 |
| |
WEEKLY
SECTIONS |
 |
|
 |
| Democracy or dictatorship? |
|
|
|
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Commodore (r) Parvez Iqbal in his letter titled “Democracy or dictatorship” (November 26) has suggested that military rule should return legally for a limited period with checks and balances. He has also claimed that during the civilian rule the nation has seen loot, plunder, crookedness and every type of fraudulency. In my view the retired commodore has mixed up the conduct of certain politicians with the system of governance. I would suggest that the writer should carefully go through the contents of the article by Kamila Hyat (November 26) wherein she has very lucidly explained how democracies have done wonders in India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Bolivia. May I request the writer to look at the list of corrupt countries brought out by Transparency International and see for himself that the countries at the bottom are all democratic while the ones at the top have a weak democratic system?
Despite a high level of corruption in Pakistan, at least there is uproar in parliament as well as in the press on this problem and the prime minister has to respond to the questions being raised by the opposition relating to illegal appointments and promotions and other allegations of corruption. On the contrary, all the dictators in Pakistan appointed their cronies in lucrative positions without any questions asked. May I ask the writer whether the country was corruption-free during the rule of Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf? The writer has to understand the difference between legalised corruption and other types of illegal transactions. There are very few names of army officers on the NRO list because the armed forces do not fall under the purview of NAB or any other civilian anti-corruption agency.
Furthermore, no one can technically point a finger towards commercial plots and agricultural farms having market value of tens of millions rupees allotted by the government to individuals. The legalised corruption is not accounted for anywhere. During the eras of Ayub, Zia and Musharraf, remarkable progress was seen in development of infrastructure, but that was due to certain geo-political situations such as the Cold War, the Afghan war and the post-9/11 scenario in which Pakistan got financial and military support from developed countries, especially the US. Despite these lucky breakthroughs, the dictators failed to bring about any meaningful change in the country. Democracy in Pakistan will work very well if it is allowed to breathe freely without military interventions every now and then.
Dr Najeeb A Khan
Islamabad
*****
It was shocking to read the letter of Commodore (r) Parvez Iqbal titled “Democracy or dictatorship” (November 26). The respected commodore believes that another dictatorship can save Pakistan from a mess created by a dictator who has fled the country in fear of being held accountable for the crimes he and his allies committed in the previous regime.
Let me remind the commodore that due to short-sighted policies of dictators over the years, East Pakistan became Bangladesh and Balochistan cries for its rights. Due to these tyrants, NWFP is burning. Due to these dictators and their lust for power, the Pakistan army is forced to fight an enemy that the state itself created during Zia’s regime. Pakistan became a hub of Islamist militias. It is because of these dictators and their continuous meddling in civilian affairs that every institution is weak and Pakistan hasn’t tasted the real taste of democracy. Curse upon these dictators and their puppets. If we want to progress and redeem our image across the globe, we must hold Musharraf responsible for the atrocities he and his friends committed. We must punish those who have made Pakistanis bleed and then move forward towards a real democratic culture which will take time to develop.
A corrupt ruler does not automatically make the previous tyrant good, neither does faulty democracy in its infancy mean that dictatorship is a better option. The current parliament may or may not teem with thieves accused of looting public money and brought back to mainstream politics by yet another dictator who engineered the NRO, but that should not justify military rule.
Commodore sahib is advised to have some sense as I remember his comments against dictators during the great “Bloody civilian” debate that he initiated in these very columns and later apologised to the readers for using derogatory language for his fellow civilian countrymen.
Syed Ali Abbas Zaidi
Islamabad
*****
In his letter titled “Democracy or dictatorship?” (November 26) Commodore Parvez Iqbal favoured dictatorship over democracy. He should be reminded that the people of Pakistan are sick and tired of generals ruling them and rejected Musharraf’s policies in the February 18, 2008, elections. It was because of the dictatorships of Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf that today, even after 62 years, Pakistan is struggling to achieve success and prosperity and its people are deprived of the basic necessities of life. The answer to a flawed democratic system is certainly not dictatorship and it is this thinking that has destroyed Pakistan from within. Pakistan is still bearing the brunt of the actions and decisions of the past despots. Not one country in the world that is successful and prosperous today is run by a military regime or the system that Mr Iqbal is proposing.
Pakistan doesn’t need the army or landlords to run it; it needs shrewd and sincere leadership elected through a democratic process. Let’s not forget the words of the Quaid-e-Azam who during his address at the Military Staff College said: “Never forget that you are the servants of the state. You do not make policy. It is we, the people’s representatives, who decide how the country is to be run. Your job is to only obey the decisions of your civilian masters.”
Hafsa Khawaja
Lahore
*****
Commodore Parvez Iqbal in his letter titled “Democracy or dictatorship?” (November 26) said that we should legalise military rule by amending the constitution because the civilians have ruled us for 20 years and did nothing other than committing every type of fraudulent act. I want to ask Commodore Iqbal why he remembers every evil act which civilians did but is not mindful of any single evil act committed by military dictators in 40 years. Each military dictator illegitimately ruled the country for at least nine years, yet failed to deliver. They not only failed to deliver but also subverted our democratic political parties by false propaganda.
Further, Commodore Iqbal said that democratic governments were always under pressure to do what the majority wanted rather than doing what was best for the citizens. I think by giving respect to the majority’s opinion democratic governments give freedom of choice to the citizens. So the citizens have the option to choose what is best for them. But what if a dictator decides at whim something that is not actually beneficial for the public? Is he answerable to the citizens?
Saniya Tariq Kiyani
Rawalpindik
|
|
|
| Back
| Send
this story to Friend | Print
Version |
|
|
|
ISSN 1563-9479 
