There have been massive "development projects" like these during past military dictatorships. What has establishment to show for it in the long term socioeconomic health of the country as a whole? South Korea for example has been a military dictatorship in its past. But it didn't continue to remain on a self-destructive path like Pakistan...
Same came be said for "mega development projects" in civil admin... What does our much vaunted "Democracy" brigade have to show for their PR dance campaigns?
The more important question is: What has the 18th Amendment actually delivered? Provincial governments have enjoyed substantial autonomy for years, so we should be asking what they have achieved with those powers and how they have improved governance, public services, and the socioeconomic conditions of their respective populations?
Countries do not vanish in thin air — even after enduring a destructive war for years. Anyway, my point was that a dictatorship isn't inherently bad if it can show for it in the long-term sustainability of a country as a whole. South Korea was a dictatorship. China is a dictatorship. And yet both countries are miles ahead in socioeconomic development compared with Pakistan. If only Pakistan had such a benevolent dictatorship...
The even more important question is: What has three military dictatorships of the past actually delivered? What is the current one really delivering?
Again all I hear is the same old repeated broken record I read in other threads. Nothing new, time to get some new material.
