Adil Najam
Back on August 18, 2008 – right before Gen. Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation – we conducted an ATP Poll asking our readers what Pakistan would look like after Musharraf. Now, two months after the event, it seems like a good time to repeat the question. So, here is our new ATP Poll. Do tell us what you think? We have tried to match the wording of the questions to those asked last time so that one can have better comparison.
The results of our previous poll on the subject, were interesting, but not surprising.
Partisans on each side dominated the discussion, and the numbers (these are respresentative of no greater truth than the readership of this blog and the passions of those on any side). Around a third of the respondents (34 percent) felt that things would generally become better; somewhat more (42 percent) felt things would generally get worse; some 22 percent felt that only faces will change and no other real change would materialize.
So, now that we have two months under our belt, what can we say? Or, and maybe, it is still too early to say anything? If so, we can always do this again in a few months and see how and if opinions change.
I understand that Musharraf had lot of short comings, but he was gizillion times better than International criminal Zardari.
Just go to google.com and write zardari in the search box and see that in the drop down list “Zardari Corruption” ranks first and “Zardari killed Benazir” third. I cant believe that over 144,000 and 139,000 results respectively can all be fabricated.
We have a crook as a president and I would concur with the above poster that we are responsible for what is happening in Pakistan.
Jaisay Awam Waisay Hukmaran.
Viqar:
I suppose I should clarify my earlier comment.
When I say that our system is taylored not to let people like Mush or others from the middle class make much headway unless they gather a bunch of crooks from the same discredited feudal/industrialist class, what exactly do I mean? What is the system?
The system is us.
Enough of us need to be willing to get our hands dirty in the political process in one of the following ways:
* Take part in politics by contesting elections.
* Join a political party as a worker or part of their thinktank or in some other such capacity, but without contesting elections. Political parties need more than just the few hundred or few thousand people who contest the actual elections. Some people need to do the supporting work that makes the political parties work as vibrant institutions.
* As independent political activists who are not affiliated with particular parties but take up various political issues from time to time. This includes being willing to take to the streets, as well as doing the more tedius task of ‘mughaz mari’ and creating conversation spaces on various issues.
And if we won’t do either of the above three, the least we need to do is to support others who do get their hands dirty. Imran Khan has several weaknesses, but he is at least willing to get his hands dirty. Yet, when the elections come, most of us either stay home or go and vote for the same discredited parties.
So when we say that Mush may even be a better person but the only problem with him is that he was a military ruler, and that we might even support him if he were to participate in proper politics, then we are effectively saying that our main issue with him is that he is using a short-cut instead of getting his hands dirty in politics. So my point is that this is only a legitimate complaint if we are ourselves willing to do what I outlined above or at least fully support others who are willing to get active. Otherwise, we are only making Mush a scapegoat while not walking the talk ourselves. Only when we start voting for better people, when we start fully sticking out for others who take a principled stand, when we stop calling a (Swiss court) convicted crook like Zardari a legitimate president, and when we are willing to get our own hands dirty, will we have the legitimacy to lecture Musharraf about the constitution.
Having said the above, I should add that YHL, to whom my original response was, is a lawyer, and his community has waged a very commendable struggle. However, it should not be forgotten that the CJ was sacked by Mush because he was using his office to give relief to ordinary people and checking the excesses of the state. Sticking out for him is important not because of any legal mumbo-jumbo about the PCO, but more because of what he did between the time he was appointed CJ and March 9, 2007. Lots of public interest suo motu actions, setting up of a a human rights bench, and a lot more. Every now and then, one learns of some other case in which he intervened positively. Margallah towers tragedy, many honour killing cases, the Munobeel case, and so on. And this is the reason why the PPP won’t restore him; if it were only about a PCO, he would have been back by now. There is more to rule of law than just a half baked, literalist and selective interpretation of the constitution in violation of its basic spirit, and it’s our inner sense of right and wrong.
Why is the international community numb to the financial plight of Pakistan? Why has the financial credibility of Pakistan eroded? Especially the time tested partnerships like Saudi Arabia and China?
Ask yourself this question?
Am I willing to trust Asif Ali Zardari and his bunch of cronies with my hard earned capital?
Now honestly answer it yourself!
Enough said!
Adil Najam wonderfully said
Bravo
How did the previous government manage to keep the economy running. If things were faked, they should have been visible some how but all international institutes were giving thumbs up, pakistan was paying debts and investors were investing.
Even local businessmen were investing. Non of the civil servants working in state bank and other financial institutes ever raised any alarms. I cannot believe that all of a sudden everything has deterioted because of previous government.
This is the failure of the current government, not previous. They managed to pay our imports bill and keep dollar at 60.