Pakistan

[statsman]

Well here's an interesting turn of events.

The President of Pakistan has moved his country from democracy to military dictatorship simply so he can stay in power.

He's claiming there will be new elections in January. I'll wait to see if that happens. Absolute power has a tendancy to be habit forming.

 

[Pauldohert]

Democracy is overrated it gave us Blair and the US Bush.

There is some evidence a lot of people share my opinion - ie those who don't vote.

 

[Rich]

He was a dictator before this second declaration of military rule and has the full backing of America in Bush and Bliars war on terror. The terror inflicted on Pakistan by this dictator of course isn't Bush's concern

 

[skilche1]

This is one touchy situation they’re in. I have a funny feeling her will not last that long. I have a feeling he will be assassinated , then the country will turn into a Terrorist haven with NUKES. Is that something we really need these day?

What a scary World in we live in these days. ugggg

~Kilch

 

[Rich]

Yes, it's as scary as having an idiot called Bush as the president of the most powerful country in the world....

 

[rsmonkey]

Ermm Blair was actually a pretty good PM, economically the country is sound for now and there was little he could do but follow the US in alotta situations. Unfortunatley George Bush is a tard, & the US have some serious economical issues to deal with. And how can you say that democracy is overated? How can a system that works to improve itself based upon the opinion of the voting public be a floored one? Look at the benefits a decent democracy has such as a good health care system etc... ignore Michael Moore he's a bigot, our health system is by no means perfect. As much as i would love the monarch to return to power in this day and age they dont have have the resources/knowledge or respect ot efficiently run britons intricate infrastructure..

As for the president of pakistan although he has support of the army, he doesnt have the support of the US and they will stop their aid, which will be a big blow to pakistan!

 

[GaryPanic]

Ermm Blair was actually a pretty good PM, economically the country is sound for now and there was little he could do but follow the US in alotta situations. Unfortunatley George Bush is a tard, & the US have some serious economical issues to deal with. And how can you say that democracy is overated? How can a system that works to improve itself based upon the opinion of the voting public be a floored one? Look at the benefits a decent democracy has such as a good health care system etc... ignore Michael Moore he's a bigot, our health system is by no means perfect. As much as i would love the monarch to return to power in this day and age they dont have have the resources/knowledge or respect ot efficiently run britons intricate infrastructure..

As for the president of pakistan although he has support of the army, he doesnt have the support of the US and they will stop their aid, which will be a big blow to pakistan!

Blair ... Good (Good Greif more like)

as to the country being in pretty good condition - no he cannot take credit for this - THe conservatives took the bull by the horn and did the hard work of correcting the figures - this muppet (Blair) has benefited from this - it can take up to 7-10 years for any real meaningful monartary policy to bear any real fruit ..

now lets look at hospitals -, .. eer let's not .., lets look at crime ... eer better not (only 27% of crimes in the south east are solved)- lets look at wealth distribution-- eerm better not .

lets look at morals ...I don't trust this goverment - and I don't trust policitians because in general - a few exceptions (from all three parties)

THe european treaty where s the referumend(?)...
No Blair could of authrosised this befoe leaving office - but no the dscumbag didn't.

as to Pakistan - I am not close enough to it to give any meaningful view -
as to whether a democray or dictarorship works does depend on a lot of things the main one being education..
if the dictartor was adoing it for te good of the country and not him/herself and not for a clan or sub group of people - would this be a bad thing - ok no real representation- but also no bullshit ruules to abide by - just one voice saying do this and if te country benefitted from it - (My example I know is pie in the sky- but would a demoncracy be any better - probably not - costs more to run etc...
)

 

[Pauldohert]

Ermm Blair was actually a pretty good PM

The fact that people with opinions like that have a say in running the country shows the flaws of democracy.

 

[skilche1]

...shows the flaws of democracy.

Because of democracy, it permits rsmonkey to speak his mind. It all depends on how its run.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Democracy and Universal suffrage are flawed, but like old age, are better than the alternatives.

Our problem is in our voting system which means that in a city like Liverpool non Labour voters are pretyy much disenfranchised, the reverse tends to apply in the shires.

Brian

 

[Len Boorman]

I would ask then question that if a President/PM od a country can impose Military rule without the justification of intense civil unrest, civil war or similar then did a Democracy actually exist.

I think that if any PM in this country attempted to impose military rule without there having been quite amazing civil disturbances he would have a riot on his hands to say the least. Either that or the brits would just carry on as normal and ignore the government (military or Civil) as they generally do anyway.

Len

Edit add

Maybe we do not ignore the government, maybe the government are there so that their lack of doing anything at all to the benefit of this country can be criticised thus we have something to talk about.

Its that or the weather

Somebody said they had done a good job.... please be precise cos I just did not notice.

 

[dan-cat]

Maybe we do not ignore the government, maybe the government are there so that their lack of doing anything at all to the benefit of this country can be criticised thus we have something to talk about.

Or somebody to blame

Its that or the weather

Which is the government's fault

Somebody said they had done a good job.... please be precise cos I just did not notice.

QED

 

[Pauldohert]

If we had a dictatorship , when Blair went - the likelyhood is we could have executed him - or he would have been assinated as part of a coup.

We have missed out on this opportunity by having a "democracy".

 

[Brianwarnock]

I think Paul has a naive view of how dictators work, and the chaos that can follow any assasination.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

I think Paul has a naive view of how dictators work, and the chaos that can follow any assasination.

Brian

I know he wasn't assasinated but look at the aftermath of Tito's death.

 

[Rich]

I know he wasn't assasinated but look at the aftermath of Tito's death.

And don't forget Hussein

 

[ShaneMan]

If we had a dictatorship , when Blair went - the likelyhood is we could have executed him - or he would have been assinated as part of a coup.

We have missed out on this opportunity by having a "democracy".

You could do something rather than saying something. Move to a country with a dictator, then you would have what you want. Possibly the country of the dictators picture you have as part of your signature.

 

[Pauldohert]

You could do something rather than saying something. Move to a country with a dictator, then you would have what you want. Possibly the country of the dictators picture you have as part of your signature.

Are you inciting me to an assasination? - Or is the only other alternative in a democracy if I do not like how it is run , to exile myself. Sounds much the same as a dictatorship to me.

Your supposed to be arguing that our democracy is good.

(PS my only defence of dictatorship has been the fact we could kill them at the end - the may guess I was kinda joking! Though it was Blair so I understand the confusion.)

The Midlothian Question, the fact that 40% of the popular vote can give you a huge majority in Parliament, that our PM has never been elected as PM, and realistically we are a two party (the third will never be elected) state at best (two parties with exactly the same policies most of the time), and the first past the post principal - that means if you have a losing vote, you may as well not have voted at all - would indicate to me - we have a pretty poor democracy.

But as long as we aren't Muslim, or have differant economic theories to mainstream USA - thats OK.

 

[Pauldohert]

I know he wasn't assasinated but look at the aftermath of Tito's death.

Judy Garland certainly had her ups and downs.

 

[statsman]

The old Yugoslavia was a mixture of different ethnic groups that hated each other. It took a "strong man" dictator to keep it together and working. The various groups accepted Tito based on his war record, his unwillingness to favour one group over another, his commitment to the people and his ability to keep the country "non-aligned".
When Tito passed away, the vaccum in the power structure became apparent almost at once.