Pakistan: A Fourth Coup?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:08:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Pakistan: A Fourth Coup?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pakistan: A Fourth Coup?  (Read 1393 times)
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 15, 2014, 09:46:37 PM »
« edited: March 02, 2019, 03:46:57 AM by ModerateVAVoter »

Pakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, is no stranger to long marches or military coups. Twice in the 1990s, he helped take down Benazir Bhutto's government with military support. In 1999, his own government was overthrown in a military coup, and Nawaz Sharif was exiled to Saudi Arabia.

This year, Nawaz Sharif faces a tough challenge as two rival politicians are calling for his head. They both are leading a march on Islamabad, coinciding with Pakistan's Independence Day.

The first one is Imran Khan, leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI - Translated as "Pakistan Movement for Justice") and a former Pakistani cricket captain. Basically, Imran Khan remains bitter about his performance in last year's elections. Despite his promises of a political tsunami, the PTI only took control of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. He's insisted that the 2013 elections were rigged in all four provinces. He's calling for Nawaz Sharif to step down and for new elections.

The second politician who aims to march on the capital on Independence Day is Tahirul Qadri, the leader of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek and a cleric who runs an Islamic charity from Canada. His party did not contest last year's elections. His grievances aren't really clear, but he's calling for a revolution.

Since Nawaz Sharif's PML-N has strong numbers in the Parliament, I'm not concerned about either of these two toppling the government on their own. The concern is, many believe that the military is encouraging both of them Khan and Qadri. Last year, the military made it perfectly clear that they preferred a PTI victory, or would even settle for another PPP victory rather than deal with Nawaz Sharif and PML-N. Sharif is known for his poor relations with the army, which is currently irritated by Sharif's fixation on trying Musharraf.

I'm certainly anxious to see how this plays out.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2014, 10:05:36 PM »

PTIs performance was actually pretty impressive. Khan's expectations of forming a government were just totally delusional. Before the last election, PTI was considered to have more supporters outside Pakistan than inside.
Logged
swl
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 581
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2014, 07:20:13 AM »

Are they only protesting because they are not in power or do they have real grievances?

Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2014, 12:47:13 PM »
« Edited: August 16, 2014, 03:31:59 PM by ModerateVAVoter »

PTIs performance was actually pretty impressive. Khan's expectations of forming a government were just totally delusional. Before the last election, PTI was considered to have more supporters outside Pakistan than inside.

Agreed.

Are they only protesting because they are not in power or do they have real grievances?

I certainly think that's what Imran Khan's main motivation is. He doesn't want to wait until the next elections in 2018.

As for Qadri, I'm not really sure what his primary motives are, since I doubt he has as much to gain as Khan. But this isn't the first time he's pulled a stunt like this. He did something similar in 2013, near the end of the PPP's term, arguing that the government had lost its "moral authority" to govern due to corruption related issues.

But there are a few differences between the stunt Qadri pulled in 2013 and now. Firstly, it was near the end of the PPP's term. Even if Qadri had succeeded in dislodging the PPP government, a caretaker government would have taken over -- just a little earlier than scheduled. So the stakes weren't as high. We're still in the first year of PML-N's term, and Nawaz Sharif is desperate to survive for a full term. Coming off a fairly impressive (if we're looking at this realistically -- as Famous Mortimer said) showing in the elections, PTI is certainly more legitimate and formidable than they were before. I also think it's important to consider the geographic vote bases for each of these parties. PPP's main vote base is Sindh, whereas PML-N's primary vote base is Punjab. PTI and PAT are also trying to compete for strength in Punjab, whereas none of the other three parties are really a threat to the PPP in Sindh. PML-N has a weaker hand in negotiations than the PPP did in 2013, and there is more at stake.

A problem with Nawaz Sharif (which is nothing new, really) is his tendency to panic, overreact, and mismanage situations. I think he did a poor job of responding to Khan's allegations of rigged elections, and then he panicked when Khan announced this march; he initially tried to curtail the demonstrations and asked the military to increase their numbers in Islamabad. The government was also using shipping containers to seal off roads in Lahore and Islamabad. Then he seemingly changed his mind, announcing he'd allow the protestors to travel to Islamabad.

There's widespread frustration in Pakistan over the struggling economy, violence, and lack of basic supplies (like electricity - which Nawaz Sharif emphasized in his 2013 campaign). While these concerns don't seem like primary motivations for either Imran Khan or Qadri, they're nevertheless using them to mobilize their supporters.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2014, 08:14:47 AM »

Not a single Pakistani Prime Minister has ever completed a full term in office, now have they?

What is Imran Khan's endgame here? I don't see how the leader of the third largest party could plausibly take power in any kind of plausible scenario. Unless there were to be a fourth coup; have there really been any reforms made or other changes since 2007 that would make a coup any less possible, anyway? And would that be what Khan is hoping for?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2014, 12:34:09 PM »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2014, 01:28:01 PM »
« Edited: August 17, 2014, 01:36:43 PM by They call me PR »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

Well for one thing, India had something like 90% of the subcontinent's industry before the partition, and much of the financial reserves from the colonial government. Not to mention the fact that there were already several thriving major cities in India...

Also keep in mind all of the refugees who were resettled n Pakistan in the years after the partition. There was a lot of violence and chaos in that process.

An unfair comparison, really.

Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2014, 01:38:25 PM »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

I don't like the direction Nehru took India on the economic front (which India is paying for till the present day) but I must give him credit where credit is due. He laid the foundation for a stable democracy and thankfully that has continued to this day. Why Jinnah failed at doing that is a very good question and I don't have a good answer to that. It should also be noted that after independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh has also been a fairly stable country despite facing much greater challenges than Pakistan.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2014, 01:42:34 PM »
« Edited: August 17, 2014, 01:44:12 PM by Sbane »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

Well for one thing, India had something like 90% of the subcontinent's industry before the partition, and much of the financial reserves from the colonial government. Not to mention the fact that there were already several thriving major cities in India...

Also keep in mind all of the refugees who were resettled n Pakistan in the years after the partition. There was a lot of violence and chaos in that process.

An unfair comparison, really.


That's not true. Pakistan had Karachi and Lahore, which were major cities before partition. And don't forget that refugees went both ways. There were plenty of refugees who flooded into India from Pakistan and what would later become Bangladesh. Delhi, for example, grew at an extraordinary rate during the time of partition as Sikh and Hindu refugees from Pakistani Punjab flooded in. In the east, the state of Assam has a massive Bengali population, many of whom moved from Bangladesh. The movement occurred slower on that front though, as the level of violence was also lower.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2014, 01:45:31 PM »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

I don't like the direction Nehru took India on the economic front (which India is paying for till the present day) but I must give him credit where credit is due. He laid the foundation for a stable democracy and thankfully that has continued to this day. Why Jinnah failed at doing that is a very good question and I don't have a good answer to that. It should also be noted that after independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh has also been a fairly stable country despite facing much greater challenges than Pakistan.

It should be noted that Nehru was alive and ruled India well into the 1960s, whereas Jinnah was dead in 1948. This left a leadership vacuum. That's one of many reasons for the divergent trajectories.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2014, 01:49:48 PM »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

Well for one thing, India had something like 90% of the subcontinent's industry before the partition, and much of the financial reserves from the colonial government. Not to mention the fact that there were already several thriving major cities in India...

Also keep in mind all of the refugees who were resettled n Pakistan in the years after the partition. There was a lot of violence and chaos in that process.

An unfair comparison, really.


That's not true. Pakistan had Karachi and Lahore, which were major cities before partition. And don't forget that refugees went both ways. There were plenty of refugees who flooded into India from Pakistan and what would later become Bangladesh. Delhi, for example, grew at an extraordinary rate during the time of partition as Sikh and Hindu refugees from Pakistani Punjab flooded in. In the east, the state of Assam has a massive Bengali population, many of whom moved from Bangladesh. The movement occurred slower on that front though, as the level of violence was also lower.

It should be noted that pre-partition, the business industries and professional spheres were largely dominated by Hindus, particularly in Karachi and Sindh as a whole. When many of these Hindus left for India, this was essentially an exodus of the middle class, which has crippled Sindh's economy.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2014, 02:05:56 PM »
« Edited: August 17, 2014, 02:23:11 PM by They call me PR »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

I don't like the direction Nehru took India on the economic front (which India is paying for till the present day) but I must give him credit where credit is due. He laid the foundation for a stable democracy and thankfully that has continued to this day. Why Jinnah failed at doing that is a very good question and I don't have a good answer to that. It should also be noted that after independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh has also been a fairly stable country despite facing much greater challenges than Pakistan.

It should be noted that Nehru was alive and ruled India well into the 1960s, whereas Jinnah was dead in 1948. This left a leadership vacuum. That's one of many reasons for the divergent trajectories.

Another big reason: General Muhammad Zia-al-Huq (well, in terms of understanding contemporary Pakistan and its...um...issues with extremist doctrines of Islam influencing/being used to justify the oppressive political situation).

Though how much of "Islamization" was interrelated with and inseparable context-wise  from the Soviet-Afghan War (same year, FWIW, as  the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the Iranian Revolution-geez, 1979 sure was crazy in the Islamic world! Tongue )

Not really a rhetorical question, btw-I'm curious about this.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2014, 02:45:47 PM »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

Well for one thing, India had something like 90% of the subcontinent's industry before the partition, and much of the financial reserves from the colonial government. Not to mention the fact that there were already several thriving major cities in India...

Also keep in mind all of the refugees who were resettled n Pakistan in the years after the partition. There was a lot of violence and chaos in that process.

An unfair comparison, really.


That's not true. Pakistan had Karachi and Lahore, which were major cities before partition. And don't forget that refugees went both ways. There were plenty of refugees who flooded into India from Pakistan and what would later become Bangladesh. Delhi, for example, grew at an extraordinary rate during the time of partition as Sikh and Hindu refugees from Pakistani Punjab flooded in. In the east, the state of Assam has a massive Bengali population, many of whom moved from Bangladesh. The movement occurred slower on that front though, as the level of violence was also lower.

It should be noted that pre-partition, the business industries and professional spheres were largely dominated by Hindus, particularly in Karachi and Sindh as a whole. When many of these Hindus left for India, this was essentially an exodus of the middle class, which has crippled Sindh's economy.

That was a very interesting article. I was shocked to learn Sindhis had a reputation in Pakistan of lacking entrepreneurship. That is the exact opposite impression of Sindhis that people have in India. Why was this particularly the case in Sindh and not in Punjab? Although I should note Punjabi refugees do form a large part of the business community in Delhi.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2014, 06:39:12 PM »

Pakistan is one of the two successor states to British India - India being the other one. India, by the standards of developing Asian countries, is a success story as far as functional democratic institutions and political stability. It's by and large a more ethically-challenged version of Westminster. Pakistan, by comparison, has been run more like a Central American banana republic or a post-monarchical Middle Eastern state. It's had a revolving door of reactionary military strongmen, occasionally punctuated by a populist civilian leader like one of the Bhuttos or their allies.

Both countries became independent with the same democratic and civil institutions - structures that had been put in place during British rule. So why did India end up being so much higher functioning than Pakistan? How did Pakistan end up having more in common with its neighbor to the west than with its neighbor to the east?

I don't like the direction Nehru took India on the economic front (which India is paying for till the present day) but I must give him credit where credit is due. He laid the foundation for a stable democracy and thankfully that has continued to this day. Why Jinnah failed at doing that is a very good question and I don't have a good answer to that. It should also be noted that after independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh has also been a fairly stable country despite facing much greater challenges than Pakistan.

It should be noted that Nehru was alive and ruled India well into the 1960s, whereas Jinnah was dead in 1948. This left a leadership vacuum. That's one of many reasons for the divergent trajectories.

Another big reason: General Muhammad Zia-al-Huq (well, in terms of understanding contemporary Pakistan and its...um...issues with extremist doctrines of Islam influencing/being used to justify the oppressive political situation).

Though how much of "Islamization" was interrelated with and inseparable context-wise  from the Soviet-Afghan War (same year, FWIW, as  the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the Iranian Revolution-geez, 1979 sure was crazy in the Islamic world! Tongue )

Not really a rhetorical question, btw-I'm curious about this.

Zia ul-Haq was a symptom of Pakistan's problems, not a cause. I guess my question is, why has there never been a military coup in India and why does the military exercise so much more power and influence in Pakistan than it does in India? Why are Pakistan's democratic institutions so much weaker than India's even though they both started off in more or less the same position in 1947?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2014, 07:23:33 PM »

Not a single Pakistani Prime Minister has ever completed a full term in office, now have they?

This may or may not answer your question: the last government, which ruled from 2008 to 2013, was the first to successfully complete a full term. That said, they went through two Prime Ministers, because the first one, Jilani, was disqualified by the Supreme Court relating to a corruption issue involving the ever controversial Asif Ali Zardari.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Imran Khan desperately wants to be Prime Minister, is what I'm sensing. The idea of the third largest party plausibly taking power sounds ridiculous, but I think it it's more possible than it seems. The second largest party, PPP, is currently a mess. They are dealing with numerous problems, one of which is - where is the leadership? Asif Ali Zardari may have been President (which I insist should have never happened, but of course did anyway) is not a great person to represent your party. He's not all that popular in Sindh, and has never been. He is corrupt and frankly, just a shady individual (see the 1996 death of Murtaza Bhutto). His marriage to Benazir Bhutto has puzzled so many people from the very start, because she was seen as the "Princess" of Pakistan, whereas he was a playboy from a not so great family. There are also numerous people who seem to think he was involved in his wife's death, after which he (according to her "will") assumed control of the party until their son is old enough to take over. At the time of her death, her son was eighteen (?). Plus, quite simply, their son is an idiot.

So PPP isn't really in much of a position to capitalize on whatever troubles PML-N had, and I believe PPP has publicly opposed Qadri and Khan's efforts to derail the government. Additionally, PPP has basically maxed out what they can in Sindh. In order to expand their numbers (in a hypothetical new election), they'd have to win seats in Punjab. Historically, they have performed well in Southern Punjab, but again, I don't think the party is in good shape right now. Nawaz Sharif and his brother are currently in hot water due to an incident near Qadri's party's headquarters in Lahore, which has dented Nawaz's popularity. I can see PTI improving their showing in Punjab, particularly near Lahore, whereas PPP wouldn't. I also just see people as still fatigued with the PPP, and PTI has some momentum coming off of their fairly impressive showing in the last election.

As for your question about whether a coup is more or less possible with reforms and such. I'm not really sure I can answer that, but I certainly think a coup is more possible than it ever was during the last government's rule. For one, the army and Nawaz Sharif do not like each other at all, and Nawaz is consistently annoying them with his insistence for trying Musharraf. Secondly, the current Army Chief is far more ambitious than the last one (Kayani) ever was. Kayani had numerous opportunities to take advantage of national issues and topple the PPP government - the bin Laden raid, Memogate, and a few others come to mind. Yet, he didn't. From what I've heard, he simply didn't want to be President. The new army chief is apparently a Musharraf protege and far more ambitious, so who knows? You never know with Pakistani politics haha.

Lack of ambition may have played a part but it also really wouldn't make sense to have a pro-Musharraf coup because of the bin Laden raid. We're talking about a coup by more or less secular, pro-Western forces in the army.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2014, 07:33:24 PM »
« Edited: March 02, 2019, 03:42:22 AM by ModerateVAVoter »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, I knew what you meant. Generally, whenever the army stages a coup, its able to do so by presenting itself as a competent alternative to the democratically-elected government for dealing with whatever national crisis. With the bin Laden raid, the army was utterly embarrassed and looked ridiculous. The fact bin Laden had (seemingly) lived undetected for years right across from Pakistan's equivalent West Point was embarrassing, and so was the idea that American troops had entered Pakistani airspace undetected. So the army couldn't really present itself as a competent alternative, and so there wasn't really popular support for a coup (like there have been in previous cases).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2014, 09:11:51 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, I knew what you meant. Generally, whenever the army stages a coup, its able to do so by presenting itself as a competent alternative to the democratically-elected government for dealing with whatever national crisis. With the bin Laden raid, the army was utterly embarrassed and looked ridiculous. The fact bin Laden had (seemingly) lived undetected for years right across from Pakistan's equivalent West Point was embarrassing, and so was the idea that American troops had entered Pakistani airspace undetected. So the army couldn't really present itself as a competent alternative, and so there wasn't really popular support for a coup (like there have been in previous cases).

This article is related to this topic, and I found it fairly interesting. If you're unable to open it due to paywall, let me know, and I can forward the text to you.

So why do you think Pakistan's military is more willing to grab political power than the Indian military. It's not as if India has always been ruled by competent leaders and obviously there is a high level of corruption. Yet the Indian military has never even given the inclination that they would want power, much less actually trying to enact a coup. Maybe it is because Jinnah died too early and there was no tradition of democratic governance established in Pakistan like it was in India by Nehru. What are your thoughts?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2014, 09:14:05 PM »

What was that absurd Raj term? Warrior Races? Too many of those in Pakistan (as in: too much pride in the army).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2014, 09:18:45 PM »

What was that absurd Raj term? Warrior Races? Too many of those in Pakistan (as in: too much pride in the army).

Martial race. I guess the Pashtuns and the Punjabis were considered as such. I think they constitute a majority of the population. Still, the Indian military is also highly represented by such "races" such as Punjabis and the Gorkhas.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2014, 10:29:11 AM »

Imran Khan's PTI 'to resign all Pakistan parliamentary seats.'

Ugh.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2014, 01:35:38 PM »


Zia ul-Haq was a symptom of Pakistan's problems, not a cause. I guess my question is, why has there never been a military coup in India and why does the military exercise so much more power and influence in Pakistan than it does in India? Why are Pakistan's democratic institutions so much weaker than India's even though they both started off in more or less the same position in 1947?

That's incredible easy to explain.

India and Pakistan are each others arch enemies.

India have 10 times the population of Pakistan (5 times the population, when Bangladesh was East Pakistan).

This mean that Pakistan need to invest a lot of resources and money into the army, while India need to invest less. That make a military coup easier in Pakistan than India, simply because there are more soldier per capita in Pakistan and the officer corps are a greater part of civil servants in Pakistan than India.

These greater investmentd in the army are also one of the main reasons that Pakistan do worse than India in general, as India can invest more in the civil society.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2014, 01:40:00 PM »


That's it. Even sillier than I remembered.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2014, 02:01:20 PM »
« Edited: August 18, 2014, 02:03:15 PM by Governor Simfan »

But Gurkhas!

In other news, 20,000 people are said to have turned up to Khan's "million man march".
Logged
swl
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 581
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2014, 04:28:00 AM »

If you have 25 minutes: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/08/who-behind-pakistan-political-unrest-2014831122947152592.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 12 queries.