moizza said...
just to add some grain to the chaff on fundamentalist politics in pakistan --> to legitimize absence of any sort of equitable economic growth, the state had to resort to a religious discourse but it has not been able to hijack it. consequently, right now, the only legitimate and legal voice of political opposition to Musharraf comes from the religious lobby what with their demands that he doff his uniform etc.i don't know (need to study this more) but i think most case studies and literature suggests that allowing democratic participation of religious politics generally tends to undermine the fundo part of the agenda because the non-secular parties in the end have to garner votes and have to deliver.

on jarrar's suggestion that economic development needs to be the vanguard: pakistan's problematic status quo seems to stem from the fact that its political and economic development occurred separately (as opposed to the european experience etc. where colonisation didn't hand over a custom made political set up) so the curative value of just economic development is questionable specially when you take into account that equitable distribution can't really come about without some sort of political plan/government ideology.

to an extent i agree with moizza that the state used religion to mobilise and distract people form its repeated shortcomings.however i dont agree with the notion that fundamentalists when given the chance to take part in mainstream politics tend to lose their fundamentalist edge. in pakistan i strongly believe that if the fundos were to win an election, they would change the constitution immeadiatly so as to make their rule perpetual.the reason why people will support them is two fold.the continued brainwashing or propogation of a particular interpretation of islam to the public for the last thirty odd years coupled with successive 'secular' parties inability to deliever economically as well as politically for the massess.and given the current international environment post 9/11 the fundos with their fundo message could and are becoming more appealing to the public at large.since the state has allowed the MMA people to become the 'thaikadars' of Islam its very difficult to refute their propoganda.For eg.ignoring the fact that the establishment allowed the MMa to win elections in NWFP in 2002, the MMA would have won anyway.the reason being that the MMA chose as their election symbol the Quran.and their campaign was not vote for MR XYZ.it was Vote for the Quran.NWFP heavily affected by tradition and talibanisation in neighboring afghanistan chose the Quran.Turkey is the only muslim country where religious parties have discarded their extremist baggage so as to garner votes.they were forced to do this cos Turkey has been brainwashed secular since attaturk in the 1920's.

finally i still believe that economic growth and development is the better way forward.for a third country living in a competitive globalised shrinking world theres no other way.distribution of income cant happen from day one.and i dont believe that the past 50 years anything of note really happened because there was no coherency in planning or policies.for me 1999 is the base year to rely on.if certain policies (that unfortunatly&with all respect for some) happen to be market driven are employed in a stable environment for 10-15 years this country will experience tremendous positive change.again like i said we dont have to look to examples dating back many years nor do we need to look at countries far from us.it has happened and is happening in South east asia and eastern europe.not everyone can be an industrialist or trader.in a free market there will be some who make it bigger than others.the main point is providing an even playing field to all.that means quality education and health services.if the previous two budgets is anything to go by we can already see a quantum leap in spending on these sectors.its not enough but its going in the right direction.thats something that one didnt see in the decade of the 90's
finally given the cold war.infact given recorded history ive stopped believing in ideologies.they end up being destructive and non-productive.politically the only ideology i see fit is that of good governance.where the leaders dont see themselves as rulers but as servants for the massess.pretty pie in the sky stuff cos once u taste power power corrupts.but when i see musharraf or even shaukat aziz i see people who are genuinely sincere for the well being of this country and its massess.again something that i didnt feel or see in the 90's.finally musharaf has an ideolgy.its not so bad and encompasses just about everything;enlightened moderation.its another story that most of the ruling party doesnt believe in it but at least he himself has a vision.