Reforming Command Without Weakening It - Part 1 - A Pragmatic Approach for Systemic reform in Pakistan starting with the Army

[mythbuster]

"Pot meet kettle?" Would you expand on that, please?

It means Nathoram meets Allahditta

 

[Solomon2]

It means Nathoram meets Allahditta

In general, "Pot meet kettle" is an observation - or accusation - of hypocrisy.

This proverb is meant to highlight psychological projection. It may be that of the target or that of the person employing it.

 

[RescueRanger]

In general, "Pot meet kettle" is an observation - or accusation - of hypocrisy.

This proverb is meant to highlight psychological projection. It may be that of the target or that of the person employing it.

 

[mythbuster]

In general, "Pot meet kettle" is an observation - or accusation - of hypocrisy.

This proverb is meant to highlight psychological projection. It may be that of the target or that of the person employing it.

Did you just googled the meaning?

 

[Meengla]

I am pleased with the current hybrid system and wish it to continue for many more years. BTW, I don't consider there is a reason to divide the military and the civilians: They are all cut from the same cloth.

 

[Owaiz]

Comparing Pakistan to Bangladesh or India is just stupid. No two ways about it.

Since India , Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of the same political entity till 1947 and Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of the same political entity till 1971 , it is only natural and obvious to make this comparison. What is stupid is to shut off one's cognitive faculties to obvious facts that stare you in the face.

It is constitutionally and structurally significantly different. Once you fundamentally understand that Pakistan is a security state

Did the Lahore Resolution say that Pakistan has to be a security state ? Or did representatives of the people elected through even sham elections decide it must be so ? Just because someone has done kabza on the state doesn't mean it is the natural order of things.

Here is some food for thought for you. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka , Nepal spend far less than Pakistan on defence and have all had serious disputes with India. Yet, they have all retained their sovereignty and territory and have a reasonable peaceful internal security situation . On the other hand, Pakistan has nukes and has kept spending on defence even if it has had to go the IMF more times than any other country in the world. Yet it has lost territory to war and has the worst internal security situation. Perhaps, if the resources had been spent on developing social and economic capital instead of a security state, Pakistan could have been an economic tiger instead of a basket case.

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Since India , Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of the same political entity till 1947 and Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of the same political entity till 1971 , it is only natural and obvious to make this comparison. What is stupid is to shut off one's cognitive faculties to obvious facts that stare you in the face.


Did the Lahore Resolution say that Pakistan has to be a security state ? Or did representatives of the people elected through even sham elections decide it must be so ? Just because someone has done kabza on the state doesn't mean it is the natural order of things.

Here is some food for thought for you. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka , Nepal spend far less than Pakistan on defence and have all had serious disputes with India. Yet, they have all retained their sovereignty and territory and have a reasonable peaceful internal security situation . On the other hand, Pakistan has nukes and has kept spending on defence even if it has had to go the IMF more times than any other country in the world. Yet it has lost territory to war and has the worst internal security situation. Perhaps, if the resources had been spent on developing social and economic capital instead of a security state, Pakistan could have been an economic tiger instead of a basket case.

don't be an idiot, being a security state is a structural reality not something written in a constitutional clause, and now comparing it again with Bangladesh and Nepal which are homogenous nations with no security challenges after already being explained the obvious difference is just wilful stupidity

 

[SecularNationalist]

Ok got it there was a vaccum that forced the army to become what it is today and all other reasons etc. But the problem is now this institution has tasted blood and it's now addictive to drink blood. The whole institution won't be able to give up it's luxurious and corrupt ways of living. They will not accept any reforms that promote the real democracy in the country and make the civilian institutions powerful. They know well their evil role in politics doesn't fit well in a democracy. Call it a dictator ship or a democracy. If democracy then this type of institution has no place in pakistan.
I don't wanna use harsh words just this sentence.
When the infection is mild we take antibiotics,but when it's gangrene we need amputation. What we are facing is gangrene.Baaki samajdaar ko ishara kaafi.

 

[puttputt]

@Oscar sb

A common explanation given for why military has to intervene in civilian affairs is that civilian authorities are so weak and stunted. But that then brings us to the question as to why civilian authorities are stunted.

In a normal democratic setup (and I am by no means arguing that every country including Pakistan needs to be a democracy), a government has to win the trust of its electorate which it means it must attempt to deliver on what the electorate wants. To deliver that institutions have to be strengthened so that what needs to be delivered is actually delivered. In the subcontinent we were fortunate that we didn't begin from square zero. We actually inherited some healthy (by colonial standards that is) institutions.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan civilian authorities were never allowed an extended run without intervention by unelected elites -which have been both civilians for eg in 1950s and military.

So, we have a chicken and egg situation really. Civilians won't get an extended run so that they can develop some competence. Since they cannot develop competence they will not be trusted by the military or even by large sections of the public to be 100% entrusted with civilian affairs without military oversight.

Regards

In Pakistan, the civilian elites were flawed at their origin.

Most of the political elite were from landed classes that, not unlike senior Army leaders in 1947, saw themselves as a higher class than Pakistanis.

Whether they rule for 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years, they'll largely come to the same outcomes.

You can see it in Sindh with the PPP. They've run the show there for the past 25 years, and have, at their disposal, the country's most active port and key metropolis. What have they achieved?

Whatever its flaws, the one thing the Army always had (and still does) is the sense that anybody can technically join it and climb the ranks. For all his issues, Gen. Asim Munir reflects that 'out of left field' possibility, whereas the political parties, it's the same families over and over again.