Miftah fires back at Dynastic Political Parties

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)

Miftah Ismail Published March 1, 2023 Updated a day ago
63fe8fe4c9ed2.jpg
IT has become de rigueur these days for many commentators to speak alarmingly about the pitfalls of political dynasties. The ‘dynasties’ they particularly disapprove of are the Sharif and the Bhutto families.

Yet it is ironic that even as they oppose ‘dynasties’, they are happy to support a ‘monarchy’, even knowing that it is monarchies that give rise to dynasties.

If some parties are called dynasties then consistency demands that parties where no leaders are given any importance except the supreme leader, and where other party leaders who have tried like Icarus to fly too close to the sun have seen their wings melt away, should be called monarchies.

After all, there is no qualitative difference between arguing that only one family is capable of ruling and only one man is capable of ruling forever. Neither is there any difference between one family or one man having a chokehold on a political party. Unfortunately, it is these dictatorial chokeholds that produce disastrous decisions, especially in the appointment of unsuitable people to important positions.

Political dynasties are of course not unique to Pakistan. The Nehru/Gandhi family in India, the Mujib family in Bangladesh, the Bandaranaike and Rajapaska families in Sir Lanka, the Aquino and Marcos families in the Philippines are examples.

When our Constitution gives so much power to party leaders, what power can legislators have?

But in Pakistan the power of party leaders is sui generis in its totality and renders all parties — save the Jamaat-i-Islami — dynastic parties, whether run by a ruling family or a supreme leader. Our Constitution, institutions and politics all play a part in making leaders dictatorial.

After changing prime ministers more frequently than summer interns during the first 11 years, we went into three successive martial laws that lasted for 30 years until 1988, except for four years of Zulfikar Bhutto’s constitutional rule, albeit under an emergency that suspended basic rights.

The next 11 years saw two elected prime ministers trade places four times, with four caretaker prime ministers put in place each time an elected prime minister was ousted with Rawalpindi’s help. This merry-go-round only ended when Gen Musharraf took over.

An avenue of instability during those years was Article 58(2)(b), a constitutional provision that allowed presidents (with a wink from the establishment) to remove elected prime ministers. Another was the changing of loyalties of legislators through the influence the establishment could bring to bear on them. To counter them, the National Assembly passed the 14th Amendment in 1997 that deleted 58(2)(b) and also took away powers from legislators to vote according to their own will. Now, rather than their conscience or fear or money, legislators had to vote according to the wishes of their party heads.

After martial law ended, the 18th Amendment again deleted 58(2)(b), which Gen Musharraf had brought back, and also delineated the issues where legislators had to vote according to the desires of their leaders, even if they were elected as independents, unless they were willing to lose their seats.

Recently, the Supreme Court has gone a step further, a step perhaps not even envisaged in the Constitution, and said that a legislator’s vote against his parliamentary leader’s orders can’t even be counted.

So a journey that began with ostensibly trying to stop the meddling of institutions but in reality was also meant to free the party leaders from the ‘nuisance’ of listening to their legislators, has finally rendered parliament nearly superfluous. No legislator now has any say on who the PM should be, what the budget should be and what constitutional amendments should be approved. It is only the few party leaders who get to decide.

When our Constitution gives so much power to party leaders, what power can legislators have?
Why would there not be dynasties or monarchies?

Party heads would contend this was done to contain the establishment’s influence on legislators. But our living experience tells us that when the establishment wants to interfere, it finds a way. So these amendments haven’t reduced the establishment’s ability to interfere, just given party heads total power over individual legislators.

The way to make parties more democratic is to get rid of laws that restrict a legislator’s right to vote. The only caveat being that all votes should be public as people should know how their representatives voted. Legislators who don’t vote for the interest of their constituencies will get defeated.


Of course, the power of leaders is also preserved by how politics are conducted in Pakistan. In America if you know a politician’s views on abortion, you can guess his views on immigration. American politics is played out on a left-right ideological spectrum. If politicians are on the left on one issue, they are mostly on the left on all issues.

Not so in Pakistan. Here political parties are based not on ideology but reflect the values and interests, and it must be said, the ethnicity of their leader. That’s why family is important as it reflects, in voters’ consciousness, the same values and interests. Moreover, the establishment’s power has made party leaders more insular, perhaps even paranoid, and that’s why they don’t let anyone but family come to the top.

An example comes from KP where Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar vote bank was inherited by his son Wali Khan, who went on to become head of his faction of the National Awami Party (Maulana Bhashani headed the other). When Wali Khan was jailed, Begum Nasim Wali ran the party. Eventually, his son Asfandyar Wali took over the party. Even though ANP is replete with leaders who have sacrificed their family members’ lives for this country, the next leader will be Asfandyar’s son Aimal Wali.

This tells us that the vote belongs to the leader, is jealously guarded and is passed down families; parties are merely vehicles leaders use to institutionalise their popularity.

It’s possible, though unlikely, to have a successful non-dynastic — both non-monarchical and non-family — party in our part of the world. An example is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which had Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now has Narendra Modi as its leader. But BJP’s identification with Hindutva politics makes it possible for it to rely on ideology as opposed to a ruling supreme leader or family for success. Thus perhaps for a non-dynastic party to be successful, an ideological base is necessary.

Whether such parties will arise in Pakistan remains to be seen.

The writer is a former finance minister.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2023
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
In fact, if you ask what is the ideology of PML(N)? then what would be the answer?

Ask the present PPP, what is their motto?

Ask JI and Maulana Diesel, if they both want the Islamic system, then why both of them are separate?

Right now, there is only one party in the political landscape, which has a clear motto i.e. "fight against corruption and upholding the rule of law". Furthermore, it has been seen that there are no intentions of transfer of the leadership down the line as inheritance.

These traits have led PTI to be the only "National party" because it is clear of any ethnic, geological and dynastic fault lines. Although, it has still not evolved to be a perfectly democratic party, as the intra-party elections had never been held. But there is hope that perhaps, one day, this will too be done, in a transparent manner.
 

Dr Adam

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)

Miftah Ismail Published March 1, 2023 Updated a day ago
63fe8fe4c9ed2.jpg
IT has become de rigueur these days for many commentators to speak alarmingly about the pitfalls of political dynasties. The ‘dynasties’ they particularly disapprove of are the Sharif and the Bhutto families.

Yet it is ironic that even as they oppose ‘dynasties’, they are happy to support a ‘monarchy’, even knowing that it is monarchies that give rise to dynasties.

If some parties are called dynasties then consistency demands that parties where no leaders are given any importance except the supreme leader, and where other party leaders who have tried like Icarus to fly too close to the sun have seen their wings melt away, should be called monarchies.

After all, there is no qualitative difference between arguing that only one family is capable of ruling and only one man is capable of ruling forever. Neither is there any difference between one family or one man having a chokehold on a political party. Unfortunately, it is these dictatorial chokeholds that produce disastrous decisions, especially in the appointment of unsuitable people to important positions.

Political dynasties are of course not unique to Pakistan. The Nehru/Gandhi family in India, the Mujib family in Bangladesh, the Bandaranaike and Rajapaska families in Sir Lanka, the Aquino and Marcos families in the Philippines are examples.



But in Pakistan the power of party leaders is sui generis in its totality and renders all parties — save the Jamaat-i-Islami — dynastic parties, whether run by a ruling family or a supreme leader. Our Constitution, institutions and politics all play a part in making leaders dictatorial.

After changing prime ministers more frequently than summer interns during the first 11 years, we went into three successive martial laws that lasted for 30 years until 1988, except for four years of Zulfikar Bhutto’s constitutional rule, albeit under an emergency that suspended basic rights.

The next 11 years saw two elected prime ministers trade places four times, with four caretaker prime ministers put in place each time an elected prime minister was ousted with Rawalpindi’s help. This merry-go-round only ended when Gen Musharraf took over.

An avenue of instability during those years was Article 58(2)(b), a constitutional provision that allowed presidents (with a wink from the establishment) to remove elected prime ministers. Another was the changing of loyalties of legislators through the influence the establishment could bring to bear on them. To counter them, the National Assembly passed the 14th Amendment in 1997 that deleted 58(2)(b) and also took away powers from legislators to vote according to their own will. Now, rather than their conscience or fear or money, legislators had to vote according to the wishes of their party heads.

After martial law ended, the 18th Amendment again deleted 58(2)(b), which Gen Musharraf had brought back, and also delineated the issues where legislators had to vote according to the desires of their leaders, even if they were elected as independents, unless they were willing to lose their seats.

Recently, the Supreme Court has gone a step further, a step perhaps not even envisaged in the Constitution, and said that a legislator’s vote against his parliamentary leader’s orders can’t even be counted.

So a journey that began with ostensibly trying to stop the meddling of institutions but in reality was also meant to free the party leaders from the ‘nuisance’ of listening to their legislators, has finally rendered parliament nearly superfluous. No legislator now has any say on who the PM should be, what the budget should be and what constitutional amendments should be approved. It is only the few party leaders who get to decide.

When our Constitution gives so much power to party leaders, what power can legislators have?
Why would there not be dynasties or monarchies?


Party heads would contend this was done to contain the establishment’s influence on legislators. But our living experience tells us that when the establishment wants to interfere, it finds a way. So these amendments haven’t reduced the establishment’s ability to interfere, just given party heads total power over individual legislators.

The way to make parties more democratic is to get rid of laws that restrict a legislator’s right to vote. The only caveat being that all votes should be public as people should know how their representatives voted. Legislators who don’t vote for the interest of their constituencies will get defeated.


Of course, the power of leaders is also preserved by how politics are conducted in Pakistan. In America if you know a politician’s views on abortion, you can guess his views on immigration. American politics is played out on a left-right ideological spectrum. If politicians are on the left on one issue, they are mostly on the left on all issues.

Not so in Pakistan. Here political parties are based not on ideology but reflect the values and interests, and it must be said, the ethnicity of their leader. That’s why family is important as it reflects, in voters’ consciousness, the same values and interests. Moreover, the establishment’s power has made party leaders more insular, perhaps even paranoid, and that’s why they don’t let anyone but family come to the top.

An example comes from KP where Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar vote bank was inherited by his son Wali Khan, who went on to become head of his faction of the National Awami Party (Maulana Bhashani headed the other). When Wali Khan was jailed, Begum Nasim Wali ran the party. Eventually, his son Asfandyar Wali took over the party. Even though ANP is replete with leaders who have sacrificed their family members’ lives for this country, the next leader will be Asfandyar’s son Aimal Wali.

This tells us that the vote belongs to the leader, is jealously guarded and is passed down families; parties are merely vehicles leaders use to institutionalise their popularity.

It’s possible, though unlikely, to have a successful non-dynastic — both non-monarchical and non-family — party in our part of the world. An example is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which had Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now has Narendra Modi as its leader. But BJP’s identification with Hindutva politics makes it possible for it to rely on ideology as opposed to a ruling supreme leader or family for success. Thus perhaps for a non-dynastic party to be successful, an ideological base is necessary.

Whether such parties will arise in Pakistan remains to be seen.

The writer is a former finance minister.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2023

Supposedly if was still in PMLN and on top of it Finance Minister, would have he written this piece in dawn???
Asking just for Information!
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Supposedly if was still in PMLN and on top of it Finance Minister, would have he written this piece in dawn???
Asking just for Information!
Sir, evolution is an ongoing process and is heavily dependent upon changing circumstances. Provided that he also had a choice to remain a dumb dumb like Pervaiz Rasheed, I think he is now proving that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

Syaed
 

Syaed

MPA (400+ posts)

Miftah Ismail Published March 1, 2023 Updated a day ago
63fe8fe4c9ed2.jpg
IT has become de rigueur these days for many commentators to speak alarmingly about the pitfalls of political dynasties. The ‘dynasties’ they particularly disapprove of are the Sharif and the Bhutto families.

Yet it is ironic that even as they oppose ‘dynasties’, they are happy to support a ‘monarchy’, even knowing that it is monarchies that give rise to dynasties.

If some parties are called dynasties then consistency demands that parties where no leaders are given any importance except the supreme leader, and where other party leaders who have tried like Icarus to fly too close to the sun have seen their wings melt away, should be called monarchies.

After all, there is no qualitative difference between arguing that only one family is capable of ruling and only one man is capable of ruling forever. Neither is there any difference between one family or one man having a chokehold on a political party. Unfortunately, it is these dictatorial chokeholds that produce disastrous decisions, especially in the appointment of unsuitable people to important positions.

Political dynasties are of course not unique to Pakistan. The Nehru/Gandhi family in India, the Mujib family in Bangladesh, the Bandaranaike and Rajapaska families in Sir Lanka, the Aquino and Marcos families in the Philippines are examples.



But in Pakistan the power of party leaders is sui generis in its totality and renders all parties — save the Jamaat-i-Islami — dynastic parties, whether run by a ruling family or a supreme leader. Our Constitution, institutions and politics all play a part in making leaders dictatorial.

After changing prime ministers more frequently than summer interns during the first 11 years, we went into three successive martial laws that lasted for 30 years until 1988, except for four years of Zulfikar Bhutto’s constitutional rule, albeit under an emergency that suspended basic rights.

The next 11 years saw two elected prime ministers trade places four times, with four caretaker prime ministers put in place each time an elected prime minister was ousted with Rawalpindi’s help. This merry-go-round only ended when Gen Musharraf took over.

An avenue of instability during those years was Article 58(2)(b), a constitutional provision that allowed presidents (with a wink from the establishment) to remove elected prime ministers. Another was the changing of loyalties of legislators through the influence the establishment could bring to bear on them. To counter them, the National Assembly passed the 14th Amendment in 1997 that deleted 58(2)(b) and also took away powers from legislators to vote according to their own will. Now, rather than their conscience or fear or money, legislators had to vote according to the wishes of their party heads.

After martial law ended, the 18th Amendment again deleted 58(2)(b), which Gen Musharraf had brought back, and also delineated the issues where legislators had to vote according to the desires of their leaders, even if they were elected as independents, unless they were willing to lose their seats.

Recently, the Supreme Court has gone a step further, a step perhaps not even envisaged in the Constitution, and said that a legislator’s vote against his parliamentary leader’s orders can’t even be counted.

So a journey that began with ostensibly trying to stop the meddling of institutions but in reality was also meant to free the party leaders from the ‘nuisance’ of listening to their legislators, has finally rendered parliament nearly superfluous. No legislator now has any say on who the PM should be, what the budget should be and what constitutional amendments should be approved. It is only the few party leaders who get to decide.

When our Constitution gives so much power to party leaders, what power can legislators have?
Why would there not be dynasties or monarchies?


Party heads would contend this was done to contain the establishment’s influence on legislators. But our living experience tells us that when the establishment wants to interfere, it finds a way. So these amendments haven’t reduced the establishment’s ability to interfere, just given party heads total power over individual legislators.

The way to make parties more democratic is to get rid of laws that restrict a legislator’s right to vote. The only caveat being that all votes should be public as people should know how their representatives voted. Legislators who don’t vote for the interest of their constituencies will get defeated.


Of course, the power of leaders is also preserved by how politics are conducted in Pakistan. In America if you know a politician’s views on abortion, you can guess his views on immigration. American politics is played out on a left-right ideological spectrum. If politicians are on the left on one issue, they are mostly on the left on all issues.

Not so in Pakistan. Here political parties are based not on ideology but reflect the values and interests, and it must be said, the ethnicity of their leader. That’s why family is important as it reflects, in voters’ consciousness, the same values and interests. Moreover, the establishment’s power has made party leaders more insular, perhaps even paranoid, and that’s why they don’t let anyone but family come to the top.

An example comes from KP where Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar vote bank was inherited by his son Wali Khan, who went on to become head of his faction of the National Awami Party (Maulana Bhashani headed the other). When Wali Khan was jailed, Begum Nasim Wali ran the party. Eventually, his son Asfandyar Wali took over the party. Even though ANP is replete with leaders who have sacrificed their family members’ lives for this country, the next leader will be Asfandyar’s son Aimal Wali.

This tells us that the vote belongs to the leader, is jealously guarded and is passed down families; parties are merely vehicles leaders use to institutionalise their popularity.

It’s possible, though unlikely, to have a successful non-dynastic — both non-monarchical and non-family — party in our part of the world. An example is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which had Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now has Narendra Modi as its leader. But BJP’s identification with Hindutva politics makes it possible for it to rely on ideology as opposed to a ruling supreme leader or family for success. Thus perhaps for a non-dynastic party to be successful, an ideological base is necessary.

Whether such parties will arise in Pakistan remains to be seen.

The writer is a former finance minister.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2023
Wao!Talks and writes good things only after being kicked out in a very derogatory manner by the Noora League?What if he still we're the finance minister of the Republic?
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Wao!Talks and writes good things only after being kicked out in a very derogatory manner by the Noora League?What if he still we're the finance minister of the Republic?
Kindly see above reply (post #4) addressed to Dr. Adam.
 

Dr Adam

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Sir, evolution is an ongoing process and is heavily dependent upon changing circumstances. Provided that he also had a choice to remain a dumb dumb like Pervaiz Rasheed, I think he is now proving that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

Syaed



لگدا اے کے اج میرا دن نئیں ھیگا . تُسی ہر چیز اچ مینوں ایگری کروائے جا رے او . اسی نئیں کھیڈ دے . پر جاندے جاندے فیر وی

But still I totally agree with you.

Syaed

 

Syaed

MPA (400+ posts)
Sir, evolution is an ongoing process and is heavily dependent upon changing circumstances. Provided that he also had a choice to remain a dumb dumb like Pervaiz Rasheed, I think he is now proving that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

Syaed
I still have serious doubts about this 'Artificial or superficial' Evolution process that this Mufta went through.
Probably another stunt by the Military Junta to play good cop and bad cop with the already confused masses.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I still have serious doubts about this 'Artificial or superficial' Evolution process that this Mufta went through.
Probably another stunt by the Military Junta to play good cop and bad cop with the already confused masses.
Yes, it is not beyond reasonable suspicion that the Miltablishment is trying to extract PML(S) out of PML(N). However, as being a below average student (and a lecturer) of economics and finance, I see that Miftah's measures were comparatively much better than Dar's and he was well prepared for the IMF's 9th review to be done in Oct 2022, with the tranche released in Nov 2022.

According to my personal and limited point of view, this economic mess has been created deliberately by Dar. Secondly, Maryam is also creating a bigger mess of blackmailing (via recordings). This is why, the people of vision are now trying to distance from PML(N) and we can now see the fissures getting wider.
 

3rd_Umpire

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Supposedly if was still in PMLN and on top of it Finance Minister, would have he written this piece in dawn???
Asking just for Information!
کسی اصطبل میں گھوڑوں کو باندھنے کی ایک رسیّ کم پڑ گئی، ،، باندھنے والے نےسارے گھوڑوں کو باندھنا شروع کیا، اور ایک بچنے والے گھوڑے کو اندھیرے میں لے جا کر اُسکے گردن کے گرد ہاتھ پھیرا
تمام گھوڑوں نے سکون سے رات گزاری
سارے گھوڑوں کی رسیاں کھلنے کے بعد اصطبل سے روانہ ہوئے لیکن ایک گھوڑا کھڑا رہا،،باندھنے والے نے جاکر دوبارہ گردن کے گرد ہاتھ پھیرا، اور اُسکے بعد وہ گھوڑا بھی چل پڑا
مفتاح کو بس وہی گھوڑا سمجھ لیں،،،،جنم جنم کے ذہنی غلام ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔

 

Dr Adam

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
کسی اصطبل میں گھوڑوں کو باندھنے کی ایک رسیّ کم پڑ گئی، ،، باندھنے والے نےسارے گھوڑوں کو باندھنا شروع کیا، اور ایک بچنے والے گھوڑے کو اندھیرے میں لے جا کر اُسکے گردن کے گرد ہاتھ پھیرا
تمام گھوڑوں نے سکون سے رات گزاری
سارے گھوڑوں کی رسیاں کھلنے کے بعد اصطبل سے روانہ ہوئے لیکن ایک گھوڑا کھڑا رہا،،باندھنے والے نے جاکر دوبارہ گردن کے گرد ہاتھ پھیرا، اور اُسکے بعد وہ گھوڑا بھی چل پڑا
مفتاح کو بس وہی گھوڑا سمجھ لیں،،،،جنم جنم کے ذہنی غلام ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔


Its my firm belief..... Once patwari always a patwari.
 

crankthskunk

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)

Miftah Ismail Published March 1, 2023 Updated a day ago
63fe8fe4c9ed2.jpg
IT has become de rigueur these days for many commentators to speak alarmingly about the pitfalls of political dynasties. The ‘dynasties’ they particularly disapprove of are the Sharif and the Bhutto families.

Yet it is ironic that even as they oppose ‘dynasties’, they are happy to support a ‘monarchy’, even knowing that it is monarchies that give rise to dynasties.

If some parties are called dynasties then consistency demands that parties where no leaders are given any importance except the supreme leader, and where other party leaders who have tried like Icarus to fly too close to the sun have seen their wings melt away, should be called monarchies.

After all, there is no qualitative difference between arguing that only one family is capable of ruling and only one man is capable of ruling forever. Neither is there any difference between one family or one man having a chokehold on a political party. Unfortunately, it is these dictatorial chokeholds that produce disastrous decisions, especially in the appointment of unsuitable people to important positions.

Political dynasties are of course not unique to Pakistan. The Nehru/Gandhi family in India, the Mujib family in Bangladesh, the Bandaranaike and Rajapaska families in Sir Lanka, the Aquino and Marcos families in the Philippines are examples.



But in Pakistan the power of party leaders is sui generis in its totality and renders all parties — save the Jamaat-i-Islami — dynastic parties, whether run by a ruling family or a supreme leader. Our Constitution, institutions and politics all play a part in making leaders dictatorial.

After changing prime ministers more frequently than summer interns during the first 11 years, we went into three successive martial laws that lasted for 30 years until 1988, except for four years of Zulfikar Bhutto’s constitutional rule, albeit under an emergency that suspended basic rights.

The next 11 years saw two elected prime ministers trade places four times, with four caretaker prime ministers put in place each time an elected prime minister was ousted with Rawalpindi’s help. This merry-go-round only ended when Gen Musharraf took over.

An avenue of instability during those years was Article 58(2)(b), a constitutional provision that allowed presidents (with a wink from the establishment) to remove elected prime ministers. Another was the changing of loyalties of legislators through the influence the establishment could bring to bear on them. To counter them, the National Assembly passed the 14th Amendment in 1997 that deleted 58(2)(b) and also took away powers from legislators to vote according to their own will. Now, rather than their conscience or fear or money, legislators had to vote according to the wishes of their party heads.

After martial law ended, the 18th Amendment again deleted 58(2)(b), which Gen Musharraf had brought back, and also delineated the issues where legislators had to vote according to the desires of their leaders, even if they were elected as independents, unless they were willing to lose their seats.

Recently, the Supreme Court has gone a step further, a step perhaps not even envisaged in the Constitution, and said that a legislator’s vote against his parliamentary leader’s orders can’t even be counted.

So a journey that began with ostensibly trying to stop the meddling of institutions but in reality was also meant to free the party leaders from the ‘nuisance’ of listening to their legislators, has finally rendered parliament nearly superfluous. No legislator now has any say on who the PM should be, what the budget should be and what constitutional amendments should be approved. It is only the few party leaders who get to decide.

When our Constitution gives so much power to party leaders, what power can legislators have?
Why would there not be dynasties or monarchies?


Party heads would contend this was done to contain the establishment’s influence on legislators. But our living experience tells us that when the establishment wants to interfere, it finds a way. So these amendments haven’t reduced the establishment’s ability to interfere, just given party heads total power over individual legislators.

The way to make parties more democratic is to get rid of laws that restrict a legislator’s right to vote. The only caveat being that all votes should be public as people should know how their representatives voted. Legislators who don’t vote for the interest of their constituencies will get defeated.


Of course, the power of leaders is also preserved by how politics are conducted in Pakistan. In America if you know a politician’s views on abortion, you can guess his views on immigration. American politics is played out on a left-right ideological spectrum. If politicians are on the left on one issue, they are mostly on the left on all issues.

Not so in Pakistan. Here political parties are based not on ideology but reflect the values and interests, and it must be said, the ethnicity of their leader. That’s why family is important as it reflects, in voters’ consciousness, the same values and interests. Moreover, the establishment’s power has made party leaders more insular, perhaps even paranoid, and that’s why they don’t let anyone but family come to the top.

An example comes from KP where Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar vote bank was inherited by his son Wali Khan, who went on to become head of his faction of the National Awami Party (Maulana Bhashani headed the other). When Wali Khan was jailed, Begum Nasim Wali ran the party. Eventually, his son Asfandyar Wali took over the party. Even though ANP is replete with leaders who have sacrificed their family members’ lives for this country, the next leader will be Asfandyar’s son Aimal Wali.

This tells us that the vote belongs to the leader, is jealously guarded and is passed down families; parties are merely vehicles leaders use to institutionalise their popularity.

It’s possible, though unlikely, to have a successful non-dynastic — both non-monarchical and non-family — party in our part of the world. An example is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which had Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now has Narendra Modi as its leader. But BJP’s identification with Hindutva politics makes it possible for it to rely on ideology as opposed to a ruling supreme leader or family for success. Thus perhaps for a non-dynastic party to be successful, an ideological base is necessary.

Whether such parties will arise in Pakistan remains to be seen.

The writer is a former finance minister.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2023
The shame is that these thugs and thieves are professing that they would provide the ideological base for non-dynastic party to be successful.
See how cleverly this idiot has tried to lump PTI and IK with the dynastic parties by including a "Supreme Leader" concept.

IK may be popular compare to his other team members, but he is not dictatorial. There are ample proofs that in PTI every thing is discussed with in the party before implemented, with final approval of IK, the leader. That's how parties are run in the west.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
The shame is that these thugs and thieves are professing that they would provide the ideological base for non-dynastic party to be successful.
See how cleverly this idiot has tried to lump PTI and IK with the dynastic parties by including a "Supreme Leader" concept.

IK may be popular compare to his other team members, but he is not dictatorial. There are ample proofs that in PTI every thing is discussed with in the party before implemented, with final approval of IK, the leader. That's how parties are run in the west.
Lets just give him some time to unfold more. As a matter of fact, I concur that his strategy was much better than Dar's and we could've been on the track of recovery by now or at least things wouldn't have worsened this much.

Although, I personally do not agree with his idea of "total democracy" within a party, because, as you also pointed out that there will always be one leader who is followed more than others, even within a party.

Conversely speaking, even in JI, where they have a "Shura" system, many members in the Shura may find their thinking be more coinciding with one of the member, most of the times.

However, everything apart, the guy has shot a missile at the "Abba-Puttar and Abba-Beti" party system.
 

optimistic

Senator (1k+ posts)
As long as he remains PMLN's pet his thoughts can only be taken with a grain of salt. Imran Khan is irreplaceable as the supreme leader PTI because everything the party stands for stems from Khan, the vision, the leadership and connection with the supporters. One can say the same for Lohar Sharif (- vision, and ofc he does lead khotay patwari). So dynasty or no dynasty, every party is a monarchy from Miftah's definition and that is not a problem, dynastic politics is.
 

crankthskunk

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Lets just give him some time to unfold more. As a matter of fact, I concur that his strategy was much better than Dar's and we could've been on the track of recovery by now or at least things wouldn't have worsened this much.

Although, I personally do not agree with his idea of "total democracy" within a party, because, as you also pointed out that there will always be one leader who is followed more than others, even within a party.

Conversely speaking, even in JI, where they have a "Shura" system, many members in the Shura may find their thinking be more coinciding with one of the member, most of the times.

However, everything apart, the guy has shot a missile at the "Abba-Puttar and Abba-Beti" party system.
My point is very simple, I for one minute wouldn't trust people like Miftah, Khaqan and the PPP guy.
Those who had spend decades with the crooks could not be trusted, period. Where was their intelligence and morality that they couldn't identify the crooks!! So they fail on both counts.
 

fnaeem

Senator (1k+ posts)
My point is very simple, I for one minute wouldn't trust people like Miftah, Khaqan and the PPP guy.
Those who had spend decades with the crooks could not be trusted, period. Where was their intelligence and morality that they couldn't identify the crooks!! So they fail on both counts.
With videos of khokhar and Chun beating up a senior citizen. These are their values exposed by smart phones
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
My point is very simple, I for one minute wouldn't trust people like Miftah, Khaqan and the PPP guy.
Those who had spend decades with the crooks could not be trusted, period. Where was their intelligence and morality that they couldn't identify the crooks!! So they fail on both counts.
Cranky, you are very right in your own accord, but my point is different. There is a famous saying of Aristotle which goes like : All we have learned to do is that we learn by doing.

His voice, in this article, is drenched in learning from the recent past. However, this does not even remotely implies that anyone wants to see him in PTI anytime soon.

But comparing him to JKT & Aleem Khan etc, this guy stands taller on moral/ethical grounds. Provided that he still had the option to keep mum like Pervez Rasheed and enjoy his perks and privileges with continued mental slavery, he has spoken up and has not allowed anyone to throw him under the bus. So, yes, its a brownie point for him.

Yet, this soprano out of the PML(N)'s soap opera means that there are serious cracks and fissures....
 

crankthskunk

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Cranky, you are very right in your own accord, but my point is different. There is a famous saying of Aristotle which goes like : All we have learned to do is that we learn by doing.

His voice, in this article, is drenched in learning from the recent past. However, this does not even remotely implies that anyone wants to see him in PTI anytime soon.

But comparing him to JKT & Aleem Khan etc, this guy stands taller on moral/ethical grounds. Provided that he still had the option to keep mum like Pervez Rasheed and enjoy his perks and privileges with continued mental slavery, he has spoken up and has not allowed anyone to throw him under the bus. So, yes, its a brownie point for him.

Yet, this soprano out of the PML(N)'s soap opera means that there are serious cracks and fissures....
Every one is entitle to his own opinion. Lets set his recent exp aside.
What was he doing in the past, for decades!! For example I posted a news item from 2010 when Sharifs tried to show that they had been paying billions in taxes to prove that they had been billionaires for years. All they could produce were their Duties paid and Energy bills paid. IF Miftah worth his salt , he should have known as a finance person and himslef an industrialist that Duties and bill you pay constitutes the "Cost of goods sold" which is in the final analysis paid by the end buyer. These liars were still bullshitting to Pak people.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Every one is entitle to his own opinion. Lets set his recent exp aside.
What was he doing in the past, for decades!! For example I posted a news item from 2010 when Sharifs tried to show that they had been paying billions in taxes to prove that they had been billionaires for years. All they could produce were their Duties paid and Energy bills paid. IF Miftah worth his salt , he should have known as a finance person and himslef an industrialist that Duties and bill you pay constitutes the "Cost of goods sold" which is in the final analysis paid by the end buyer. These liars were still bullshitting to Pak people.
In fact, the duties paid on the imports of the raw material or capital assets, does indicate the financial status of a firm. The energy input is also an indicator of scale of operations. Although, you cannot calculate the net profit out of it, but it is useful information to gauge the quantum of business, yet again; it is truth, but not the whole truth.

However, my POV is still poles apart my dear. I am trying to enjoy the situation of PML(N) at the moment and the uncomfortable truth coming out of their mouthpieces now.

Though, our religion does not teach us to judge people merely on their pasts, otherwise Khalid Bin Waleed (RA) and Hinda wouldn't have died as muslims. But, it is also not wise to take everything on its face value too. JKT and Aleem Khan are the perfect examples of it.
 
Last edited:

crankthskunk

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
In fact, the duties paid on the imports of the raw material or capital assets, does indicate the financial status of a firm. The energy input is also an indicator of scale of operations. Although, you cannot calculate the net profit out of it, but it is useful information to gauge the quantum of business, yet again; it is truth, but not the whole truth.

However, my POV is still poles apart my dear. I am trying to enjoy the situation of PML(N) at the moment and the uncomfortable truth coming out of their mouthpieces now.

Though, our religion does not teach us to judge people merely on their pasts, otherwise Khalid Bin Waleed (RA) and Hinda wouldn't have died as muslims. But, it is also not wise to take everything on its face value too. JKT and Aleem Khan are the perfect examples of it.
Very wrong analysis, if they were profitable and declaring the profits, they could have easily shown how much income tax they paid, which would have shown what income they declared to maintain their life styles. In any country they would have been jailed for non declaration of the income.
Your analysis is flawed, because a big corporation could still pay billions in import duties and energy bills and still suffers a loss. In any case, persons can not show that as proof of their Personal Taxes.
 

Back
Top