Yes, by the people who were not democratically elected.

If the previously existing constitution was revised by a democratically elected government, I don't see any problem with that.

I don't think anyone is defending "rotten politicians". Defending democracy and defending "rotten politicians" are vastly different things.

Both were selfish to the core. There, I said it.

It sure was a combined effort toward downfall. Military wanted to control turf. And it pounded upon it. I just got reminded of a Battlestar Galactica episode when the General wants to have a coup and replace the government of the elected President but he stops short when confronted by his son who reminds him of the democratic ideals. No General in the United States would take-over even if he were given it on a platter. That's the difference! That's where the responsibility of the Military arises! And the blame falls on them too if they do a wrong thing.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Thank you very much. You could have said that two hours ago and I would have been in dreamland by now.

He was technically "Elected" though. Elected by the Parliament.

We both Agree though that Army was brought in, by Democratically or un-democratically elected people.

Wrong on two counts.

One, You are quoting from a Science Fiction Television series. Give me a break.

Two, there is no precedent for what you say. If the US Government was indeed offered on a "platter" to the military, and a General would have refused it, then your point might stand ground. Right now, it is mere assumption.

Army was given a safe passage to barge in, yes, and it was all too eager to pounce upon the first chance.

It's unfortunate that the whole issue of the lack of democratic culture in the country got diverted to a fruitless debate about technicalities. In the final analysis, it seems that everyone agrees that democracy is better than dictatorship. What form of democracy is a separate issue and I'm sure everyone would be glad if we had the best form (whatever that is). But for that too, we need time.

Dude you seriously need to visit dreamland because you are not making sense at all probably because of you sleeplessness!
No offence!

Depends on what you call platter. Is there a criteria?? A spectrum? A red line?? Generals have stopped short in real life as well because they were committed to their profession and their constitution and their jobs. You're assuming a Machiavellian tendency in every Military General that he would be willing to take-over no matter what if he were given a chance on a platter. Well, that's also just an assumption.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Let us call declaration of a General as "Chief Marshal Law Administrator" as the red line, shall we?
This is getting interesting!

At least there is precedence, even outside Pakistan, of Generals tying take over the administration when given the tiniest bit of opportunity.

Your assumption that a "US general Would never take over" does not even have any precedence. How could you claim that? How many times the US generals have been asked to run the administration? a grand total of Zero.

Let's talk about Britain. Winston Churchill. First Lord of Admirality. Given Prime Ministership. An administrative post. Won the Great World War. Stepped down after Atlee won the vote.

That'd suffice I guess

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Were we not talking about USA?

But Yeah that would suffice to know where are you coming from.

Unfortunately for you, British History is one of my optional subject.


Lord of Admiralty is not a post comparable to a General. In fact, it was mostly held by politicians, just a like the portfolio of defense minister in modern times. It has nothing to do with Army. Churchill held the post as a leader of Conservative Party, not as a General, or a Naval Officer. Haha!

Second, what do you mean by stepping down? Did he not lose an election? You mean he could have staged a coupe, as a leader of Conservative party? Hah! With what? Political workers masquerading as soldiers?

You amaze. you seriously do.

Churchil, as a politician, held the Portfolio of Lord of Admiralty, was made the Prime minister during the Second World War and the Conservative Party lost elections after the war, hence Churchil lost the Premiership.

Lord of Admiralty has nothing to do with the Armed Forces?
Is that why the board of Admiralty which the Lord of Admiralty headed used to control Royal Navy?

He did not win an election to become a prime minister. He became a wartime prime minister. And he stepped down because he respected democratic ideals.

And as regards as your platter is concerned. Military coups had taken place without the platter. And there are examples from within Pakistan when generals chose not to go down that line. A recent example is General Kiyani who was called 'ball-less' -refer to Babar Sattar's article for that -countless times in order for him to overthrow the government. The civil government happened to be cornered more than one time: Memo-gate, Qadri-circus etc. but he chose to ignore that.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)