The potential of Pakistan has continuously been hampered, stunted, harmed and (almost) obliterated by each of the two governing systems that it has adopted in its 65 years of history. Broadly speaking these two systems can be defined as (i) Civil (ii) Military. Meaning thereby that in one system the central authority has been in the hands of civil leadership, and in the other system in the hands of the military.
It will not be an easy task for the historians to judge under which system Pakistan has ‘suffered’ and been ‘harmed’ more. The truth may well be that if there has been any positive achievement it will be attributed not to the system but to the quality of leadership. The question that therefore automatically arises is: Which system has provided better leadership?
Let us leave aside the founder of this country. He was peerless.
In the military leadership there come four names in the mind.
(A) Field Marshal Ayub Khan
(B) General Mohammad Yahya Khan
(C) General Zia ul Haque
(D) Genaral Pervez Musharraf.
In the civil area, the key names that come into mind are: (a) Ghulam Mohammad (b) Iskandar Mirza (c) Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (d) Benazir Bhutto (e) Mian Nawaz Sharif, and (f) Asif Ali Zardari.
I haven’t mentioned Liaqat Ali Khan for the simple reason that I treat him as an extension of the Quaid .
As for Junejo, he was an extension of General Zia, just as Jamali and Shaukat Aziz were extensions of General Musharraf, and Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Pervaiz Ashraf, of President Zardari.
Which of these leaderships ensured better governance and lesser corruption?
Under whom Pakistan prospered more?
In whose era, corruption took firmer control of governance?
What was the value of a Rupee against a Dollar in 1960s? Then in 1970s? Then in 1980s? Then in 1990s ? Then in 2000s? Then now?
Also find out the volume of national debt in these eras.
If you are honest, it may not be hard for you to know which ‘eras’ have been less destructive than the others.
(This Column was first published on
31-08-2012)
- Latest
- Trending
