Adil Najam
The grades are in. And, in the opinion of 263 ATP readers who voted, General Pervez Musharraf’s performance review yields an overall GPA (grade point average) of 2.53; right in between a grade of B- and C+.
(Click image for larger picture)
In this, the fourth ATP Poll (earlier: on womens’ rights here, on Gen. Musharraf’s future moves here, and on past leaders here), more than twice as many people voted as in the last ATP Poll. They were asked to grade Gen. Musharraf’s performance in four key areas: (a) domestic governance, (b) economy and development, (c) governance and reform, and (d) foreign affairs.
The results, based on the average in each area [using a 4-point scale where: A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=1.0, F=0.0], is:
Domestic Governance ………… C (1.96)
Economy and Development …………B (3.04)
Governance and Reform ………… C+ (2.25)
Foreign Affairs ………… B/B- (2.88)
As we always point out, this is simply a ‘pulse of the blog’ poll and is NOT a scientific or representative survey. They are representative only of the opinions of those who voted; and of nothing more. So, lets not take it any more seriously than that. Having said that, there are a number of interesting elements in the results that are worthy of note, or at least of further discussion:
- The overall grade in each area is a broad average, but much more interesting is the distribution of the grades within each of the four areas. As with our previous Poll related to Gen. Musharraf, this distribution suggests a highly differentiated, even polarized view of his performance amongst those who voted in this Poll.
- Representative of this polarization is the fact that in each case the overall average grade lies in the middle of the range but most commonly voted grades lie at the very extreme. Indeed, in three of the four areas – “ the exception being ‘Economy and Development’, the top 2 categories are A+ and F, the two most extreme grades possible!
- While there were a significant number of readers who votes either all F’s or all A+’s, the vast majority did calibrate their performance review within the given range. It is a fair assumption that most (although not all) of these people were die-hard supporters or die-hard opponents.
- Domestic politics, quite clearly, was the area where Gen. Musharraf received the harshest assessments. Nearly a quarter of all who voted, chose to gave him an F (failing grade) in this area. One wonders what, if any, impact Nawab Akbar Bugti’s killing had on this particular grade?
- In contrast, Economy and Development is the area where he gets his highest grade (a B). He also gets the least number of F‘s (29) in this area, and also gets about twice as many A+‘s (57).
- Governance and Reform is the area where the grade distribution is (comparatively) most evenly distributed. But the second worst performance in this Poll, after Domestic Politics. The overall grade is a C+.
- In the area of Foreign Affairs the verdict seems to be most mixed. The overall average is 2.88 which lies just between a B- (2.3) and a B (3). But that is not why it is divided, it is divided because even though the highest number of A+‘s that he gets in any area is here (71, or over a quarter of all votes cast), he also gets as many as 47 F grades on Foreign Affairs. This means that just about 45 percent of all voters gave him a grade at the very extreme! One wonders how, if at all, this was affected by the fact that this Poll was taking place in the middle of his high-visibility tour to the United States?
- The calculation of the overall GPA is based on assuming that each of these four areas carries equal importance to his ‘performance’. If so, his overall GPA of 2.53 would translate to a B-/C+ performance.
Comments folks? Are these grades good? Are they bad? Do you think this is what he would get if all of Pakistan were asked? Or are you all out of touch?
If we analyze the domestic and governance i think it will not wrong to say that Pakistani people are not willing to split Pakistan but our leaders which are unfortunately from the very beginning are Generals and Democratic governments which are not elected rather selected because every one know about our Election commissions transperency.Issues at domestic level can’t be controlled by power rather with strategic plannings.
On Economy, My view is that President is right when he said that people are spending more and more because he is a military general and not a Financial analyst. As he apologize at the time of Chief Justice issue that I have done a mistake because i am not a Lawyer but a General.
Just one question. What if somebody else was in charge during these years.
Do you think all evils would have been cleansed! International scenario would yield different results for Pakistan!!
Think and reply…
peace all,
Some data for you all to see:
[1]
ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO [ 20 Dec 1971 – 13 Aug 1973 as President..14 Aug 1973 – 5 Jul 1977 as Prime minister]
US DOLLAR EXCHANGE rate after the debacle of 1971 [East Pakistan gone + 90,000 POWs]
1970 = 4.76 Pakistani rupees
1975 = 9.91 Pakistani rupees
Difference 9.91 – 4.76 = 5.15 Rupees
Slightly over 100% increase in the exchange rate.
[Pakistani rupees remained stable till 1980 even after two and a half years of Z A Bhutto’s removal]
[2]
ZIA’S REGIME [16 Sep 1978 – 17 Aug 1988]
Exchange rate from 1980 to 2000
1980 = 9.90 Pakistani rupees
1985 = 16.28 Pakistani rupees
1990 = 21.41 Pakistani rupees
Difference: – 21.41- 9.90 = 11.51 Rupees
Slightly over 100% increase
[3]
NAWAZ AND BANAZIR’S REGIME [from 2 dec1988 till 12 oct 1999]
Exchange rate from 1990 to 2000
1990 = 21.41
1995 = 30.62
2000 = 51.64
Difference 51.64 – 21.41 = 30.23 Rupees
110% increase in exchange rate which is the worse ever.
[4]
The external obligations of Pakistan in December 1999 were about US$ 37 billion, out of which US$ 32 billion were external public and publicly guaranteed debt. At the same time the internal debt of Pakistan was US$ 32.5 billion. External indebtedness and internal indebtedness together shows a total of US$ 69.5 billion (total debt) WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 100 % OF THE COUNTRY’S GDP. . In plain English, the country is indebted to an approximate equal amount of what Pakistan is producing in a year.
In 1999 Pakistan’s total debt as percentage of GDP was the highest in South Asia – 99.3 percent of its GDP and 629 percent of its revenue receipts, compared to Sri Lanka (91.1% & 528.3% respectively in 1998) and India (47.2% & 384.9% respectively in 1998). Internal Debt of Pakistan in 1999 was 45.6 per cent of GDP and 289.1 per cent of its revenue receipts, as compared to Sri Lanka (45.7% & 264.8% respectively in 1998) and India (44.0% & 358.4% respectively in 1998) .
The State Bank report 1999-2000 states, that besides external liabilities, of US$37.30 billion under different categories, Pakistan is committed to pay in rupee liabilities 1.72 billion dollars on accounts of frozen foreign currency accounts and on various foreign currency certificates.
The public debt at the end of fiscal year 1999 was about 629 per cent of total revenue and came down to 356 per cent of total revenue. Similarly, THE TOTAL PUBLIC DEBT WAS 100 PER CENT OF GDP IN 1999 AND HAS COME DOWN TO 50 PER CENT IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2007.
[Quoting from the Simon Briggs, UK, Jubilee 2000 People’s Millennium Write-Down Book]
In 1999 we were at the verge of being declared a bankrupt nation with less then 1 billions in foreign exchange reserves. We were in the top five lists of the terrorist nations.
I don’t agree with Mr. Adnan siddiqi’s comments about mush killing people just because of the U.S. policies.
No group or individual can be allowed to form a state within a state or promote extremism/violence like the lunatics of lal majid, Islamabad.
In the end I would like to ask a question…which Pakistani political leader should we substitute mush with? is there any other choice?
God bless all.
All i know is no matter wht he’s been the best leader we’ve had at running our country for a few decades. Forget abt how popular he is or isnt but ppl of pakistan know right now they cant get a better leader then him period
Chandio u mean bugtis death will right?when Bhutto went to the gallows the elected PM no one burped wat value a feudal has that wanted separation? open ur eyes he was for his own dynasty he asked fer it and got it!he cud have taken Baluchs very high but he didnt coz that wud hv been his ultimate departure!and plus Mush dint want any one to bully his govt and troops!his demise i guess wont cause any trouble!