posted by Beachcoma
Will Pakistan Cease to Exist? I was just talking to a Pakistani friend of mine a few days back and he claims in about five years time, the nation
known today as Pakistan will cease to exist . . another Pakistani I talked to claims that the country is very rich. Everybody's got money and
businesses are thriving in Karachi and other major cities. But the government is poor, because nobody wants to pay taxes . . I've heard this from
only two Pakistani citizens. My question is, how likely do you think that the country will dissolve, and if it does, what are the implications to the
region and the world as a whole? [Edited by Don W]
posted by yourrolemodel
Debt? I doubt that Pakistan will cease to exist but it could very well be in for major changes. What is the country's debt? Very little I would
assume if there are no taxes. Watch for Pakistan to accrue debt and then there to be a regime change of some sort. It is also interesting to note
that Pakistan is a nuclear power and a friend of some sorts of the US. I don't believe we would allow too drastic of a change.
posted by CanadianGlasnost
No but if a institutional collapse was to happen in Pakistan, it could be very harmful to local security if some of their nuclear weapons were to
disappear . . I have indeed heard that in the North, the government pretty much surrendered to Taliban Sympathizers there, it is not a good indication
for State Stability . .
Pakistan. 295,000 square miles. Larger than Texas. 166 million people. GDP per person, $2,400. Military expenditure, 3.9% of GDP.
Pakistan is a good example supporting the hypothesis that people prefer security and stability to democracy, especially in cultures where
individualism is not encouraged. Places where the extended family really is, extended, and a family where major decisions are made. For example,
selecting the next child to send abroad for education and raising the necessary funds. Or choosing a bride or husband for the young people. Deciding
who and how much to support in business.
If you can add to this minimum stabilizing element, a competent bureaucracy, honest police and fair minded judges, you have one swell place to live,
even if you do not know how to spell v-o-t-e. This is what Saddam provided in Iraq. What the first Assad gave to Syria. His son is not so well
regarded. The Egyptian dynasty founded by Nasser, followed by Sadat and now with Mobarak, functions along similar lines.
Aside: The power elite have shown the world how you can control if not destroy democracy by giving the people too much democracy. An overdose. There
are 87,000 different authorities in the United States which hold elections. In my home state of Ky, the county in which I lived had 23 lower court
judges, 16 courts of record judges, 2 appeals court judges and 1 supreme court judge. All elected.
Continuing, there are 25 member of the county legislative body, chosen in defined districts, and 18 members of the state House of Representatives,
also chosen in defined district, 6 state senators in larger districts. A governor and lieutenant governor running together, the attorney general, the
secretary of state, the state treasurer, a state auditor and the Clerk of the Supreme Court. On the local scene again, the largest expenditures of
public funds are controlled by the elected school board, 7 members in my county. There are other taxing authorities like the local sewer service but
in its case, it is managed by a 5 member board chosen by the Mayor. We had library districts, rural electrification districts and so on.
Ky allows up to 5 proposed constitutional amendments, but no initiatives, as in Florida where I now live, of which the previous ballot had 6 state
wide and 3 local initiatives in addition to the Federal offices to fill and state and local offices. In Ky you can mark one dot and vote all the
people of the same party, but in FL you have to mark each separately. Democracy run amok!
This system lends itself very handily to insider control.
Will Pakistan cease to exist? I don't think so. The governing elite in Islamabad has never had popular support. I doubt if they ever cared to get
popular support. As long as life was satisfactory, there is no incentive to change the rulers. And the borders. Let’s not make too much an issue
over borders. Remember the British defined those borders in the 18th and 19th centuries. Borders were drawn for administrative convenience in London,
and not to establish a homogenous country in central Asia. Pakistan borders India including Kashmir, China, Afghanistan and Iran.
[edit on 12/18/2006 by donwhite]