I really can't come up with anything when I ask myself what the halcyon days of Pakistani politics have been. It's pathetic watching the television relaying images of people crying their hearts out, destroying public property, automobiles, human lives and of course... Musharaff's support groups.
What were these people crying for? what were they angry with? with the extinguished flame of the "last" hope for democracy in Pakistan? I'm sure there are people who are devastated by this. But, would it drive them to mindless vandalism?
Around 30 people were killed by the suicide bomber. Another 30 were killed by rampaging mobs after the incident. I am tempted to ask myself... which is the greater evil?
Imran Khan seems to have his nuts and bolts in the right place when he says that though this is a devastating loss, there are steps that must be taken from here to continue the movement towards democracy. It starts with Musharraf relinquishing power and an independent judiciary conducting a detailed inquiry into this matter followed by elections as scheduled.
Compare this to Nawaz Sharif who appears sullen and (almost) weeping on the television declaring that this is the worst day in the history of Pakistani Politics (I wouldn't attest to that!) and that he will boycott the elections.
I ask people such as him... Is that in the spirit of a struggle towards democracy? Is that what is called for to transform Pakistan from a dictatorial regime of an inefficient General to a robust democracy?
However, the mobs don't really care much about a dictatorship or a democracy or anything productive for that matter. They seem to be driven by a single minded desire to destroy anything holding a promise to progress simply because it is beautiful... simply because it stands for all that is great in this world.
Democracy, in my opinion, is not the most efficient political framework for a nation. I prefer a dictatorial regime with regard to power over the protection and sustenance of civil society and a purely capitalistic and democratic model to the operation of the economy.
However, I have a stipulation that negates the efficacy of this model in most real-world scenarios. The dictator must be a woman or man of intelligence, courage and integrity. To be honest, Putin gets the closest (though not anywhere near being close enough) to these requirements amongst most dictators that exist today.
"Benazir Bhutto, the Martyr!" people will cry...
and the few that truly understand
will only crack their knuckles and sigh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
hey! if someone is intelligent then he/she doesnt have to be a dictator...he doesnt have to demand or dictate respect..he will have enuf interpersonal skills to run the country with courage and respect for the common man without dictating... i strongy disagree with yr thought..about having a intelligent dictator.....lord!..intelligent dictator..hope it never happens!
:-) I know what you are thinking... you have misunderstood the meaning with which I use the word "dictator". I meant a central authority who makes the decisions.
No, it will not happen. It goes against all realistic expectations of a political system. I am sure that we have enough brains to run this country.
I do not, however, believe in majority rule and am not too enthusiastic about the standard form of democracy followed in countries such as ours.
It is with this purpose that I am attempting to create a political model that centralizes power to govern in the hands of a few. Something like a decentralized dictatorship. Don't look at it in light of the tainted history attributed to this word.
Post a Comment