Army Chief tenure to reset with CDF appointment

[Meengla]

I will state something controversial but it has to be said given the current landscape.

If power is to be centralized in the hands of one man in any case, as many in PTI etc. are saying, then I say one thing. The goal should be to turn Pakistan into a forward moving, hard state, and the person at the center of this has to run the ship like the founding leaders of Singapore, Malaysia, and China did. Single-minded focus, not one damn bit getting in the way of these national goals and not being bothered by so called democratic chaos.

That is, to use the entire state power to accomplish national goals with no dissension being countenanced. That is, park the niceties aside, revamp the politico-social structure, bring madrassas in-line, operationalize CPEC completely, destroy the regressive industrial/agricultural practices, enforce NAP in entirety, fix the nonsensical degradation in Karachi/open its potential to trade, build the dams for our national survival, enact the defense pact with KSA, solidify military and economic ties with China by safeguarding their investments, put Afg. on notice for BLA/TTP etc. etc.

All of this cannot be done through the chaotic "democracy" veneer that we have had for years now. This would also mean no more "benevolent" behind the scenes rule which is a quasi-military supported "hybrid" dispensation. Perhaps on account of international concerns this facade will have to be managed, but it needs to have real muscle to push hard changes for the foundational restructuring of the country.

We can debate till kingdom come why or why not a representative democracy would be a better choice, my point is simply that since we are already not operating with a representative democracy, we might as well get the benefits of a unified rule without being distracted by the jamhooriat tamasha for the next 5-10 years.

Brilliant post!!! Sums up my own thoughts. I have bookmarked it.
And I believe the recent changes, as implemented via the 27th Const. Amendment are an attempt to engineer the changes as in your post. These are way more than giving 'immunity' to the President or the Army Chief. They are way more than 'usurping' power, which is true: Power is being usurped for decades anyway. They are an attempt to create a 'bedrock' upon which stability, growth, progress, strength and peace to be built upon.

 

[Meengla]

Your hard state benevolent autocrat amazing tecnocrat stuff has been tried and failed four times in the past. What else was Ayub khan or Zia or Musharraf ? The hybrid option has also been used and flopped. So how about running Pakistan according to its Cosntitution and letting politics evolve and waiting for gradual and permanent improvement ? Some strategic patience ?

If Pakistan was ran per its Constitution then you know that Imran, the great 'democrat', had violated the Constitution when he threw out the No Confidence Motion based on bogus reasons, would be arrested and tried for that.
BTW, the military rules delivered more. Far more than the so-called 'civilians' did.

 

[Blueishere]

Brilliant post!!! Sums up my own thoughts. I have bookmarked it.
And I believe the recent changes, as implemented via the 27th Const. Amendment are an attempt to engineer the changes as in your post. These are way more than giving 'immunity' to the President or the Army Chief. They are way more than 'usurping' power, which is true: Power is being usurped for decades anyway. They are an attempt to create a 'bedrock' upon which stability, growth, progress, strength and peace to be built upon.

I initially was a thinking this as well, but I think it’s just wishful thinking, if they had wanted to enact something similar they could have done it prior, and Pakistans problems require much more change than they are willing to make.

 

[Blain2]

Your hard state benevolent autocrat amazing tecnocrat stuff has been tried and failed four times in the past. What else was Ayub khan or Zia or Musharraf ? The hybrid option has also been used and flopped. So how about running Pakistan according to its Cosntitution and letting politics evolve and waiting for gradual and permanent improvement ? Some strategic patience ?

No person or office or govt department in Pakistan is capable of doing all you specified anyway. They have neither the intelligence, will, imagination or discipline. So why not utilize the nation instead via a constitutional and democratic system ?

It failed because of the half-hearted "benevolence" that gets in the way.

Constitutional/democratic system is just as dysfunctional for reasons known to all of us.

Unless you want to wait for yet another 20 years before something matures, keep at it.

 

[VCheng]

I initially was a thinking this as well, but I think it’s just wishful thinking, if they had wanted to enact something similar they could have done it prior, and Pakistans problems require much more change than they are willing to make.

I would agree with your view here.

The military, whether ruling overtly or covertly, will never will be enough on its own to be able to deliver on any such promises. Claiming that this time it will be somehow different in outcomes is mere delusion.

 

[Meengla]

It failed because of the half-hearted "benevolence" that gets in the way.
Constitutional/democratic system is just as dysfunctional for reasons known to all of us.
Unless you want to wait for yet another 20 years before something matures, keep at it.

Right. And the half-heartedness is stopping now.
I, for one, don't believe that the rules of Ayub, Zia, and Musharraf were 'bad' for Pakistan's economy. There are many examples of the chaos, corruption under the civilian rule bringing Pakistan to the brink. Look at what Nawaz had done by the time Musharraf took over in October 1999?
We live in an age of 'urban myths': Elvis alive somewhere. Kennedy was killed by the CIA. Martians are flying UFOs. Add to them, the military dictator was worse than the so-called civilian rules.

 

[Watandar]

It failed because of the half-hearted "benevolence" that gets in the way.

Constitutional/democratic system is just as dysfunctional for reasons known to all of us.

Unless you want to wait for yet another 20 years before something matures, keep at it.

If the army had not repeatedly meddled and sabotaged the democratic setup, we could have already achieved this political maturity and solidified the constitutional system, several times in Pakistani history. The first opportunity could have been post 1971, second could have been post 1990s. A third opportunity could even have been post 2007 Mr Musharraf running away. Thanks to army meddling we are back at square one.

There is no Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping or Sher Shah Suri or Ghauri or Tipu Sultan walking among the people in Pakistan. Forget about it. The constitional system and eventual political maturity are your only path.

 

[Blain2]

I would agree with your view here.

The military, whether ruling overtly or covertly, will never will be enough on its own to be able to deliver on any such promises. Claiming that this time it will be somehow different in outcomes is mere delusion.

I'd take a partial win. Get CPEC, NAP, Dams going with a lid on BLA/TTP.

The point of the post is to reflect the reality we are already in. There is no immediate pathway to this glorified democracy on the radar.

Take what you can get with the unified power dispensation.

 

[Blain2]

Right. And the half-heartedness is stopping now.
I, for one, don't believe that the rules of Ayub, Zia, and Musharraf were 'bad' for Pakistan's economy. There are many examples of the chaos, corruption under the civilian rule bringing Pakistan to the brink. Look at what Nawaz had done by the time Musharraf took over in October 1999?
We live in an age of 'urban myths': Elvis alive somewhere. Kennedy was killed by the CIA. Martians are flying UFOs. Add to them, the military dictator was worse than the so-called civilian rules.

Every military rule was better for Pakistan's overall development including infrastructure etc. It does retard representative democracy however, the purpose of my post is to reflect the reality of where we are and not debating the merits of this vs. democracy.

I am not sitting in judgment of whether it is good or bad, simply making the case to make hay while the sun shines where possible.

 

[Meengla]

I'd take a partial win. Get CPEC, NAP, Dams going with a lid on BLA/TTP.
The point of the post is to reflect the reality we are already in. There is no immediate pathway to this glorified democracy on the radar.
Take what you can get with the unified power dispensation.

Another good post.
And just like, in case of investments, 'past performances are not a predictor for future returns', past failures can't necessarily be predictors for future failures.
Pakistan has toyed with the Aadha Teetar, Aadha Batair (neither here or there) since Zia died in 1988 and that has only retarded Pakistan's growth. It is time to try something different--very different.

 

[Blain2]

If the army had not repeatedly meddled and sabotaged the democratic setup, we could have already achieved this political maturity and solidified the constitutional system, several times in Pakistani history. The first opportunity could have been post 1971, second could have been post 1990s. A third opportunity could even have been post 2007 Mr Musharraf running away. Thanks to army meddling we are back at square one.

There is no Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping or Sher Shah Suri or Ghauri or Tipu Sultan walking among the people in Pakistan. Forget about it. The constitional system and eventual political maturity are your only path.

I honestly don't care for the same old arguments. Please see above. "Had this or that happened" is not material at this time.

"There is no Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping or Sher Shah Suri or Ghauri or Tipu Sultan walking among the people in Pakistan."

This is a fallacy. Were they something extra-ordinary? No, circumstances made them extra-ordinary. They had their flaws just like any other human. I am not in the camp that constantly refrains with "if we just had one sincere leader" nonsense. Circumstance give opportunities and someone has to be able to run with them.

 

[Meengla]

Every military rule was better for Pakistan's overall development including infrastructure etc. It does retard representative democracy however, the purpose of my post is to reflect the reality of where we are and not debating the merits of this vs. democracy.
I am not sitting in judgment of whether it is good or bad, simply making the case to make hay while the sun shines where possible.

Ayub Khan's era was the golden era of Pakistan and if today's Pakistan even stands then a lot his owed to that great man. And I don't give a toss about his suppression of democracy or for the loss of East Pakistan, which was inevitable from 1947.
A nation advances when there is stability, order, infra built, defense strengthens, foreign relations built. Ayub achieved all that brilliantly. A hard working, honest, selfless guy. Look at where Pakistan was and the powerplay in the 50s and look at where Pakistan was by the time he left.

 

[VCheng]

I'd take a partial win. Get CPEC, NAP, Dams going with a lid on BLA/TTP.

The point of the post is to reflect the reality we are already in. There is no immediate pathway to this glorified democracy on the radar.

Take what you can get with the unified power dispensation.

So would I, given that this is a much more realistic and nuanced position to take.

I have often argued in the past to bring out the military's role out into the open as the initial step to making it visible and accountable on the basis of actual results, and not hiding behind patriotism or religiosity for cover only when suitable.

I have also highlighted the importance of the economy above all else. Anything or anyone that can deliver some semblance of keeping the national head above the endless sea of red ink should be welcomed at this stage of the game, without exception.

However, I must caution that there is simply no substitute for properly working institutions under the rule of law defined by a Constitution that ALL must adhere to rigidly and co-operatively, while maintaining a healthy balance of checks and balances, if Pakistan is ever to become a state capable of surviving in this century, and beyond.

The military, by itself, has not, will not, and won't ever be able to do this all by itself.

The dangerous trap, into which Pakistan has fallen many times, is building beyond the second story without proper foundations and then wondering why their constructive efforts keep falling down while others are able to build higher and higher.

The solution to breaking free from this trap lies within the GHQ and in a gradual manner, like it or not. Personally, I do not have much faith in this hope ever coming to fruition, and, as they say, we must live in hope because there is no other option.

 

[Watandar]

I honestly don't care for the same old arguments. Please see above. "Had this or that happened" is not material at this time.

"There is no Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping or Sher Shah Suri or Ghauri or Tipu Sultan walking among the people in Pakistan."

This is a fallacy. Were they something extra-ordinary? No, circumstances made them extra-ordinary. They had their flaws just like any other human. I am not in the camp that constantly refrains with "if we just had one sincere leader" nonsense. Circumstance give opportunities and someone has to be able to run with them.

if you don't care about same old arguments then why are you proposing same old argument ? Your fantasy of a technocratic autocrat who can transform Pakistan into the next Singapore or Korea via authoritarian means is exactly what Pakistani army has been trying to do since 1950's, and failing. Some great leader or gentleman will magically arise from the populace (sarkari of course) and whip the unwashed masses into shape ? Never happened and isn't happening either.

Pakistan is too big, too diverse and too complex for the simplistic centralized authoritarianism we have been subjected to from the Establishment, from One Unit to Islamization to enlightened moderation to guided democracy to Hybrid to whatever.
I think we can conclude after the failure of all these experiments that Constitutionalism, institutions and eventual civilian political maturity is the only path.

Asim Muneer is just the latest fool who thinks he is The One.

 

[hnn]

I will state something controversial but it has to be said given the current landscape.

If power is to be centralized in the hands of one man in any case, as many in PTI etc. are saying, then I say one thing. The goal should be to turn Pakistan into a forward moving, hard state, and the person at the center of this has to run the ship like the founding fathers of Singapore, Malaysia, and China. Single-minded focus, not one damn bit getting in the way of these national goals and not being bothered by so called democratic chaos.

That is, to use the entire state power to accomplish national goals with no dissension being countenanced. That is, park the niceties aside, revamp the politico-social structure, bring madrassas in-line, operationalize CPEC completely, destroy the regressive industrial/agricultural practices, enforce NAP in entirety, fix the nonsensical degradation in Karachi/open its potential to trade, build the dams for our national survival, enact the defense pact with KSA, solidify military and economic ties with China by safeguarding their investments, put Afg. on notice for BLA/TTP etc. etc.

All of this cannot be done through the chaotic "democracy" veneer that we have had for years now. This would also mean no more "benevolent" behind the scenes rule which is a quasi-military supported "hybrid" dispensation. Perhaps on account of international concerns this facade will have to be managed, but it needs to have real muscle to push hard changes for the foundational restructuring of the country.

We can debate till kingdom come why or why not a representative democracy would be a better choice, my point is simply that since we are already not operating with a representative democracy, we might as well get the benefits of a unified rule without being distracted by the jamhooriat tamasha for the next 5-10 years.

I can understand where you are coming from but as much as I want to buy into this Utopian dream I can't help but point out that a Utopia (even if for the sake of discussion) we assume can realistically exist - would require a "unifying ideology" - that is the realistic challenge in Pakistan's society - we don't have that unifying ideology and if we are to bring people into one forcefully - the whole Utopian dream will very quickly collapse into Fascism