They colonized half of the planet. All this is easy to do when there are resources and capital. They extracted trillions of dollars over centuries.
Its easy to bring prosperity to your people when the global financial and political order has been carefully crafted to keep the money flowing in.
Pakistan should have already conquered Afghanistan, the other stans and parts of Iran, have a UN veto and then it would be a fair comparison.
This is a straw mans argument.
Give me an example of a "functioning democracy" that delivers for its people in the global south?
Lets look at China. How did it achieve progress without democracy?
Pakistanis move to the west, become in awe of its progress and think it just happens because people have a vote. Give me a break.
I think you're giving colonialism too much credit as an explanation for everything we see today. There's no denying colonial powers extracted wealth and left lasting damage, but that alone doesn't explain where countries end up decades later. If it did, every former colony would still be poor and every former colonizer would still be thriving. That's clearly not the case.
Look at countries like South Korea, Singapore, Botswana, or Mauritius. None of them started from a position of overwhelming advantage, yet they managed to dramatically improve living standards through better governance, investment in education, strong institutions, and sensible economic policies.
The same logic applies to resources. Plenty of countries are rich in oil, gas, minerals, or valuable land and still struggle economically. Meanwhile, some countries with very few natural resources have become highly developed. History and resources matter, but they're not the whole story.
The comparison about Pakistan needing to conquer its neighbors misses the point. Nobody is arguing that prosperity comes from building an empire. The real question is whether countries with stronger institutions, functioning courts, better protection of property rights, and more accountable governments tend to perform better over time. In many cases, they do.
And when it comes to the Global South, there are democratic countries that have made tangible progress. Botswana is often cited as one of Africa's best-governed states. Mauritius has consistently performed well on development and governance measures. India still has major challenges, but it has grown into one of the world's largest economies while remaining a democracy. Democracy obviously isn't a magic solution, but it's not true that it has never delivered results outside the West.
As for China, I don't think its success proves democracy is irrelevant. What China shows is that a capable state can drive rapid development under certain conditions. But that's one example. For every successful authoritarian state, there are many others that are poor, corrupt, unstable, or stuck in stagnation. The lesson isn't that authoritarianism is better. The lesson is that competent institutions and effective governance matter.
When Pakistanis admire Western countries, they're usually not just looking at elections. They're looking at things like reliable public services, functioning courts, cleaner cities, less corruption, stronger local government, better infrastructure, and systems that generally work. Voting by itself doesn't create prosperity, but governments that can be held accountable tend to make it harder for bad policies and poor leadership to persist indefinitely.
History matters. Colonialism matters. But at some point, the quality of institutions, governance, and policy choices matters too. Otherwise, it's impossible to explain why countries with similar colonial histories have ended up with such different outcomes.
What I don't understand that someone people don't acknowledged that there is a problem, and some do acknowledge but can't provide the solution. I have not only pointed where the problem and I have also given clear solutions to it.
In my opinion, by naming his party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), or "Pakistan Movement for Justice," Imran Khan underscored the central role of justice in a nation's success. He may now realize more than ever that if the justice system is compromised, the country's future is at risk. No nation can survive or prosper without a strong, independent, and credible system of justice.
