PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues
Democracy Celebrated.
(15 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago on 10 Nov 2008 14:11 #
-
Can we even imagine to have that kind of democracy in our own country?
Posted 3 years ago on 11 Nov 2008 6:48 # -
American democracy is a sham and a fraud too.
Despite the perception about landslide votes, only the ELECTORAL RESULT was a landslide, the popular vote was very close, Obama probably got around 55% of the popular vote, thats hardly a landslide.
This too because the American economy is in deep ****, credit given to all the successive regimes since Ronald Regan (Regan, Bush senior, Bill Clinton, G W Bush) and the federal reserve.
When the economy is in ****, democrats win; when its about "national security" (more fraud, hatred and warmongering) the republicans win.
Although I am very hopeful on Obama as he seems to be an intelligent man and he knows the world and has a cross-cultural/national understanding, unlike most Americans (and their presidents), who are IGNORANT twits. He also seems sincere.
Lets see.
Posted 3 years ago on 11 Nov 2008 7:32 # -
@Secular,
u know ....Grass is always greener on the other side.Posted 3 years ago on 11 Nov 2008 8:14 # -
Grapes are bitter when I can't snatch the bunch.
Posted 3 years ago on 11 Nov 2008 11:22 # -
true...
but other countries do have problems too...
other countries are not the heaven ...Posted 3 years ago on 14 Nov 2008 9:01 # -
@ secular_pakistan,
You wrote,
"Obama probably got around 55% of the popular vote, that’s hardly a landslide"1. No one mentioned or claimed about landslide.
2. In Democracy, 51% prevail over 49%, without causing heart burning.
3. The Rule of 2% over 98% is the indication of a sick society.
4. Only 'Leaders' like Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf can orchestrate, manipulate a landslide victory, by securing 99.9% votes in a Referendum, what is not possible in a true Democracy.Posted 3 years ago on 14 Nov 2008 10:14 # -
@Dear Shiekh sahib,
u r forgeting MQM ...
the so called landslide victory champions ...Posted 3 years ago on 14 Nov 2008 11:41 # -
JS,
There are landslides in fair elections as well.
Remember Nawaz Sharif in 97 with his 2/3rd majority?
And, what you said, that 51% does the job, is quite tragic. Its like 51% vote X and 49% vote Y and that 2% difference gives the power and the polices to X whereas the Y segment, which had a sizeable following, only a small fraction below that of X, gets nothing; no say. That my friend is pathetic.
Posted 3 years ago on 14 Nov 2008 20:45 # -
secular just out of curiosity what system of governance do you support?
ps: popular vote doesnt matter in american eletoral system.
Posted 3 years ago on 14 Nov 2008 21:11 # -
adolf hitler
BlockedWell if you don not like democracy, I give you some alternatives:
NATIONAL SOCIALISM (Nazism) - my favourite
STALINISM (please don't confuse with communism)
MILITARY DICTATORSHIP (not like our but the BURMA model)All other forms of governance are pathetic and useless.
Posted 3 years ago on 15 Nov 2008 6:49 # -
@ adolf hitler,
You mentioned about your chioces. Nothing wrong.'NATIONAL SOCIALISM (Nazism) - my favourite
STALINISM (please don't confuse with communism)
MILITARY DICTATORSHIP (not like our but the BURMA model)'
(I guess you missed Khilafat)Why all the systems you like and support, could not succeed long and were gone with the wind?
This is the ground reality right now that these systems exist in the History books only.
They are sitting in a thrift store like the 'His Master's Voice Gramophone'.Posted 3 years ago on 15 Nov 2008 12:56 # -
Codefreaq,
Good question.
I prefer authoritarian rule or "dictatorship" for developing (undeveloped) countries but there is more to it. An authoritarian form of govt. that delivers and develops the country and the economy (Unlike Burma). Something like the China model. Or maybe like an "elitist democracy", meaning only the most intelligent and capable people (technocrats maybe?) choose the course of the countrys future and form the policies. But such a system must have a mechanism for preventing conflicts of interest, ie, no personal gain should be involved for the decision makers which could distort their policies/decisions/judgements, ie, personal wealth/business/investment or even power/control, which is what often happens in "dictaorships" and it becomes a kleptocracy. There should also be a mechanism for accountability and control, ie, it should not be like Zimbabwe where Mugabe can singlehandedly do whatever he wants for 25 years and no one can challenge him. Meaning that all promotions to the top should be based on merit and policies and it should be carried out by an internal mechanism rather than the power resting soley on one person or through the ballot. You could call it an instituitional dictatorship. Again something similar to China with its Chinese "Communist" Party.
My personal assessment after closely looking at dozens of undeveloped countries for a long time is, that "democracy" doesnt always work and is OFTEN counterproductive and makes a country much much worse off. There are far too many problems with having "democracy" in undeveloped countries.
After a country reaches a high level of economic development, prosperity, education, awareness and knowledge, democracy can gradually be introduced (like it will be in China).
Even though democracy too is highly flawed; far from perfect. But in developed countries, it has to (and always is) the system of governance because no other system is sustainable as the people want to choose their govts/policies, and, unlike in the 3rd world, the people (majority) are not peasants. Plus democracy is more of a human rights issue in the developed world, rather than the BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT; people should choose their destiny. And, besides, no other system would last too long in the developed world.
There are countless instances where authoritarian forms of govt. have performed much better than democracies, specially specially specially in the undeveloped world, eg, China, Dubai etc.
Posted 3 years ago on 15 Nov 2008 16:21 # -
Insider
Member^^agree especially regarding pakistan. the people of pakistan are not ready to pick their own leader.
Posted 3 years ago on 18 Nov 2008 20:22 # -
i think its the other way around.
ppl of Pakistan are done with PPP,PMLN,PMLQ,MQM,ANP,JUI,JUP,JI,BNP and all.
they r looking for another leader.
but they have left with no choice but to vote same ppl again and again.
inspite of knowing the fact that they all r corrupt and useless.in these circumstances ,if a new leader will emerge .
ppl are going to follow him.
only if he shows good intentions .Posted 3 years ago on 20 Nov 2008 12:09 #
Reply
You must log in to post.