Imran Khan is sincere but he should be a little practical too.

My earlier post is the answer of it. As I have said it before you are talking within the perception created by some politicians.

@ 6561

yes we need Imam Khemini type of revolution.

__________________
Manto of 21st Century

In Sparta, as in ancient Greece, and Islamic political history as well as present day developed nations- men who would contribute most to their societies, in any form, be it ideas, labor, or philanthropy- would get to the helm of affairs. Mostly those men, who were proven to carry a track record of their service to nation would be considered by the public. Now I am not talking about mere ideals here, this is how things really should be and this is what we are devoid of. The man has contributed to the health and the education sector by now. Pakistan needs men who have 'felt' for it. The average politician with a jagirdar/industrialist/bureaucratic background doesnt which doesnt even need any debate. A few years ago, I also felt Imran Khan doesnt have the credentials or the capability to lead us. But having seen the unfortunate events of Pakistan's dirty politics as a grown-up, Ive concluded that he is the only one standing out there who can at least bring positive reforms if not a cataclysmic change.

Having said that, I have already mentioned in my previous post that he probably wont be able to make it unless he befriends the establishment- which is clearly at odds with him currently. The polls hardly matter in a place where I clearly mention an "establishment' running political operations, so obviously its not upto public support to send him to Islamabad. Even his divorce from a Gold-stack shouldnt have mattered much had he made enough friends here. These 'friends' always make sure their man has enough funds to win elections. The Sharifs did not have such enormous funds back in the 70's- at least not enough to run a campaign. Their affiliation with Zia's regime made sure they did. So that's not even the issue. Youve used two words for him. Him having 'vision' and him not having the 'political wit'. If he has vision, that should be enough for Pakistan. However in this quagmire where thugs rule the day, lack of political wit has cost him.

Democracy, my friend, is what sets us apart from two of the brilliant governments (greek and sparta) you mentioned earlier, at least in form. The kind of popular, direct democracy practiced in greek and sparta, and the absence of the concept of representative governments enabled both greece and sparta to put forward men of substance at the "helm of the government." But even in that case, we have examples of these so called men of substance falling victims to personal passions and sacrificing the collective good in a purely whimsical manner to serve those personal passions, case in point Demosthenes, as described by Paparregopoulus. Similar trends can be traced in islamic tradition of government, where the passion for extending one's dynastic legacy preceded even the very faith of many a caliphs and sultans, Malik bin Marwan, Suleiman bin Malik, and others being key examples.

The state of Pakistan is relatively young, claimant otherwise however, of having a grand legacy spanning over 1400 years in the making. Its democratic institutions have never been allowed to flourish and develop fully by aspirants of personal glory throughout its history. Demigods - claiming to provide all the reliefs to this nation's miseries within those large heads of theirs, demanding only absolute and unchecked power in return. With our nation's obsessions with personalities and these demigods promising the pot of gold at the end of that rainbow seen only in our primary school text books, i find it hard to believe that absolute power will not be demanded, used and then abused by any single individual who comes equipped with only a vision and not support from the very machinery that runs this state.

The last sentence of your very eloquently put statement, I must say , is the key to it the whole argument. Even if Mr. Khan with his vision is made in charge through some magic wand, that very lack of his political wit would be only accentuated along with the intoxication of power, leading him to the same dead end where our first populist leader, Mr. Bhutto ended up. The only difference would be the lack of a crowd of Jiayala's around his final resting grounds.

I do wish well for Imran Khan, but we do have to admit that one person, alone, in a leadership position, without the will to seek and raise cooperation and moving only with a slogan of "kill em all" and a vision to purify this nation once again (after the bloody ablutions given to this country by Zia and then its strip tease by Mushy), would not get too far. Feudals, industrialists, bureaucrats and the boots, they're all here to stay. Eliminating them is neither possible nor advisable. The only solution one can hope for is a systematic restoration of this country's institutions, and a slow, even painful at times, but definitely effective placement of representative democratic spirit throughout. Let's not let Imran Khan's vision fall victim to Imran Khan's short comings, and lets hope to see him become more of a model citizen than a despised demigod.

Ok, I see where this is heading . Democracy versus Dictatorship debate has always been in vogue, and the reason for the continued existence of arguments in favor of the latter, proves that there is some merit to it as well. Although i like your style of composing your thoughts into words- I will nevertheless NOT beg to differ on the issue (pun intended) .
Ill work on the two main models you have chosen. The Hellenistic and Islamic.

I do not support unchecked rogue dictatorships for absolute power corrupts absolutely. However having studied the Islamic polity and various scholars' opinions in that respect, I have come to realize that the original Islamic system is the best possible means to attain excellence in governance. I know there’s been a lot of vandalism in Islamic political law by proponents of Western governance and many scholars have tried to equate the two, just to prove their point. It does not even vaguely resemble the popular concept of democracy. Having established my preference for the Islamic system, Ill simply state that God has ordained a constitution already for us- we cannot profess any legislation on our own and the one that we do, as is often necessary, has to coincide with God's principles. If by democracy we mean 'counselling' which is very much in tandem with our religion- then I agree to such a democracy. However if by counselling you mean including everyone in a state for decisions due- then it is here that I dont agree. All men are born equal, but their minds are not. Just like everyone in this state cannot be given legal custody of an infant sans a few, the state also cannot be given to whims of everyone because its just as delicate. Similarly all 17 million Pakistanis arent capable of becoming doctors either. The select few who are eligible for such a responsibility are those that are the greatest minds of the nation who have proven their metal. Islamic tradition points out to an electoral college comprising such men, who then elect nominees for the ruler and then select one of them. Since times have now changed and honesty and credibility a rare commodity- we can augment this practice so that the electoral college itself will be elected by a few thousand citizens of the state who are registered and even their histories known. This rules out the possibility of universal suffrage as is a tenet of modern democracy. Politics in Islamic history only started becoming awry once Caliphs usurped power and refused to abide by these Islamic principles.

Secondly the Hellenistic democracy. Primarily, we have to take into account the population of Athens at its peak which was 150,000 which was the most populous of all city-states. Of this number, slaves, women and foreigners were a big chunk while the male citizens comprised 1/3. It is common knowledge that only the citizens were allowed to take part in decisions. If we take the average of the above figure, we only arrive at approximately 50,000 Athenians eligible for decision-making. One of the reasons there was no concept of a ‘foreign naturalized citizen’ was also this fact. They wanted important men to be kept small and exclusive. Secondly, all of them were acclimatized with Acropolis politics much before democracy even made an appearance. Their favorite pastime was politics. Nearly all of them had completed a military draft that equipped them with a sound basis of citizenship as well as love for their city-state.At any time, at least 85% of their citizens were educated enough and understood even the complex requirements of governance. By the time they were done with their primary schooling, they had memorized and conceptualized Homer's political debacle. Hence we can conclude that the chances of erroneous legislation on their behalf was already minimal.
Thirdly, even when they did indulge in politics it wasnt with respect to electing their representatives for they knew too well that this path is vulnerable of corruption. Instead they were welcomed to vote for or against a legislation, a sort of a referendum at not all but some vital moments. Such referendums werent always succumbed to by the ruler or the Counselors however.
The Spartans practiced a much more complex and open system of democracy. In spite of that, one cannot forget how soon they came down as a nation despite their courage and strong military background.

Pakistan has none of the above traits and times, population and even the stakes have greatly magnified. So democracy, my friend, does not set us apart from these systems. Good leadership does. We dont have any. Western democracy was found only in the last 300 years by the public of downtrodden autocracies where religion was made redundant in practice but now used as a tool to cement the ruler’s throne. Where piety and honour was only visible in coat of arms but amiss from public dealings. Had democracy been a good basis for a state, the Ottomans would not have survived for 500 years out of which 300 were of prosperity and progress. Napoleon was a dictator, who has triggered ambivalent feelings amongst westerners for the same trait, yet nobody denies the leap in social, educational, legal and political fields, France took for the first time.

Lastly, God has made humans in his own image (Ibn-e-Arabi). If he has delegated some of his authority to his Vicegerent on earth, then like His orders, an honest ruler’s orders will not always suit us but in disguise, is best for us. Since God cannot be doubted but man carries that burden, there are always ways to create a system of checks and balances and in extreme cases, depose the ruler. Although Im not for a very myopic imposition of shariat, yet we should appreciate the good things about it and apply them.

“Kill em all” is a distorted version of the righteous “Kill the tyrants”. The latter becomes an abject necessity when nothing else seems probable. I will quote Che Guevara here, although I am not entirely sure of the wordings he used then, this is what it implied.

“When a nation is overshadowed by an imperial superpower, when its economic indicators operate at the behest of that power, when its media is controlled by that power, when state institutions are helpless in front of an unknown superior hand and when the masses will kill for a few pennies- know it then, that there is no other way to get out of this shadow other than a massive revolution.” So that answers your inhibitions regarding such a reality. The only major country not to ever undergo this process in its history is Great Britain. Any guesses where all this filth originally comes from? Pakistan cannot be an exception for long.

As for Imran Khan, all I am saying is, if we have given chances to scoundrels all this while (believe me people still revere BB and Nawaz sharif and Altaf Hussain and I really am awed by Pakistanis’ short memory spans), then he should definitely be given a chance by the powers here. But even I don’t see it happening in reality because I guess Khan still has some integrity remaining in him that forbids him to haggle with the hawks.

Lol! You sound like fun!
Thanks for the kind words and the agreement You're too kind indeed. Although I am unable to present my complete retort at the moment, I do wish to touch on a few notes here.

The point I stated in the very beginning was the impracticability of Khan's coming into leadership, not the positives or negatives of it. Whether or not he will be a good leader for the nation can only be determined by his ability to reach that position, which so far seems quite far from reality.

Pakistan had its chances at revolution, we had our chance to become the "laboratory of islam" that the wise sage envisaged us to be. And we BLEW it. Big time! Revolution, be it of Che's or Khomeini's, did not, would not have, and can not work for us. We are dug in way too deep within the trenches of our cultural and social class standards, the landmark of this entire region. So at this note, I do beg to differ, sans any pun :P. I do believe that our optimism towards the future can in fact stem from other fields than killing the tyrants. Tyrants, as you may have noticed, are not that easy to be killed. Thats the whole point of them being a tyrant in the first place

If we can emphasize upon a thorough "evolution" of a national identity and a culture of accountability at all levels, a "revolution" may not be needed in the first place. Slow change, and gradual development of a nation through socio-economic growth (hint: Malaysia), is far more lasting than the french revolution or even the so called american one, and does not have to run and hide in the hills (RIP, Che).

A one man leadership is like one of those heroes in 80's action movies, chuck norris being my favorite, but just like in those movies, they rattle and they shake, they kill and they avenge, but in all that action they hardly can pay attention on rehab, development, and on the fact that who's gonna pick up all those bodies?

Islam's system is surely the best, and you seem to have a pretty decent and advanced understanding of its polity as well, Kudos. But then again, are you sure your understanding of islamic polity is directly in line with the understanding of all the other muslims in this very country, let alone the world. There are four clear divides even within the most mainstream sect of islam, with contradicting guidelines about governance, righteousness, morality and polity as well. Which of those models do we enact in Pakistan if we're bestowed with a leader of bright vision who wishes to enact such a polity here? We cant decide upon a single day of eid for pete's sake, how do you think we're gonna decide upon a code of law. I am not against islam's jurisprudence, but I certainly do have my differences with what it has been turned into - a seemingly perpetually disagreeable quagmire that throughout its history has been the cause and source of more dispute than unity.

Nice point about the origins of western democracy. Can you honestly say there are no similarities between its origins and between what we see today in this land?

Representative democracy may not be the best system, like that old hag said, but its the one that works. In our case, it can be fine tuned further to suit our needs, and can be made to work for us. If bangladeshis and malaysians can make it work, so can we.

Theres so much more in your post that was just as delightfully stimulating as it was wonderfully articulated. I'll be back to address that in a while. And no rudeness intended, but I need to get in touch with you, big time! Cant find your contact info here, but mine is in my profile. So, do say hello.

Well if you believe in The Sage, then believe his ideas too for this is what makes him one. The timing for a revolution has a fixed pattern actually, historically speaking. It has certain prerequisites in my view that are yet to appear in Pakistan, while some are already here. These are:

1. Level of awareness and the necessary minimum education required to grasp it is fundamental or else the process wont even jump-start.
2. The academia is pivotal in pushing it. You need your intellectuals and senior professors to imbibe these ideas in high-level educational institutions. Subsequently, a well-informed student body gets proactive, from which tomorrow's 'sons of revolutions' will emerge. This point is VERY important for if it is absent, only the illiterate but blood-thirsty masses will lead mere mobs leading to total annihilation. Sanity must prevail for a sound change. Also, every revolution needs an ideological father/s. These are the ones who inspire the nation with their written works, oratory skills etc. France had Rousseau and Montesquieu, while Iran had Khomeini who would smuggle recorded speeches of his, from France to every bazaar in Iranian towns. Of course we have Iqbal (whom we hardly read btw, despite his works being soo interesting), but you need more to directly address current issues and their solutions- something Iqbal didnt get the chance to.
3. You need a very active middle-class to not only fund the revolution but provide professional support as well. You can hardly expect the richer classes to fund a revolution that will probably uproot their bases.
4. And obviously, society must have rotten to such an extent that the world singles you out among some 100's of other states and you dont even have angry rhetorics to use in your defence. This is the first stage actually, and this is where Pakistan is at right now.

All the above isnt too far away although not upon us either. All the above hasnt been accomplished before us, so we have yet to see the revolution. How can one give their verdict about the potential of a revolution in mere 65 years. It took the muslims 110 years after 1857 to attain independence. It took Poland the same number to achieve theirs.

You also said that a revolution based on other paradigms isnt right for Pakistan. What isnt right for Pakistan is a revolution based on religious ideology. It is a dangerous thought actually, because unlike Iran where exists a 99% homogeneous Shiite population, Pakistan is a witch's cauldron- a 70% Sunni population against a 30% Shia one. The Shias may be in a minority but this minority isnt insignificant- a divide can wreck havoc (Khomeini once said that you only need about 10% of a country's population out on streets to topple the regime, so you can imagine). Even within the mainstream Sunni class, there are all kinds of sectarian divisions- Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Wahabi - you get the point. Pakistan's problem isnt mainly a religious one, for God knows theres enough of that tendency in us.
So what we're left with is a revolution based on economic/social basis. I would personally like to emulate France had I been Danton, give or take a few points. And this is our problem, that needs to be rectified.

Once such a system is in place, religion should have a role in state, I think, even if a precise Shariat isnt in place. We cant please all naturally. We need to then understand what each sect stands for. As far as general conduct of state is concerned, all sects agree. They differ mostly in personal law for which you must grant them autonomy. And about matters as trivial as agreeing on a single Eid day- well a revolution brings in enough bayonets ( read M4-rifles) to smack the heads of deviating parties

Then again, our nation needs to rid itself of tyrants. If I may take the liberty to without offending anyone, we let BB n Zardari run off with our wealth twice. So we now have to first suffer Zardari and then when he is done with us, Bilawal in his even more consistent incompetence and corruption. We let Sharif n bros elope, now as you can see, they've come back to haunt us along with their future potential CM's and PM's. The process will keep continuing until Pakistan is dead, God-forbid. So, we need to set examples. You dont need to hang all the tyrants- first 100 are enough to show to the rest whats waiting for them if they transgress against the state policy. At the risk of sounding like Attila, I also propose some of their children and families be killed. No, I am not a blood-thirsty maniac. I just know human mind reasonably well. Fear and pain are such powerful elements, they can trick your mind with no bounds. And when you fear and feel pain for you family- the effect is tripled. You need to warn the people of the consequences, not by barking it out-nobody would give a damn I swear, specially not in case of a dheet awam like ours. Nor do you have to go overboard with the reign of terror.

As an example that this is usually required yet phenomenal Ill tell you about Mao. One day he received a letter of complaint from a province of China, from a mother who said that her son worked in a factory but was recently kicked off from his job by a supervisor for a minor mistake and also beaten up beyond recognition. One of the reasons for this bias was that the boy was a muslim. Mao personally went down to the factory and he ordered all 400 of its employees to line up in assembly. He explained to them the reason for his arrival. Then he simply demanded the supervisor own up or someone tell him the name of the supervisor. He gave them 4 minutes to do so. After the time passed he asked them again yet nobody spoke up. He then ordered a firing squad to shoot down every single employee in that factory that day. Barbaric no? Its not if you want a good norm to set in. The tale made rounds throughout China and sparked pure terror in their hearts. Well do you think anyone will dare to act unfair after this?

Ill leave u at that for the time being

Army's role is obviously appreciative.

__________________
"I have an eternal bond with my people, which armies can't break" - Z. A. Bhutto

Wow!
Someone needs to give you a glass of milk, some cookies and a hug...like big time!

Salman, my cousin, to my consternation, you became proponent of Islamist regime in Pakistan by advocating "Laboratory of Islam" in Pakistan?? Ironically, Islam is NOT applied religion anymore; therefore, it must be virtually discarded from public affairs. Tarek Fatah-- A Pakistani Canada-based scholar-- has written a refresingly bold and incisivly penetrative book captionedChasing a Mirage. The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State. The bottom line of the book is that existence of multi-sects within Islam renders it un-applied; the only way forward is a Secularism. I also maintain that we need to re-interpret our identity as a nation-state and make a new constitution drawn completely on secular lines. I don't think members will buy my iconoclastic views easily!