Pakistan and its election

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I saw Luffy's thread about the shifting parties every few years and I think somethings needs to be addressed regarding the imminent failure of Pakistan as a state. However, these criticisms can be addressed to all the surrounding istan states.

1. Democracy as a system
2. An understanding of why it works in some places but not others
3. The confounders behind successfull democracies and failed ones.
4. Does it really do what people think in providing a sort of control mechanism on brash and rash action (i.e. is there truly a balance of power?

I want to preface this by a link to Ron Paul's magna opus, his final speech. He was the constitutionalist par excellance and I think its difficult to argue with near factual certainty that Dr. No, as he was called, was the most gifted in trying to apply the constitution in his decision making.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...on-has-failed/

Why does this matter? Well, folks who think in a box generally look around themselves and say: "Hmmm... so and so is doing better than I am and therefore if I emulate everything they do then I too will be successful."

Thats fair enough if say a 12 year old sees Francis Collins MD PhD and decides he wants to emulate his career trajectory and if that 12 year old has average intelligence and the tools available. But what about a 50 year old street failed wannabe rapper without even a GED who decides he wants to be the next Francis Collins? Is that practical - does he demonstrate wisdom?

So in that vein - congressman Paul is noting that financially (TARP and recent bubbles), militarily, constitutionally and otherwise the nation is on a slow trajectory of massive failure.

His parting quote sums up his experiences:

"In thinking about the champions of liberty, his lesson is a bitter one: 'History has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled,'"

So even those nations that are like the street wannabe rapper in that shoddy missaal I gave, who are trying to emulate the success of the USA have to pause and think about this. If the system is failing here - and we have seen bubble after bubble and war after war to validate his view that the US is following the trajectory of empires before it and is no different - then is it worth emulating?

1. The roots of western democracy are found in the rebellion of the lords against King John in Britain. They made the autocrat sign the magna carta and cede executive authority to a body that would have some oversight and, in its own fiefdom style way represent the people. This system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Through nearly 500 years of evolution of that system under a monarchy parliamentarian system - it found its way to American shores and was modified there as well.

Two systems began to compete with eachother - that of a strong federal government and that of the strength belonging to individual states. If you read the original articles of the confederation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

it laid the basis for what the founders originally envisioned as a cooperation amongst equal colonies/states.

Once the Revolutionary War was completed, these men sat down and introduced the necessary evil of a federal authority but still limited its scope severely.

It was in Lincoln's time that the meaning of the constitition came under challenge and the Civil War occurred. States rights versus central authority were at war with one another. When states ceded from the union and Lincoln declared this action illegal, it forever altered the meaning of the American democratic system and the interpretation of the constitution.

Lincoln's place in history was that he strengthened both the executive and he centralized governance.

This has eventually resulted in what Andrew Bacevich calls the Imperial Presidency that saw its nature revealed in Woodrow Wilson's era and much more in FDR's time.

http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/16/bacev...al-presidency/

Dr. Bacevich indicates that the evolution set in place since Lincoln's time and beyond has changed the meaning of America's democracy.

So the imitators need ask themselves - if one is to emulate the USA's system which phase does one emulate?

1) The confederacy era?
2) The republic era
3) The Post Lincoln era?
4) The imperial presidency era?

2. Why does it "work" in the US and not in other place?

Well, Dr. Paul argues that it is NOT working in the US. He provides, in that first link pretty valid reasons why our decline is imminant. His debates on the federal reserve and on military prowess are classic and steeped in democratic and constitutional language.

In fact, historically - America began its ascent amongst the world powers due to a series of timely considerations in the world war era. FDR's New Deal changed the very nature of American governance and it no longer reflected government and its scope in bygone eras. The prior superpowers all engaged one another and multiple empires contracted and crumbled at the same time leaving the bipolar world in its wake. It was not merely that because Americans went to the polls every 4 years that this propelled us to these new heights.

One might actually say that free market capitalism was what worked and not necessarily democracy. And even that statement has to be qualified as TARP demonstrated the failure of this brand of free market capitalism (something I am not against by the way).

3. The confounders

America is a nation that has seen only 2 or 3 major wars on its terrain and has never been invaded except in the War of 1812 which was a temporary punitive expedition.

It is a young nation relative to the others and the population burden for the land mass is very small.

The ground is rich with diverse resources

It has always been autonomous and no one has ever dictated its laws to it.

"Peer pressure" from the outside world rarely jars the public's view on what is right for America. A thousand protests could occur in Switzerland or England regarding American internal policy or laws and dictates and as an autonomous independent nation such white noise makes no difference to the electorate.

The aforementioned rise during a turbulent era that saw empire contraction world round is an important thing to consider too.

4.
Examine TARP and enough can be said about rash action.
Secrets and Lies of the Bailout | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Once again showing that the supposed G8 success is an illusory sort of bubble effect and short sighted folks have not recognized this.


The people were against this measure in the droves. Congress had to have closed sessions and pass these emergency measures without the apparent will of the people.

------------------------------------------------------------------

So what about this recent vote in Pakistan? Does it matter to the success of the state long term?

I would venture to say NO. And here is why:

1) Pakistan's size is about that of Texas in terms of land mass yet its population is 60% that of the US all contained in that land mass. Competition for resources will become even more intense as that population increases in this contained space surrounded by hostile nations.

2) Pakistan has rendered itself extremely dependent on the mores and traditions of outsider nations and inextricably linked its economy to places that might have vested interests running counter to Pakistan's.

3) The parliamentary system concentrates power in such a way that places like KP rely on the central government and that confounds its local ability to make serious decisions. Whether its ANP, PPP, PTI etc - the major things that affect KP which are in the international realm are dictated centrally and there is no state militia equivalent that can make it so that KP has some autonomy. In the US the states all have components of their state/national gaurd to act on the governor's order.

So what democracy in Pakistan (and the other istan states) has done is legitimize feudalism. I have quoted the movie Usual Suspects in the past where Kaizer Sose says "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist - YouTube[/URL]

In this way, democracy in failed states and elsewhere gives the illusion to people of having a choice. In former systems like monarchies where a magnifying glass could be put to an autocrat - and give the people a popular figure to agitate against, democracy in the wrong context allows these elites to now hide behind a veneer of legitimacy. In the istan states the feudals and monarchs have taken on titles of Prime Minister and President and parliamentarian giving the rural masses the IMPRESSION that they have a choice in the matter. The same exists here in the US where the elites of the 2 party system determine electability.

Then the will of the people can be easily subverted as folks get used to comfort, routine, and some semblance of stability even if means pawning off their freedoms:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/28...ave-the-floor/

"On Tuesday evening, nearly half of Ron Paul’s Maine delegation stalked off the convention floor. It was, they said, a last resort. In the lead up to the Tampa event, Republican officials had decided to take away half of Paul’s Maine delegates and replace them with loyal Romney supporters. After railing against the move for days, the endangered Paul delegates still took their seats as the roll call vote neared. The so-called Ronulans tried one last time to voice their objections from the floor. But their appeal went unheeded. So off nine of them they went, in a righteous huff of protest for all the cameras to record, and out of the hall. The Romney delegates remained."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the case of Pakistan and the other istan states, we can be confident that colonial imperialism left a failsafe in place to gaurantee continued division and weakness.

The land masses of the central asian, south asian, and Persian regions is enough to contain many vast resources from gold to oil. Its access to water ways and its distributed population would allow a super state to be fairly independent.

The ease with which for instance, we can travel between most western states and then within country states makes employment opportunities and education endeavors easy. It is a shame that a boy who may fail to acquire a seat in Khybar Pashtunkhwa cannot easily make his way to Kabul and vice versa. It is a shame that an engineering student from Qandahar cannot travel to Tashkent to work on design and seek for gainful employment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the leaders of these istan states like Sharif, Karzai, Karimov, Ahmadinjad had any sense they would form a strong union and internalize their economics. They would have to understand that a century worth of patience or more would have to pervade the mindset of governance and that people would have to agree to disagree culturally and religiously in a madhab fashion. But these are generally low intelligence, weak knowledge of history, and greedy men whose concern for stability and prestige looks ahead 10 years at a time and works within the confines of G8 and G10 thought while ignoring the associated failures like bubbles and the Cypriot state.

I will leave you with a quote and hope Toramana does not troll this thread... since Brzenzski is a favorite to quote around here I will leave us all with this:

"In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term: preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Without recognizing what is going on - no Pakistani election is a success. Each time KPK elects a new government it is a cry in the dark about the condition that is a result of Mr. Brzenzski's Grand ChessBoard strategy. In the least we can commend Pashtuns for being the foremost to even intellectually recognize the constant state of slavery that central and south asia remain in.

[Admin Khan]

Why do we have to shove democracy down the throats of people who don't want democracy?

[MostafaM]

Some questions:

1. In what language should the people of that union communicate with each other and with the state institutions?

2. Would it be a political federal system or a centralized one?

3. How can religious tensions that influence politics and day-to-day life be resolved in such a union of a Shia/Sunni union state?

4. How should defence, economics and culture be coordinated?

5. How could we unite people who have nothing in common in one union state?

There have been alot of unions in mankind´s history. The most recent one was that between Syria and Egypt in form of the United Arab Republic. Didn´t work out although the populations were Muslim, the state ideology was leftist and their aim was the same.

[MostafaM]

Why do we have to shove democracy down the throats of people who don't want democracy?

We can call it "democracy" or whatever but there is absolutly no option to a pluralistic system.

We should drop the word "democracy" in future debates because we know that the Polis of the Greek states and it´s influence on Western democracy is not applieable everywhere.

But pluralism, the essence of democracy, is!

One-Party states with a single state ideology aren´t implementable in the way to last and create stability.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Some questions:

1. In what language should the people of that union communicate with each other and with the state institutions?

At this point - the language of science and commerce is English. Locals should be permitted to and encouraged to keep their local dialect and language though.

2. Would it be a political federal system or a centralized one?

Centralized with strong federal oversight.

3. How can religious tensions that influence politics and day-to-day life be resolved in such a union of a Shia/Sunni union state?

Interesting question. A lot of people thing pashtun sentimentalism for Ahmad Shah Baba was simply brainswashing. The reality is that when the man is studied you can find a portion of his life where he is poised to replicate the advances of the Ghiljyaan into Iran. I liken it to Alexander being poised to enter Arabia right before his death.

Here is a book you will like:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-2T...page&q&f=false

Best book to date based on PRIMARY sources on the man's life. Go to page 49 and read Ahmad Shah Abdali's initial thoughts on an Iran campaign. Page 51 is where the meat is.

Here is a portion of it:

"The Durrani letter is rather vague... apart from this political task, the Durrani mission lacks a clear committment to fight shi'ism. At first glance this is somewhat surprising since the Afghans, like the Uzbeks, are presented as stern-orthodox sunni. In this respect, however, Ahmad Shah appears to have followed in the footsteps of his former master, Nadir Shah who had attempted to incorporate the more or less "national" Iranian strand of shi'ism into the more universalistic mainstream of sunni tradition. With this in mind, he sought the Ottoman Sultan's recognition of Twelver Shi'ism as the fifth sunni school of law (madhab). "

The author goes on to note Abdali's ambition before his death to establish an Eastern Pan Islamic empire (his words not mine Toramana).

My point here Mostafa is that sunni and shia nations both currently find themselves at odds with eachother mainly because their internicine differences are being exploited by outside powers that seek both of their decline. That in and of itself ought to be a uniting factor for both factions.

When faced with annihalation, such differences can be set aside.

4. How should defence, economics and culture be coordinated?

Such a process may take a while. The Muslim states and Muslims are getting a big beating right now and the worst of it is yet to come. And that is OK in a way. The Jews had to go through this phase too. For nearly 2000 years they roamed from place to place and learned, against the odds, cohesiveness and unity across disparate Jewish traditions and ethnicities. Sometimes failure and a hard time is a cleansing process.

My hope is that the respective peoples of these nations, at the level of the middle class and rural masses recognizes the need to hang together or hang separate.

Economics ought to aim on not being in debt to the IMF and World bank in any way whatsoever and not being inexctricably tied to Western economies in a dependency sort of way.

Defense can be a coordinated effort between the parts of the whole in the model of the national gaurd/state gaurd and then federal army model of the US.

5. How could we unite people who have nothing in common in one union state?

They have a lot in common. Look at the fact that the professor uses primary source evidence to show how disparate far flung peoples, including our Afghan Baba e Millat, Ahmad Shah answered to the Ottoman Sultan. That was in a different time and now, in this modern era where nation state paradigms have made some groups acutely aware of the rights of themselves and others - and in the information age era - a federated union should not be insurmountable unless we allow ignorance to perpetuate.

As I noted above, the people may have nothing in common except the fact that their very survival, livelihood, and autonomy remain threatened critically. The threat of mutual annihalation and exploitation ought to bring them together.

There have been alot of unions in mankind´s history. The most recent one was that between Syria and Egypt in form of the United Arab Republic. Didn´t work out although the populations were Muslim, the state ideology was leftist and their aim was the same.

They do not capitalize on their own internal ideologies and customs and systems that have comforted them for thousands of years. Even the Nasir Gamal approach was bound to fail because at its root, nationalism as in social nationalism is bound to fail in the Muslim world due to its completely foreign basis. You should watch the Al Jazeera film on that group in Iraq that came from Iran, the MEK. Their absurdity is so obvious to anyone with even a high school level of education that it is no wonder that the iranian masses would never have endorsed them fully.

These folks like Sadat that followed in Egypt were all the same. Despite his humble roots, Sadat viewed his people as dumb cattle that needed to be led to water with his more superior and informed views.

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

We can call it "democracy" or whatever but there is absolutly no option to a pluralistic system.

That is not a historically accurate statement in any way. Two of the greatest pluralistic systems, the North and the South in the US clashed and nearly destroyed eachother and gave birth to a less pluralistic centralized federated system.

We should drop the word "democracy" in future debates because we know that the Polis of the Greek states and it´s influence on Western democracy is not applieable everywhere.

But pluralism, the essence of democracy, is!

In the jirga and shura fashion I take it is what you mean when I see this statement.

One-Party states with a single state ideology aren´t implementable in the way to last and create stability.

This is true - diversity and debate are paramount to progress but within a Nyquist limit of sorts. I prefer a meritocratic state and philosophy. However, confines and limits exist in many parts of the world and those traditional structures ought not be challenged simly because we and other "educated" folks think ourselves "better" or more "enlightened" than the masses.

x

[Wowra]

Mr. Abdali,

I agree to an extent. I would hate to see the remnants of cultural erasures blowing across the parchment of a strong federal government. I think a confederated union a la the EU could be successfully implemented allowing Kuchis to still wander by camel as the Kyrgyz by horse. Economically, there's enough to tie the region. Turkmenistan (as most of central asia) has huge oil reserves, Iran has refineries. Afghanistan - as Mostafa pointed out - has a healthy heap of lithium and other minerals. Pakistan has warm water ports - so each could be mutually beneficial without being dependent, necessarily. Or no more dependent on one state than another while maintaining the tribal integrity of the lands. One dynamic that a federal government would have to contend with is the cultural paranoia instilled from centuries of meddling by foreign nations throughout the great game. Pakistanis and Afghans are constantly on the lookout for the next conspiracy unless they are complicit in it, haha. A federal government would remove the tribes too far away from power allowing those conspiracies real and perceived to flourish. Especially when discussing the incorporation of Iran where secrecy is a tenant.

As for the Sunni/ Shia debacle, Shia reside in both PK and Afghanistan already - granted, they suffer the brunt of aggression in both states, but the strengthening of tribes could preserve them in a defensive posture and the confederation with Iran would certainly aid that endeavor. Certainly, the collection of these states under a federal government would allow the arbitrary lines drafted under duress and reaffirmed under arrogance to be removed. Essentially, the natural lines will recur - which I do like - and I agree would preserve stability. The only trick would be the incorporation of Iran without Sunni tribes receiving second class treatment which is why I would suggest the confederation. One could suggest that the EU is not Catholic despite Rome, or the US Mormon despite Utah, but I still don't see Iran whose global perception is still that of an empire awaiting return that arbitrarily executes or otherwise punishes the downtrodden of its neighboring countries as "playing nice" in the Religiously equal context.

Economics would certainly fuel the cooperation in the beginning, but open lines of communication in a passport-less mutual economy would generate some necessary cultural diffusion to grease the wheels with enterprisers. But I think the autonomy of the individual nations would be a must. While a federal government would offer corruption oversight, Karzai still steals while every nation in the world watches him. Pakistan ousts leaders in coups then re-elects them. So in the sense that oversight wouldn't matter, the only reaction a federal system would offer is convincing individual nations that they are getting the short end of the stick. However, when the economies are intertwined, economic sanctions could be the necessary checks on corruption. Pakistan would have to obey the concensus if Turkmenistan threatens to divert its oil to Iranian ports. Likewise, Iran would have to obey if their refinery revenues would be diverted to PK.

Those are my half-cocked thoughts anyway.

[khushal]

Two systems began to compete with eachother - that of a strong federal government and that of the strength belonging to individual states

This issue has been the core of the violence that has stemmed in Afghanistan for the past 3 decades. That of a strong central government and the autonomy of the individual tribes.