Adil Najam
This one should be easy. Too easy maybe. But, then, the purpose of these posts is not really to test your knowledge. It is – like everything on this blog – to initiate conversations. To kindle thought. And maybe remind ourselves of things we should never have forgotten in the first place.
Anyhow, don’t read too much into that little stream of consciousness. Just go with your instincts; sometimes the heart is a better judge of history than the mind!
My opponents sometimes say: ‘This man is a dictator; he has all the power in his hands.’ How? I do not know. After all, there always has to be someone finally in charge whatever the system, be it parliamentary or presidential, a monarchy or a dictatorship. There are many to assist but, in the ultimate analysis, one man has to take the final decision. This has been the case throughout history, and it is so even today all the world over. If the man is chosen by the people and if he is a good man, he has to be trusted and given full co-operation.
To my knowledge there has never been so much freedom in this country as there is today. ‘On a number of occasions I have been accused, abused, and vilified, subjected to all kinds of rumours and slanders, all thoroughly unjustified and untrue, by some of the biggest blackguards in the country, and I have swallowed it. I have put up with it for the simple reason that I want to nurse and protect the system. I will not allow it to be demolished.
Because this one is as easy as it is, we will hope that you will share with us not only who said this, but also why, where and in what context.
I must say, the responses to this one have actually surprised me. I really did think this one would be fairly obvious.
So, let me give a few hints.
First, it is NOT Gen. Musharraf. It coudl well have been. But that woud be too obvious and too easy. So, lets cross that one out.
Second, I had thought that some might think that thisis Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Some of the language and the second paragraph can lead one to that notion. But it is NOT ZAB either.
So, there. The two most popular answers above have been eliminated.
Another try, people? Or should one throw in a ‘lifeline’?
I am not sure who said it but I beg to differ with the assumption that ultimately one man has to take the final decision in a parliamentary or presidential democracy. If we look at the most unjust decision of our recent history Bush took the decision to go to war with Iraq. But he was not alone in making this decision. There were many other neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved in this decision. They collectively exploited the emotions of American people after the 9/11 incident and served their corporate interests by gaining access to Iraqi oil.
Democracies are responsive and accountable to their electorate. Presidents and Prime ministers make the final decision but they cannot make decisions which are unpopular. The case of going to war with Iraq also shows the inherent undemocratic nature of imperialism. While they are responsible and accountable to their electorate back home they take decisions which affect the lives of the people who live outside their democratic system and don
It could be either Mush or Bush :D
So I am guessing … what would be the middle ground between vintage Jinnah and desperate Mush?
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Here is the thing…. whoever this is – is clearly in favour of an elected leader … because he is talking of people’s choice. Jinnah post-1947 was the constitutional head of state, speaker of the assembly and the Quaid-e-Azam all rolled into one. Unlike military dictators, Jinnah derived his power from the people and not the gun.
However… the second paragraph is whiny… and Jinnah was not whiny.
First Paragraph seems like vintage Jinnah. Second paragraph Musharraf at his most desperate.