Hahaha! Brilliant!

Lord Of Admiralty controls The Navy just as Pakistan Defense Minister Controls Pakistan Navy.
And Defense minister is from the ruling party, not Armed Forces.

Lord of Admirality was a post headed by a politician belonging to a party having majority in house of commons.

Imagine Khwaja Asif, the current Defense Minister, staging a coupe. Haha! That is exactly how "churchil staging a coup" would feel like =D)


Churchil was a politician, leader of the Conservative party, the biggest political party of Britain. Not a general, not a Naval officer.


What was the other alternative for the civilian government of Churchil? The Conservative Party postponing elections because Churchil won a War?


Good night! You do need some sleep!

Comparing Khawaja Asif and Churchill? I think you need a sleep. And think over the points I made that you chose to ignore while you were too busy pushing forth your platter! And if you think you've knocked down the original argument by knocking the strawmen you kept creating and knocking down while giving yourself pats on the back, you're wrong.

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

I compared to let you understand what the post means, my friend =D) Becuase your knowledge of Lord of Admirality was non existent.

You thought Lord of Admirality was some Senior Naval officer, close to perhaps General in Army =D) Read your posts again, its all there!

Yet, you dared to give it as an example. Haha. Like I said, you amaze me.


What was your original argument then?
You provided such plethora of comical arguments in between, My attention might have diverted a little.

Was it something that was said in a Science Fiction Television Series?

Or was it that an American General would never take over? despite the fact that an American General has never been entrusted with the administration of the Country? Then you suddenly, and inexplicably, jumped to Britain to give an example to support your point for USA.

And doing so, you proposed an argument so ridiculous its almost farcical by stating
"Winston served as Lord Admiralty,was entrusted as Prime Minister, and stepped down after the war"
Haha!

You quote fiction like TV show/movie or poetry to get a point across. If I had known that would make you lose your head into guffawing endlessly I'd have spared you this.
It is not necessary for Military to be granted Administration of the country for a coup to happen, which happened to be your persistent point. Musharaf and Zia weren't given administrative posts but they did take over. As a matter of fact, American generals never tried to take over regardless of the fact that they've been given administrative posts or not. The point, thus, remains.

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

You now know what "Lord Admiralty" means, don't you?

What on earth were you thinking when you gave that example last night? I need to clear things first, I need to be sure I am talking to a sane individual, which am sure you are, but that "Churchill" example was a bit of a stretch for a sane mind.

you can not justify that, though, can you? because you just googled that up, read "lord Admiralty" before Churchill, and assumed he must be a Naval leader, or similar to an Army General. Now that you Realize your mistake, you are not even bothering to revisit that post.

What about that glorious moment when you popped in the discussion, and tried to defend "Gypsified", when Gypsified himself admitted he could not find the exact words of Abul Kalam which were purported to him? Like I told you then, a bit of a research would do you a world of good.

Oh, and you provided the Indian Emergency example as a proof that Indian Military did not intervene in India, failing to grasp my point yet again, that the President of Pakistan himself appointed Ayub Khan as Chief Martial Law administrator. In India, they did not do that even in emergency. No comparison. I reached an understanding with Gypsified , with whom this discussion started in the first place, that Army was indeed allowed a safe passage into the Parliament in Pakistan, which is un-precedent-ed in India, Britian or USA. That was the whole crux.

Yet the point remains for you uncleared. Of course it does. Always will.


I shall not have any more discussion with you am afraid. I have nothing against you, but I have a strong dislike for ignorance.


Regarding the coup of Zia ul Haq, I would love to go into details of that event too. Perhaps with Gypsified, perhaps with Usman, but not you. For you would yet again provide examples such as farcical Winston Churchill story you conjured up, and make a fool of your self by talking about matters you do not know about.

Thank you

Considering that the whole thing has turned into comparisons, I'll venture an explanation. I don’t think there is any need of comparing the situation of Mirza-Ayub with US or UK or India or any other democratic country simply because of the reason I mention below.

I’ll repeat the crucial point: Sikandar Mirza was NOT a democratically elected President. If someone thinks so, the flaw in his understanding of democracy is to blame and nothing else. If Mirza was “elected”, we can also say that Ayub and Zia and Musharraf were “elected” through referendums (and that too, with overwhelming majority) so let’s call that democracy too. Equating an election by any random body to being democratically elected makes absolutely no sense and so any further comparison with any other country is uncalled for.

First, I will have to be convinced how Sikandar Mirza was a democratically elected president. I can’t go any further if this point remains unresolved which is why I had stopped in the first place.

To know the causes of the failure of democracy in Pakistan, one must understand the true nature of democracy. Building block of an ideal democracy is individual liberty; a man is free to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't harm someone else's freedom with his actions. He will only concede his freedom in favor of a ruler if he likes it. In other words, nobody has any right to rule over a person without his consent And for a group or society, we can expand this principle as 'nobody can rule over a group without the consent of the majority of its members'.

But Islamic ethics are built on a different foundation (referring to the mainstream interpretations). An act is legitimate if it is sanctioned by Islamic Injunctions regardless of what it does to an individual's or group's freedom. And such was the milieu of mid 20th century that political Islam went through a process of synthesis and rediscovery through the likes of Syed Qutab R.A and Moulana Moududi R.A. etc. Muslim Intelligentsia, which dominated print media, took information from the theories of above mentioned scholars and mobilized (or pacified) the masses.

To make it clear, let’s consider the Indian elections of 1945-46. AIML failed overwhelmingly in the 1937 elections. What must have turned the tables for AIML in 1945-46 elections, sociologically imagining, could be the religion: religious idealism of the Muslim press and of 'intellectuals' and 'scholars'. For politicians would only change sides to get in the good lists of 'intelligentsia'; employing their (intelligentsia's) goodwill to mold the public opinion in their favor. Changing political dynamics meant that the vested interests in the Muslim majority provinces needed a spokesman, which could be either congress or AIML, at the center. Since going for congress really meant 'negative press', in the wake of Lahore Resolution, politicians were left with choosing only Jinnah.
See the idealism of press dominating Muslim intelligentsia was, in a theoretical way, responsible for the creation of Pakistan. And they took the credit for it. A weak Muslim League and the early death of Jinnah meant these ideologues were uncontested in their claims to be the 'definition providers' for the new nation. They obstructed the constitution making process with their pan-islamic demands.

Gypsified has mentioned the lack of democratic culture in masses of the new the nation, so it really was the intelligentsia which played the linking role between masses and the political system. If a general tries to takeover, masses would react only if they are excited by the Intelligentsia, which was indoctrinated. They mostly saw a dictator as the 2nd coming of caliphate and hence favored it.

The debate that politicians or generals shouldn’t have done what they did is superficial because it is like arguing that a hungry wolf shouldn’t attack a lamb. It is the collective conscience of a society that protects the lamb from the wolf. It is only with education and prosperity we can develop a collective conscience stronger than a wolf. For the poor are not much different from the animals; like animals, they engage daily in the struggle for food, for survival. Concepts like morality and law are secondary in front of survival instincts.

If masses are law-abiding, tolerant and clear-headed a ruler will surely be a wise one and democratically elected. If public are ignorant and superstitious then there is good chance that they will be ruled a charlatan.

AoA,

Aslamuelekum all seniors,,

I have read all your views about the comparative Democracies with special reference to Pakistan.. I found it a very knowledgeable discussion, and I think all members and students have got a reason that why democracy failed in Pak and fruitful in other democratic countries................
Thanks for participate in this useful discussion, and I hope that you all also participate in another any informative topic... Thanks

Regards:
Ijaz Malik

__________________
"Duniya mein har cheez Qeemat se nahein melti, kuch cheezien Qesmat se mela kerti hain". Malik

Now that the fight is over

Well thank you, hope you find some scholarly articles about it . I wasn't attempting to compare religions, but since it has come to equality then Egalitarianism demands punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything so that the competent and strong are tore down and razed to the level of incompetent and weak . (Try searching this statement ).... Now checkout Pakistan, isn't this exactly what's going on . Modern Democracy and Capitalism are not about 'Egalitarianism', they advocate 'equal opportunity' as a matter of justice though. Pakistan is a model of Egalitarianism .

I meant Democracy is much fairer at political equality, but capitalism creates economic inequality which then has an effect on entire social system. Perhaps this is what Muslims fear which is why they remain suspicious of Democracy .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

I don't think Muslims have any problem with capitalism. In fact, I think they are in love with it. The debaucheries of capitalism in the Arab states (including Mecca itself where they think it's all right to raze historical heritage to ground to make new malls) pretty much make this clear. And among the biggest defenders of Capitalism have been prominent Muslim Ulemas (who are then well fooled by the US).

And besides, uncontrolled capitalism might be a phase but it hardly lasts long which is because of democracy itself. Civil activism, media and judiciary are the tools to ensure that blind exploitation by the rich is kept under a leash. Some developed countries are already moving forward from capitalist democracies to welfare democracies. France has as much as 70% tax on the rich which is why some of them find it better to just leave the country. The welfare policies of Scandinavian countries with free education and healthcare are another example. Time, again, is the main factor.