Why Doesn’t Military Come & Talk Direct Instead of Using Tatoos Like Vawda?
- Thread starter Azaadi
- Start date
الماس بوبی اور بلاول زرداری دونوں نیوٹرلthey are neutrals and have nothing to do with politics
What’s the point having ISPR?
Those words don’t mean nothing past 2 years everyone knows it’s militarythey are neutrals and have nothing to do with politics
How do you control corrupt mafia. How do you bring mafias under the law?
wasiqjaved
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Direct involvement in politics can damage their public image and legitimacy, as they are not allowed to do politics and always claim they never do so. By using civilian proxies or political allies, they can exert influence while maintaining a veneer of impartiality and professionalism. This helps them in maintaining legitimacy and public image.
If political decisions or actions taken under army's influence lead to negative outcomes, then blame can be shifted to the civilian leaders or their intermediaries (stooges) like Faisal Wapda, Najam $hitty, Mohsin Nackwee protecting military from direct criticism and accountability.
Pakistan's constitution delineates clear boundaries between civilian and military roles. Direct political involvement by GHQ can be seen as unconstitutional and can attract legal challenges and international criticism. Using proxies helps army navigate these constraints and legalities while also giving a 'civilian look' to their illegitimate regime.
Army's indirect approach has been shaped by historical precedents. Past direct military interventions, such as coups, have led to periods of military rule that eventually faced domestic and international pressure to return to civilian governance. Use of proxies allows them to influence politics without repeating these cycles of direct intervention and withdrawal.
Pakistan's political landscape is complex and fragmented. By supporting various political actors and parties, GHQ can maintain a flexible and dynamic influence over the whole political process, ensuring that no single entity becomes too powerful or independent. Hence, they manipulate electoral process as well as judiciary.
Maintaining level of ambiguity regarding the extent of their influence allows the military to operate more freely. It makes it difficult for opponents to pinpoint or challenge their role, thereby providing strategic advantages. For this, they often use security agencies and their covert tactics to threaten civilian office holders.
Overall, use of proxies allows the Pakistan Army to exert significant influence over the political sphere while avoiding the pitfalls and repercussions of overt political involvement. This allow them to circumnavigate political landscape of Pakistan from behind the scenes in order to avoid having to take any blame for any mishaps.
Citizen X
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
This is not a mafia, mafia is still afraid of the law and works in the shadows and silence, all big mafia's were broken by law enforcement. This is a hybrid totalitarian/authoritarian régime masquerading as a democracy out of necessity so it is eligible for foreign bheek. Because no one wants to be seen giving bheek to dictators.
tahirmajid
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
is se to acha tha yehi batein ISPR kar deta, is tarha kay third class logo ko aagey na karein, is jaiso ko kon sunta hay
How do bring them under law? Has anytime like this happened before in any Part of the the world?
Their image is already damaged past 2 years ago. 90% of Pakistan are against them they all know military is behind everything
Citizen X
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
Yes of course Many many times, biggest example, Pakistan itself. Several ways this has happened in history. Civil war, armed revolution, peaceful revolution.
You can look up examples of these online. But in recent past the most successful have been non violent revolutions. of course even in them a few incidents of violence do occur here and there, but overall they remain non violent and peaceful.
India and Pakistan mostly non violent, most of the violence occurred post independence, falling of the Berlin wall, end of the South African apartheid, Thailand, well sort of.
Another example of violent revolution and civil war, Bangladesh, although the bengalis did not want a civil war or violence, they were just peacefully asking for their rights and mandate.
Digital_Pakistani
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Balls problem.
Citizen X
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
Issi baat per bohat awlaa tweet aai hai
