During the times of martial laws in Pakistan we did have a relatively better economic period, but that is not owed to good governance from the dictators. The time and scenario were such that a lot of foreign aid was pouring in. The matter gets worse when we see that there was no transparency in the usage of those funds and hence corruption could have even been more. We should not elect corrupt leaders but neither should all our money be spent on the army. What we need is a better understanding as Pakistani's to make an informed selection while we select our leaders.
The economic prosperity you mentioned can not be attributed to the dictators of the time but instead to a series of other factors such as increasing productivity. As a general rule, foreign investment and business start-ups tend to decrease as soon as a dictator steps in.
Dictatorships lead to the budget being invested in the hands of the army, but as you already know a large chunk of our budget already goes to the army ( $6.98 Billion ). Pakistan Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Armed_Forces Why is this so even under democracy in Pakistan? If such funds were invested in health and sanitation, the country might have prospered. As far as the debate regarding choosing between a corrupt democracy and a military dictatorship is concerned, the state should hold a referendum and maybe a dictatorship will only be by its name. This would be because the dictators might even get elected at this point.
The view presented highlights a strong bias towards dictatorship in light of some examples from history. However, what have not been considered are the numerous examples where dictatorship proved to be a form of government that holds one tyrannical leader in power over the nation. This goes against the fundamental rights of Liberty and freedom which are supported by the idea of democracy. So even if democratically elected leaders do not implement the principles illustrated by democracy, the nation has the right to revolt against it.
4 comments:
During the times of martial laws in Pakistan we did have a relatively better economic period, but that is not owed to good governance from the dictators. The time and scenario were such that a lot of foreign aid was pouring in. The matter gets worse when we see that there was no transparency in the usage of those funds and hence corruption could have even been more. We should not elect corrupt leaders but neither should all our money be spent on the army. What we need is a better understanding as Pakistani's to make an informed selection while we select our leaders.
The economic prosperity you mentioned can not be attributed to the dictators of the time but instead to a series of other factors such as increasing productivity. As a general rule, foreign investment and business start-ups tend to decrease as soon as a dictator steps in.
Dictatorships lead to the budget being invested in the hands of the army, but as you already know a large chunk of our budget already goes to the army ( $6.98 Billion ). Pakistan Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Armed_Forces
Why is this so even under democracy in Pakistan?
If such funds were invested in health and sanitation, the country might have prospered.
As far as the debate regarding choosing between a corrupt democracy and a military dictatorship is concerned, the state should hold a referendum and maybe a dictatorship will only be by its name. This would be because the dictators might even get elected at this point.
The view presented highlights a strong bias towards dictatorship in light of some examples from history. However, what have not been considered are the numerous examples where dictatorship proved to be a form of government that holds one tyrannical leader in power over the nation. This goes against the fundamental rights of Liberty and freedom which are supported by the idea of democracy. So even if democratically elected leaders do not implement the principles illustrated by democracy, the nation has the right to revolt against it.
Post a Comment