2015







    QUETTA: Commander Southern Command Lt General Aamer Riaz has said that nations are formed by good values and not with material gains, adding that our youth and students would have to come forward to play their due role for establishing a model society which followed the principles of justice, honesty and hard work.

    He was addressing a ceremony at the University of Balochistan held in connection with the social media and a short film screening here on Monday.He said that Pakistan had a bright and enlightened future. Our youth and students will have to play their due role for establishing a society which follows principles of justice, honesty and hardworking in order to get goals of progress and prosperity for our people.

    He said that society would have to promote tolerance and harmony in order to defeat anti-peace elements and to end violence.“All stakeholders of the society will have to make joint efforts for ending violence and extremism curbing corruption and abolishing social menaces if we want a thriving and developing Pakistan,” he said.

    He said that former commander southern command Lt. General (retd) Nasser Khan Janjua has played a remarkable role in restoration of peace in Balochistan. Nasser Khan Janjua wanted to see Balochistan a peaceful and economically thriving province of Pakistan, he said.Later, he distributed prizes among the winner students of the competition.Vice Chancellor University of Balochistan Prof. Dr. Javed Iqbal also spoke on the occasion.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: NazamKhan


  11. #31
    Member NazamKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    679
    Thanks
    338
    Pakistan Australia

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Democratic oligarchy

    The writer is a former civil servant.

    IT is mind-boggling to find a leadership that so despises involvement of military bureaucracy in the affairs of democratically elected government, but at the same time is so predisposed to keep civilian bureaucracy at the helm of affairs even at the cost of the people’s elected representatives.

    Local body elections are under way across the country and the PML-N government has once again made sure to run the government through bureaucrats rather than politicians (read, elected representatives of the people). Perhaps the latter could not be trusted whereas the civil servant still remains the most obedient servant of powerful politicians.

    The local government law of all provincial governments is similar in its provision for a Local Government Commission (LGC) to supervise the working of local bodies. The commission shall consist of:

    Is it justified to put a publicly elected government under a civil servant?
    (a) Minister for local government, elections and rural development department, who shall be the chairman of the LGC; (b) Two members of the provincial assembly, one each nominated by the chief minister and leader of the opposition in the provincial assembly; (c) Two eminently qualified and experienced technocrats including a woman; (d) Secretary to government, law, parliamentary affairs and human rights department; and (e) Secretary to government, local government, elections and rural development department.

    Besides many powers, the said commission would be able to recommend to the government even the suspension of a mayor or a chairman for fair conduct of inquiry. It seems reasonable to have elected representatives of the people at the helm of affairs with bureaucracy providing the support system. The case for Punjab is the same except for the fact that instead of two, three members of the provincial assembly would be appointed on the commission, the additional one being another nomination by the leader of the house.

    As they say, the devil is in the details. All provinces except Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provide for a chief officer who would be a civil servant and oversee the activities of the local bodies. The chief officer shall be responsible for ensuring adherence by the local government to all laws, policies and oversight framework of the government in the prescribed manner.

    The chief officer will also be able to refer cases to the LGC for inquiry, which again gives enough leverage to an individual civil servant to control elected representatives. It is a workable system but by no means is it devolution of power to elected representatives. Is it really justified to put a publicly elected government under a civil servant?

    At the federal level the government has gone a step further and provided for the appointment of a retired civil servant as the chairman of the LGC. The complete composition of the commission for the federal capital is as follows: (a) A chairman, who shall be a retired civil servant or an eminent citizen of integrity and good track record, to be appointed by the government; (b) Two members of the National Assembly, one each nominated by the leader of the house and leader of the opposition in the National Assembly; (c) Two eminent, qualified and experienced technocrat members nominated by the government, including at least one woman; (d) Representative of the chief commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory office, not below the rank of BS-19; and (e) Director, development & finance, ICT.

    One wonders how the government plans to preclude the chance of civil servants forming a lobby against the elected representatives and protecting their own interests even at the cost of people’s aspirations which might be put forth by the elected representatives.

    The ruling parties, particularly in Sindh and Punjab, do not seem to be comfortable with the idea of delegating power at the grass-roots level because it is very difficult to control individuals at this level, many of whom can grow in stature if given the opportunity. There would be a chance of these individuals growing bigger than the party itself and being able to have influence as independent candidates which can be handy in general elections as well. Zulfiqar Mirza already poses such a threat to the PPP in Badin, Sindh.

    Such influence is not particularly liked by those who desire autocratic rule: they need individuals who can win by piggybacking on a party ticket rather than by exercising individual influence. No matter how many cycles of this sort of democracy are completed, it would remain an oligarchy in essence.

    Lastly, if politicians are so averse to military rule — essentially rule by individuals who are not elected representatives — then they should also be averse to rule by civil servants because they fall in the same category. This shows that the problem the majority of politicians have with military rule is not its undemocratic overtones but the fact that military bureaucracy does not bow to them the way civilian bureaucracy does.

    The writer is a former civil servant.

    [email protected]

    Published in Dawn, December 3rd, 2015


    http://www.dawn.com/news/1223797/democratic-oligarchy
    The Following User Says Thank You to NazamKhan For This Useful Post: Muse


  12. #32
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by NazamKhan View Post
    Democratic oligarchy

    The writer is a former civil servant.

    IT is mind-boggling to find a leadership that so despises involvement of military bureaucracy in the affairs of democratically elected government, but at the same time is so predisposed to keep civilian bureaucracy at the helm of affairs even at the cost of the people’s elected representatives.

    Local body elections are under way across the country and the PML-N government has once again made sure to run the government through bureaucrats rather than politicians (read, elected representatives of the people). Perhaps the latter could not be trusted whereas the civil servant still remains the most obedient servant of powerful politicians.

    The local government law of all provincial governments is similar in its provision for a Local Government Commission (LGC) to supervise the working of local bodies. The commission shall consist of:

    Is it justified to put a publicly elected government under a civil servant?
    (a) Minister for local government, elections and rural development department, who shall be the chairman of the LGC; (b) Two members of the provincial assembly, one each nominated by the chief minister and leader of the opposition in the provincial assembly; (c) Two eminently qualified and experienced technocrats including a woman; (d) Secretary to government, law, parliamentary affairs and human rights department; and (e) Secretary to government, local government, elections and rural development department.

    Besides many powers, the said commission would be able to recommend to the government even the suspension of a mayor or a chairman for fair conduct of inquiry. It seems reasonable to have elected representatives of the people at the helm of affairs with bureaucracy providing the support system. The case for Punjab is the same except for the fact that instead of two, three members of the provincial assembly would be appointed on the commission, the additional one being another nomination by the leader of the house.

    As they say, the devil is in the details. All provinces except Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provide for a chief officer who would be a civil servant and oversee the activities of the local bodies. The chief officer shall be responsible for ensuring adherence by the local government to all laws, policies and oversight framework of the government in the prescribed manner.

    The chief officer will also be able to refer cases to the LGC for inquiry, which again gives enough leverage to an individual civil servant to control elected representatives. It is a workable system but by no means is it devolution of power to elected representatives. Is it really justified to put a publicly elected government under a civil servant?

    At the federal level the government has gone a step further and provided for the appointment of a retired civil servant as the chairman of the LGC. The complete composition of the commission for the federal capital is as follows: (a) A chairman, who shall be a retired civil servant or an eminent citizen of integrity and good track record, to be appointed by the government; (b) Two members of the National Assembly, one each nominated by the leader of the house and leader of the opposition in the National Assembly; (c) Two eminent, qualified and experienced technocrat members nominated by the government, including at least one woman; (d) Representative of the chief commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory office, not below the rank of BS-19; and (e) Director, development & finance, ICT.

    One wonders how the government plans to preclude the chance of civil servants forming a lobby against the elected representatives and protecting their own interests even at the cost of people’s aspirations which might be put forth by the elected representatives.


    The ruling parties, particularly in Sindh and Punjab, do not seem to be comfortable with the idea of delegating power at the grass-roots level because it is very difficult to control individuals at this level, many of whom can grow in stature if given the opportunity. There would be a chance of these individuals growing bigger than the party itself and being able to have influence as independent candidates which can be handy in general elections as well. Zulfiqar Mirza already poses such a threat to the PPP in Badin, Sindh.

    Such influence is not particularly liked by those who desire autocratic rule: they need individuals who can win by piggybacking on a party ticket rather than by exercising individual influence. No matter how many cycles of this sort of democracy are completed, it would remain an oligarchy in essence.

    Lastly, if politicians are so averse to military rule — essentially rule by individuals who are not elected representatives — then they should also be averse to rule by civil servants because they fall in the same category. This shows that the problem the majority of politicians have with military rule is not its undemocratic overtones but the fact that military bureaucracy does not bow to them the way civilian bureaucracy does.

    The writer is a former civil servant.

    [email protected]

    Published in Dawn, December 3rd, 2015
    http://www.dawn.com/news/1223797/democratic-oligarchy

    Neither the Supreme court, which is never shy of expressing it's unaccountable role nor Majlis, has a problem with this state of affairs -- and sadly the armed forces have yet to produce an effective lobby - consider, there is the Fauji Foundation, and the ex-servicemen's association, however, there is as yet, no coherent organization, at every level of municipal organization, to generate policy perspectives, meet, organize, engage in educating members and the public of it's perspective - this is an entirely legitimate and necessary activity in a vibrant democracy.

    There is plenty for the politicians to eat, and the bureaucrats want some to eat as well, somewhere along the line, the bureaucrats will be asking themselves why they ought to settle for such a relatively small slice of the pie.

    Lost in all of this, without any protest, are the votes of ordinary Pakistanis -- Look, if local government cannot levy taxes, it's not any kind of government, and therefore the bureaucrats, savvy??

  13. #33
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    So...enjoy...:



    Fazl warns against attempts to make Pakistan ‘liberal’
    Suhail Kakakhel
    Published Dec 04


    NOWSHERA: Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has warned against attempts to make Pakistan a liberal country, saying that Pakistan had come into existence in the name of Islam and any bid to make it liberal would be resisted.

    Addressing a public meeting in Hakimabad on Thursday, the JUI-F leader criticised Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for “raising the slogan of liberal Pakistan” and accused him of doing it only to appease his western allies.

    The rally organised to pay homage to the late Dr Sher Ali Shah was also addressed by Deputy Chairman of Senate Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, JUI-F General Secretary Amjad Khan Lahori, provincial general secretary Maulana Shujaul Mulk and others.

    Also read: Religious leaders criticise PM for calling Pakistan ‘liberal’

    Maulana Fazl alleged that by projecting the agenda of liberalism in the country the prime minister had tried to destroy the essence of the two-nation theory. He also criticised writers who had praised Mr Sharif for describing Pakistan as a liberal country.

    He appealed to people to reject the agenda of Mr Sharif and show resistance to it.

    Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2015
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: ArshadK,Hariz


  14. #34
    Senior Member Hariz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    1720
    Pakistan UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    So...enjoy...:



    Fazl warns against attempts to make Pakistan ‘liberal’
    Suhail Kakakhel
    Published Dec 04


    NOWSHERA: Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has warned against attempts to make Pakistan a liberal country, saying that Pakistan had come into existence in the name of Islam and any bid to make it liberal would be resisted.

    Addressing a public meeting in Hakimabad on Thursday, the JUI-F leader criticised Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for “raising the slogan of liberal Pakistan” and accused him of doing it only to appease his western allies.

    The rally organised to pay homage to the late Dr Sher Ali Shah was also addressed by Deputy Chairman of Senate Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, JUI-F General Secretary Amjad Khan Lahori, provincial general secretary Maulana Shujaul Mulk and others.

    Also read: Religious leaders criticise PM for calling Pakistan ‘liberal’

    Maulana Fazl alleged that by projecting the agenda of liberalism in the country the prime minister had tried to destroy the essence of the two-nation theory. He also criticised writers who had praised Mr Sharif for describing Pakistan as a liberal country.

    He appealed to people to reject the agenda of Mr Sharif and show resistance to it.

    Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2015
    he is a terrorist sympethiser and he is the type of person that needs to be held to account for the bile he spreads

  15. #35
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hariz View Post
    he is a terrorist sympethiser and he is the type of person that needs to be held to account for the bile he spreads
    Certainly, but that's not going to happen, after all, who is going to hold him accountable?? Have you notice the LOW key public persona Gen. Raheel Sharif has been forced into?
    The Following User Says Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: Hariz


  16. #36
    Senior Member Hariz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    1720
    Pakistan UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    Certainly, but that's not going to happen, after all, who is going to hold him accountable?? Have you notice the LOW key public persona Gen. Raheel Sharif has been forced into?
    You know what muse I watched Ary Tv whilst Imran had his long march or his sit in the container outside parliament. They showed a session of the NA where this little **** made a speech. The feeling I got was that he is a slimy not to be trusted and he has no ideology or sincere belief of any religion he was so transparent he was disgusting. He is whats wrong with Pakistan

  17. #37
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hariz View Post
    You know what muse I watched Ary Tv whilst Imran had his long march or his sit in the container outside parliament. They showed a session of the NA where this little **** made a speech. The feeling I got was that he is a slimy not to be trusted and he has no ideology or sincere belief of any religion he was so transparent he was disgusting. He is whats wrong with Pakistan
    And he approached the Americans seeking their support for his premiership -- the ambitions of these people is absolutely incredible, even if with a little help from friends abroad. But lets be fair, he is only a symptom, the disease is the structure of Pakistani politics, that is to say what is tolerated as "politics" - within this structure, he is a credible player, because the rules of the game are that if you can create a fiefdom, whether of religious nuts, whether of ethnic or linguistic groups, or of Wadera and gangsters, or the landed and the bureaucrats, you have "credibility" - you can make things happen - What kind of things? Generally, not good kind of things.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: Hariz


  18. #38
    Senior Member Hariz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    1720
    Pakistan UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    And he approached the Americans seeking their support for his premiership -- the ambitions of these people is absolutely incredible, even if with a little help from friends abroad.
    Hes not that far away from Nawaz. He probably thinks if Nawaz can do it I can. But to add to what I was saying earlier he is so transparent that it is clear he is using religion as a vehicle for pure personal greed
    The Following User Says Thank You to Hariz For This Useful Post: Muse


  19. #39
    Think Tank Muse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    5084
    UK UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hariz View Post
    Hes not that far away from Nawaz. He probably thinks if Nawaz can do it I can. But to add to what I was saying earlier he is so transparent that it is clear he is using religion as a vehicle for pure personal greed
    Which of them is not transparent about using religion ??
    The Following User Says Thank You to Muse For This Useful Post: Hariz


  20. #40
    Senior Member Hariz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    1720
    Pakistan UK

    Re: What imperils democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    Which of them is not transparent about using religion ??
    Notwithstanding that I just get sickened when I see him. He said something which I cant remember for the life of me which was clearly a lie in the NA and then smirked. Yet he is allowed to get away with it. Sick sick pakistan
    The Following User Says Thank You to Hariz For This Useful Post: Enigma


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26th August 2014, 18:35
  2. Afghani democracy versus US democracy
    By 1Badmaash in forum Afghanistan Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28th October 2013, 21:38
  3. Pakistan's Islam Imperils the Public Space
    By sonicboom in forum Social & Cultural Dynamics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25th March 2013, 18:02
  4. Ethnic violence imperils Myanmar reform By Brian McCartan
    By Naveed HRitom in forum World Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd November 2012, 13:01
  5. Democracy
    By Neo in forum National Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 13th July 2012, 18:01

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter