US shall reduce the aid for Pak

[ladder]

Democracy has no place in an illetterate society controlled by feudal lords, period!
Our best option is to have a semi democratic chinese model which must eliminate the feudals and empower the comon man.

A democratic elected Musharraf would not be as strong but he went into the history as the least corrupt regime. If he was given another term he would have completed his economic reforms, 3 large dams would have been built and the economy would be growing at a healthy rate with no loadshedding.

Pessimis can only be killed if there are visible results of governments policies. The middle class grew strong under mushaaraf and poverty was reduced to a record low of 23%.

Differences in approach.

Sorry for bringing in India. But it was required to.

Starting from same beginning, we too had illiteracy and feudalism. You decided to promote literacy and kept the disbanding of feudal system for latter. We on the other hand first disbanded feudalism through land ceiling act and nationalization of king/rulers property and made them to live on govt. compensation. For our fore-fathers had realized that if feudalism existed, promotion of literacy is not possible.

Not that we succeeded tremendously, but going by the fact that no one in India will concur with your statement ( illiteracy and democracy can't coexist) here , I feel we have had done satisfactory job out of it.

You don't need a Chinese model to weed out feudalism. Though you can implement it, it's modalities are again for a separate discussion.

Needles to say, for you may know, with great leap of China, they did leave many things behind. If that sort of thing is acceptable to your masses, who take pride in their historical grandeur?

A person like Musharraf, for the visionary that he was, what were his steps in curtailing feudalism and how that figured in his economic model?

Thanks for accepting that a elected Musharraf would not have been that strong as he was as a dictator. But, if not strong what he would have been? Accommodating, isn't it?

And what does 'accommodating' mean in this context? He would have had to look the other way when is ministers and waderas siphoned off the public money and indulge in corruption. So, your statement, which states with conviction that his would have been the least corrupted govt. is doubtful.

His govt. was 'superficially' successful ( I in this post would discuss why) but then again, why did your masses chose democracy over him? This is exactly why in my previous post I had mentioned that your masses haven't have had a appetite for dictatorship. For they have always supported coup as a means for forceful change for status co. rather than a long term solution. For answer to this every military dictator after assuming power have invariably promised to hold election in 100/200/300 days. But whether he did that or not is a separate issue.

True, pessimism can be killed by visible govt. policies, and education is one among them. For education teaches that if one's economy is free falling, then it has to bottom out, before raising again. If masses cannot understand that and get edgy because of the free fall and invite for a coup, then it is a pessimistic national sentiment.

Leave middle class, rich in your country haven't have grown pessimistic? They have. Just rise in disposable income will not weed out pessimism. With rise in income also increases demand and dependence on amenities.

See a couple of European economies, see how aggressively they are protesting austerities. Are they all poor?

 

[Glint]

If US stops the aid, then how would Pakistan train the talis?