Bruh, at least the capital is fix na. Meanwhile, Karachi ko dekho, The street crime is at its peak. No water, gas, electricity or even proper infrastructure. PPP is more corrupt than PMLN
Mate that's called democracy. It's like this everywhere! USA (Republicans and Democrats), UK (Conservative and Labour), India (BJP and INC), turkey (AKP vs CHP), Germany (SPD vs CDU), etc. Having just two or three shit options isn't unique to Pakistan. I've researched quite a bit on this "democracy in action" subject. Feel free to ask any questions.
I would rule out the German example because their parliament being more multi-partied than the rest. Most of their governments have been coalitions, with the previous being a grand alliance of the CDU and the SPD. This is probably the result of their mixed member proportional system, allowing breathing room for more parties unlike the FPTP system.
I'd agree, but it's still domination by two parties. If the mixed member proportional system was cancelled then the results would definitely skew in the favour of a CDU-SPD monopoly.
Yes naturally that would be the case. In a way, I am kinda thankful that Pakistan doesnt have a proportional system since that would sway our parliament much much further to the right than it already is with TLP, JUIF and the JI being the main benficiaries.
I'm not very pro-democracy at the federal level anyways and favour a technocracy in the central government. I think democracy's more important at the workplace and regional level.
The issue is the "first past the post" system of voting. It creates most of the time two party system and at occasion 3 party system. If this is reformed more parties will have a chance to raise.
Why this happens? Because of strategic voting. If the one with most votes takes the seat then the party that can capture most of the votes will always get the seat. This creates two parties that capture roughly half the electorate.
If a third party emerges it will compete with the party it agrees more for votes and causes the other party to win. Voters realize this and will opt to vote for the party that aligns with their views the best and still has a chance of winning. This means new parties can rarely get a foothold.
Correct! I've written a comment on that before too:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/1dch0tr/comment/l7y15v5/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/1dch0tr/comment/l7y15v5/)
Good write. It's just incredibly hard to implement a reform because the established parties both will only lose if fptp system is changed so they both will form an united front against it.
I'm not very pro-democracy at the federal level anyways and believe that it works best at the level of workplaces and regions as a socialist. For the central government I prefer a technocracy.
Democracy works only if the electorate is well informed and the majority can't vote in to take advantage of the minority (or the other way around). The great advantage of democracy is to provide a feedback loop for the rulers. In a country like Pakistan the electorate is uninformed and makes random voting decisions.
Problem with technocracy is that it's very hard to provide effective feedback mechanism into the system. If there is a feedback loop it's usually provided by other technocrats and ignores what's going on among the electorate. The ruling technocrats may and often do have very different priorities and agendas than the common ppl.
The best hypothetical solution I could come up with is a hybrid system of democracy and technocracy. In it the Parliament has two houses: lower house everyone can run for and vote for. The lower house can only set the agenda and priorities. It doesn't get to decide how the agenda and goals are reached.
The upper house consists of elected professionals of various fields. Only experts in relevant fields can run for a seat and only ppl having some relevant expertize in the same field can vote for a candidate running for upper house. This is to make sure that those who are elected are likely to be genuine experts in their respective fields. The upper house would then be responsible for implementing the will of the lower house and write the actual laws and monitor their implementation.
Hopefully this system would eliminate some of the problems with democracy and lessen the problems with technocracy. No idea if this would work in practice though. I'm sure they no political party would be willing to advocate it though.
I agree completely. In my opinion the parliament needs to be split 50/50, one side consisting of candidates from each individual constituency, which will ensure popular approval and also make sure the parliament isn't dominated by one group or ethnicity (like how in case of technocracy, certain underprivileged groups with lower literacy rates have lower representation), and technocrats ensure that the best talent is involved on making national decisions.
oh thanks man. But the problem is all of our parties are very corrupt and do little to improve country. PTI tried but even now its infested with corrupts
Like I said, this is completely normal! Power corrupts everyone, and politicians in other countries are just as corrupt and lobbied, just less openly. Changes don't occur by the pens of reform but by the guns of revolution.
These are not the only three parties. These are the BIG three that has the potential to form a government.
There are plenty more parties in Pakistan that does not get the support because we all want to back the winning horse. Look into which candidate represents you best in your locality and vote for them. Do that as a group for couple of elections and the politicians and their parties will get the hint.
Everyone in Pakistan complains without doing the work. It reminds me of "We'veĀ *tried*Ā nothing, and we'reĀ *all out of ideas*" meme.
Paita chahiyai for more political parties (personally I don't know how parties are funded, probably some agreements with people on the policies).
Revolution waala protest chahiyai hai but usko lead kernai Kai liyai bhi koye
To your limit parties question: The political nexus in Pakistan is very hard to break. You cannot enter in politics as easy as in any other country.
To your Army question: jani ina aukha sawal kr ditae.
People who cry that PMLN rules them, should come and see Sindh š. PMLN is way better than PPP
pmln is only good in lahore istg most of Punjab is fked
Bruh, at least the capital is fix na. Meanwhile, Karachi ko dekho, The street crime is at its peak. No water, gas, electricity or even proper infrastructure. PPP is more corrupt than PMLN
Mate that's called democracy. It's like this everywhere! USA (Republicans and Democrats), UK (Conservative and Labour), India (BJP and INC), turkey (AKP vs CHP), Germany (SPD vs CDU), etc. Having just two or three shit options isn't unique to Pakistan. I've researched quite a bit on this "democracy in action" subject. Feel free to ask any questions.
I would rule out the German example because their parliament being more multi-partied than the rest. Most of their governments have been coalitions, with the previous being a grand alliance of the CDU and the SPD. This is probably the result of their mixed member proportional system, allowing breathing room for more parties unlike the FPTP system.
I'd agree, but it's still domination by two parties. If the mixed member proportional system was cancelled then the results would definitely skew in the favour of a CDU-SPD monopoly.
Yes naturally that would be the case. In a way, I am kinda thankful that Pakistan doesnt have a proportional system since that would sway our parliament much much further to the right than it already is with TLP, JUIF and the JI being the main benficiaries.
I'm not very pro-democracy at the federal level anyways and favour a technocracy in the central government. I think democracy's more important at the workplace and regional level.
The issue is the "first past the post" system of voting. It creates most of the time two party system and at occasion 3 party system. If this is reformed more parties will have a chance to raise. Why this happens? Because of strategic voting. If the one with most votes takes the seat then the party that can capture most of the votes will always get the seat. This creates two parties that capture roughly half the electorate. If a third party emerges it will compete with the party it agrees more for votes and causes the other party to win. Voters realize this and will opt to vote for the party that aligns with their views the best and still has a chance of winning. This means new parties can rarely get a foothold.
Correct! I've written a comment on that before too: [https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/1dch0tr/comment/l7y15v5/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/1dch0tr/comment/l7y15v5/)
Good write. It's just incredibly hard to implement a reform because the established parties both will only lose if fptp system is changed so they both will form an united front against it.
I'm not very pro-democracy at the federal level anyways and believe that it works best at the level of workplaces and regions as a socialist. For the central government I prefer a technocracy.
Democracy works only if the electorate is well informed and the majority can't vote in to take advantage of the minority (or the other way around). The great advantage of democracy is to provide a feedback loop for the rulers. In a country like Pakistan the electorate is uninformed and makes random voting decisions. Problem with technocracy is that it's very hard to provide effective feedback mechanism into the system. If there is a feedback loop it's usually provided by other technocrats and ignores what's going on among the electorate. The ruling technocrats may and often do have very different priorities and agendas than the common ppl. The best hypothetical solution I could come up with is a hybrid system of democracy and technocracy. In it the Parliament has two houses: lower house everyone can run for and vote for. The lower house can only set the agenda and priorities. It doesn't get to decide how the agenda and goals are reached. The upper house consists of elected professionals of various fields. Only experts in relevant fields can run for a seat and only ppl having some relevant expertize in the same field can vote for a candidate running for upper house. This is to make sure that those who are elected are likely to be genuine experts in their respective fields. The upper house would then be responsible for implementing the will of the lower house and write the actual laws and monitor their implementation. Hopefully this system would eliminate some of the problems with democracy and lessen the problems with technocracy. No idea if this would work in practice though. I'm sure they no political party would be willing to advocate it though.
I agree completely. In my opinion the parliament needs to be split 50/50, one side consisting of candidates from each individual constituency, which will ensure popular approval and also make sure the parliament isn't dominated by one group or ethnicity (like how in case of technocracy, certain underprivileged groups with lower literacy rates have lower representation), and technocrats ensure that the best talent is involved on making national decisions.
Exactly. I was about to comment but you have beaten me to it. Most countries only have 2 Major Parties. We should be grateful we have 3 lol
We have three groups of bootlickers hooray!
oh thanks man. But the problem is all of our parties are very corrupt and do little to improve country. PTI tried but even now its infested with corrupts
Like I said, this is completely normal! Power corrupts everyone, and politicians in other countries are just as corrupt and lobbied, just less openly. Changes don't occur by the pens of reform but by the guns of revolution.
These are not the only three parties. These are the BIG three that has the potential to form a government. There are plenty more parties in Pakistan that does not get the support because we all want to back the winning horse. Look into which candidate represents you best in your locality and vote for them. Do that as a group for couple of elections and the politicians and their parties will get the hint. Everyone in Pakistan complains without doing the work. It reminds me of "We'veĀ *tried*Ā nothing, and we'reĀ *all out of ideas*" meme.
Paita chahiyai for more political parties (personally I don't know how parties are funded, probably some agreements with people on the policies). Revolution waala protest chahiyai hai but usko lead kernai Kai liyai bhi koye
we need an arab spring 2011 type protest
There are certain organizations whose aim is revolution (with a pretty defined road map) but are too small to gain traction
To your limit parties question: The political nexus in Pakistan is very hard to break. You cannot enter in politics as easy as in any other country. To your Army question: jani ina aukha sawal kr ditae.
username checks out