Army Chief tenure to reset with CDF appointment

[lightning f57]

Biggest issue for me is these changes are going in the wrong direction, Pakistan is more closer to dictatorship prior to these changes. If the CDF makes big mistakes or does want he wants where is the accountability? This sets a precedent for future CDF as well, some people more easily get changed when they get intoxicated with absolute power.

Military dictatorships have not been successful anywhere, when they ended in countries like France, Spain, Brazil, South Korea it transformed them economically.

Democracy doesn't work in Pak either, so something different is needed but I personally dont think this is a move in the right direction.

 

[Meengla]

You kinda did make it seem like Utopia in the original post the latter position of "partial victory" - I already agreed with

I don't think @Blain2 was envisioning any 'Utopia' in the post above which I have bookmarked. He suggested a path forward, however 'undemocratic' it may seem, to pull Pakistan away from its 'do or die' situation.
Something new is being tried--actually not entirely new because barring a short period of Nawaz in the 90s, the civilians never had the 'space' to rule after Bhutto was deposed in 1977. What is being introduced is a rigid military control over 'governance', which is to be done by the civilians. And contrary to a certain political position by some above, there is indeed a large civilian representation in Pakistan's current power corridors. Just because Mr. 30% polled vote is not in power anymore doesn't mean the Parliament of Pakistan doesn't have a large people's mandate. But they are now being told, through Const. changes, to shape up, perform or else!
So that's the essence of the changes in Pakistan and I welcome the changes.

 

[hnn]

Perhaps I did, maybe I did not articulate it well enough. The basic gist is this: If you are going to be the one and only "badmash", then wield the "Dunda" that comes with it in its entirety to get stuff done.

"Dunda" - yes - but then based on principles and equally applied to all - the equal part is where the Dunda has always been blind

 

[Blain2]

China is big, yes but compared to Pakistan it isn't diverse in the same sense. 92% is Han Ethnic Group. The other 55 ethnic groups only make 8% of total population. The main language is Mandarin and the small group of Hokkien speaking Southerners aren't at the same status as Mandarin speaking ones. Besides, they already flushed out the Nationalists to Taiwan so Chinese society is majorly homogenous to have a unifying ideology.



No but that is where we need to improve our political system instead of overriding it. For example, if CDF along with the current government lays foundation to grassroot political ideology development that'd be great. Our politicians are stupid because they are landlords. They don't have a political ideology other than Nepotism or Oligarchy and that's why they didn't do any better than the Military Dictatorships - instead of working in the interest of public, they worked to maintain their elitist self intersts (something military does too )

I'd only say that you cannot apply the "ethnic" lens as the only criteria to suggest it was "easy" for the Chinese. They had their nay-sayers who did not want to go along with the communist revolution. They had their stratification across the social classes. They had their feudal aristocracy which was murdered enmasse by Mao's legions, they had the Chinese nationalists break-away a la Taiwan today etc.

Each country has its own dynamics. Pakistani masses can be "herded" just as masses were elsewhere on a national agenda and "democracy" isn't the only panacea. We don't even have to look that far because the entire country got "Islamized" by an earlier one-man rule/agenda despite all the ethnic differences etc.

 

[hnn]

I don't think @Blain2 was envisioning any 'Utopia' in the post above which I have bookmarked. He suggested a path forward, however 'undemocratic' it may seem, to pull Pakistan away from its 'do or die' situation.
Something new is being tried--actually not entirely new because barring a short period of Nawaz in the 90s, the civilians never had the 'space' to rule after Bhutto was deposed in 1977. What is being introduced is a rigid military control over 'governance', which is to be done by the civilians. And contrary to a certain political position by some above, there is indeed a large civilian representation in Pakistan's current power corridors. Just because Mr. 30% polled vote is not in power anymore doesn't mean the Parliament of Pakistan doesn't have a large people's mandate. But they are now being told, through Const. changes, to shape up, perform or else!
So that's the essence of the changes in Pakistan and I welcome the changes.

Yes true, what he described, with good intentions is an Authoritarian system which is usually associated as a tool used to bring about a Utopian dream - so he didn't say it directly - but the culmination of the system points to it i.e. "a perfected society" - it is why I also clarified that the perfected society is an ideal "Anarchaic Stateless and Classless Society" not something that is in the middle or stops before it which degenerates into Fascism. It's why in my responses above I only explained the Utopian idea and why it wouldn't work.

 

[clutch]

Pakistan continues it's path as a failed banana Republic of Faujistan!

 

[Blain2]

"Dunda" - yes - but then based on principles and equally applied to all - the equal part is where the Dunda has always been blind

I say by whatever means it takes including "hook and crook" to get national interests sorted out.

Yes true, what he described, with good intentions is an Authoritarian system which is usually associated as a tool used to bring about a Utopian dream - so he didn't say it directly - but the culmination of the system points to it i.e. "a perfected society" - it is why I also clarified that the perfected society is an ideal "Anarchaic Stateless and Classless Society" not something that is in the middle or stops before it which degenerates into Fascism. It's why in my responses above I only explained the Utopian idea and why it wouldn't work.

I am not even that aspirational. I am not suggesting a "perfected society". I am saying there are immediate national interests at stake which I listed in my OP. Just sort those out. I am not suggesting a social engineering exercise by any means similar to Zia's Islamization.
Example, for decades the entire country has been crying about the KB Dam. Build the damn thing! Steamroll that over any or all resistance because it is for the very survival of Pakistan.

 

[Blain2]

Pakistan continues it's path as a failed banana Republic of Faujistan!

Vs. a dead-beat, failed jamhooriat which lives in name only...take your pick.

 

[Gripen9]

A better question would be, "why did the role of CJCSC not work?"

OK.

Why did the role of CJCSC not work?

 

[hnn]

I'd only say that you cannot apply the "ethnic" lens as the only criteria to suggest it was "easy" for the Chinese. They had their nay-sayers who did not want to go along with the communist revolution. They had their stratification across the social classes. They had their feudal aristocracy which was murdered enmasse by Mao's legions, they had the Chinese nationalists break-away a la Taiwan today etc.

Each country has its own dynamics. Pakistani masses can be "herded" just as masses were elsewhere on a national agenda and "democracy" isn't the only panacea. We don't even have to look that far because the entire country got "Islamized" by an earlier one-man rule/agenda despite all the ethnic differences etc.

The key to their success was the "innovative economic system" that empowered the lowest socio-economic classes.

Their communism zealot had largely failed following Mao (if there are Chinese in this thread and want to correct me on it) - but that's what I have read and understood that Communism was largely failing them until during Deng Xiaoping's era economic reforms where the government reinforced the labor class to be productive by providing them the security of buying their produced goods in fixed quantity for a fixed price. The next economic evolution was to allow the remainder of their produced goods at market competitive prices - so it birthed their slight liberization of market and today China is mostly a Socialist country (per textbook).

The key here is that they incentivized their population to be productive. The productivity later brought the money that improved the QoL considerably.

Singapore did something similar too.

It's why I said in my very first post the idea you're presenting I can understand but without providing that unified ideology or incentive it'll very quickly decay into Fascism if masses are herded by force

 

[Blain2]

OK.

Why did the role of CJCSC not work?

I posted my views on this in another thread earlier.

See this please: https://defencepk.com/forums/thread...istans-strategic-realities.28446/post-1020277

 

[That_Guy]

After complaining about Imran Khan giving an extension to Bajwa, and complaining it was giving too much power to the army, they're now giving the entire nation to the army and this time through legal means instead if a coup.

 

[hnn]

I say by whatever means it takes including "hook and crook" to get national interests sorted out.


I am not even that aspirational. I am not suggesting a "perfected society". I am saying there are immediate national interests at stake which I listed in my OP. Just sort those out. I am not suggesting a social engineering exercise by any means similar to Zia's Islamization.
Example, for decades the entire country has been crying about the KB Dam. Build the damn thing! Steamroll that over any or all resistance because it is for the very survival of Pakistan.

The immediate national interest - I have no disagreements with you on that but since we are discussing it I also want to think about what comes after the immediate. Is it going to be a 5 years plans kind of system or like Mao's state atrocities in the name of National Interest.

Also, about the dam, even if resistance is taken care of it requires money. Most of our vows are related to our poor prodactivity as a nation, tax evasion, and the GDP that we have is largely ddomestic consumer base which makes a Seth more rich by selling to the middle class and then evading taxes. So long this elitist economics isn't settled, the country isn't progressing anywhere whether there is a Dunda or not because for any improvement whether infrastructural or otherwise the country needs money. Half the people will shut up anyway when their QoL will improve. Dunda alone without any Carrot has been tried before and failed many times. Yet again I'll reiterate, I agree on the immediate national interest i.e. physical security and curbing the elitist economy. It's the latter that I'm not holding my breath for

 

[Blain2]

The immediate national interest - I have no disagreements with you on that but since we are discussing it I also want to think about what comes after the immediate. Is it going to be a 5 years plans kind of system or like Mao's state atrocities in the name of National Interest.

Also, about the dam, even if resistance is taken care of it requires money. Most of our vows are related to our poor prodactivity as a nation, tax evasion, and the GDP that we have is largely ddomestic consumer base which makes a Seth more rich by selling to the middle class and then evading taxes. So long this elitist economics isn't settled, the country isn't progressing anywhere whether there is a Dunda or not because for any improvement whether infrastructural or otherwise the country needs money. Half the people will shut up anyway when their QoL will improve. Dunda alone without any Carrot has been tried before and failed many times. Yet again I'll reiterate, I agree on the immediate national interest i.e. physical security and curbing the elitist economy. It's the latter that I'm not holding my breath for

I think much better than myself, those in the corridors of power (or the main man) know which issues are needing immediate action for lack of progress. I won't argue over which specific issues. I'd just ask, pick a few of great national import and execute them all the way. This is what I am preaching for with the current dispensation.

 

[hnn]

I think much better than myself, those in the corridors of power (or the main man) know which issues are needing immediate action for lack of progress. I won't argue over which specific issues. I'd just ask, pick a few of great national import and execute them all the way. This is what I am preaching for with the current dispensation.

As long as you're preaching that I'm with you I just don't agree with the iron fisted settlement of dissent because it breeds more grievances (more problems) than the one it solves.

Also, nice having this discussion, "the democratic spirit" however as much as I'd like to continue I'ma call it day for now. I will carry with it tomorrow. Thanks for the juggling of ideas, much appreciated