I went back and quickly browsed through your posts and I think I didn't find any solutions. Am I missing something? You did extol the virtues of military rule and a military ruler a la Ataturk mode. Is that the solution you are talking about? I think its more of a comparison - civilian vs military rule. You put forward your arguments in favor and using my limited understanding and knowledge presented what I think are the flaw with it and suggested that in my humble opinion civilian rule is always better and specially in Pakistan.
My answer is simple (even though in my opinion presidential form of government with strict term limits - may be just one 5 year term) that we have a system in place. The problem is not with the system, its with the people and institutions exceeding their limits or boundaries. What we really need is collective realization that (what you called character problem in one of your posts) we have to change ourselves and give up the superficial and vanity that we are infatuated with and unless work on using common sense to address our problems we will not get anywhere.
Its not that other third world and developing countries don't have parliamentary form of government and they have their fair share of problems with it too but its nothing compared to what we have here. The amount of horse trading that takes place here is beyond belief. If we can somehow institute accountability and recognize that meritocracy is the only order of the day then we can overcome even the most complex problems.
It may not be the answer you are looking for. Sometime complex problems have very simple and common sense solutions. Between you and me to think that we will become Turkey or Malaysia (and at this stage even Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or Vietnam) any time in the near future. Currently we are just having a fight for our survival and before we can start running we have to re-learn how stand on our own feet.
Genetically lot of us are the same and if you go purely by genetics then all of us are related, arent we? I was grouping people who speak the Turkic languages and specifically the Turkish as we know it today. I may completely be off and probably don't know about what I am talking about.
But here again I will seek assistance from the most authentic source on the internet, the wikipedia ;-) Here is a map of Turkic people or people who speak some form of Turkic language and it specifically leaves out Mongolia. Check it out and let me know if I am missing something as usual :-)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png
I am sure you know where Mongolia is on the map but to save you some searching just in case:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mong...gl=us&ei=2AJBUNXoH8mK7AGm8oDYCA&ved=0CJIBELYD
I wish I had any ;-)
Will deal with the last point first.
Yes, the Turkic languages are the same and although, there isn't a dispute in this debate regarding that, we are just going on for no reason.
I do know where Mongolia (Outer Mongolia is what you're likely referring to, as "Inner Mongolia", the third separatist movement of China outside of Tibet and Xinjiang, also calls itself Mongolia).
With that said, they are the same people and ethnicity but since Mongolians are not Muslim, they are not necessarily included in the Altaic union's considerations.
Still not sure why we are debating this unless you want to do it to keep it relevant to the thread while we go at it with our own philosophical solutions for the nation's problems.
The people are the same and their languages are mutually intelligible as per the map that you showed me. Ethnically, they are grouped with Mongolians but I mean they are all considered Altaic people.
I am sure somewhere on our trusted Wikipedia, there is information on the similarities between Turkish and Mongolian languages but obviously convincing you is not the point anymore as we are debating nothing but facts for which the only reason could be _____ (fill the blank here as I don't know what the reason is).
And yes, we are all god's children, but I am going to hope you got my point and are not going to be dismissive of what I say for the sake of carrying on a debate that serves no purpose except for an image on an internet forum of which you are not (hopefully) concerned about.
Regarding the system:
I beg to differ, I personally think that your solutions, although, right and in principle, excellent, are not practical and do not apply to the country at the stage that we are in now.
Even the United States did not have it's 22nd amendment ratified up until the 1950s (after Pakistan's founding). This states that a president may not serve more than 10 years, in other words, 2 full 4-year terms and 2 years extra.
This is the presidential system they were unable to enact till after 100 something years of their founding.
In between and even after, there were wars, assassinations and other issues that resulted in the lack of full terms being served ("-gate" scandal that we apply to everything in Pakistan is another example).
In essence, what we are looking at in Pakistan is no different.
My proposal that you failed to either acknowledge or understand is the same and it is that Pakistan will need security, stability and peace and that, too only under the Military as the civilian sector is unable to enact that kind of a situation due to it's fundamentally weak infrastructure and lack of "meritocracy" (using your word).
The army, although, along with its nepotism and weaknesses and drawbacks might not be your best choice in a country that you would rather choose to run on a democratic system, is still a better alternate until something better arises, which till now, has not.
Here is a video of the Shah explaining the lack of the desire of his people to have a Britain-style democracy and other charges that people from the third-world have to face while the first-world is free from having to respond to them. Will be making a thread of this, as well.
Apparently, Shah's "sharp" mouth got him into trouble and removing him was sought to be the best choice. And we all know how that turned out(bigsmile).
A similar thing happened with Musharraf when he stepped out of line by choosing to make certain decisions in his nation's interests. Similar to the Shah.
Unlike with the Shah, the alternate to Musharraf has not troubled certain powers. However, like in Shah's situation, the alternate to Musharraf has definitely destroyed the nation and caused an unimaginable brain drain.
In the end, I am going to share with you a complaint out of disappointment and sincerity and it is that you have led your ego to make certain decisions in this debate of which ignoring and not ceding to certain points' accuracy are an utmost concern.
Continuing this conversation only serves my interest of having a fruitful debate on a subject matter that I feel needs addressing but not budging and suggesting that you will not do so, passionately, shows that we have certain "interests" and we will not move from them as if it is blasphemous to do so.
If logic is the criteria at hand, then, willing to move from the opinion you are predisposed to have, is important, especially, in a debate like this. Having blind faith in favor of one opinion serves nothing but difficulty in any political discourse.
