History repeats itself (Pakistan, another Iran)? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Do you believe that fundamentalists will rule Pakistan like they did in Iran?

Yes
13
52%
No
8
32%
Other
4
16%
User avatar
By Nets
#1913127
Honestly, it is too terrifying to think about.
User avatar
By Shah
#1913210
Fundamentalists have been running Pakistan for a while now, so this is different. Even their former president Musharraf had strong ties with the Taliban and supported them. They simply had control of these fundamentalists before, using them to increase their influence, and now they've lost their leash on them. Zardari seems incompetent so I wouldn't be surprised if he's replaced, however, I doubt the U.S. would let the Taliban take power under any circumstances.
User avatar
By dudekebm
#1913276
I voted Other.

Different type of situation in both countries:

In Iran, you had basically an oppressive regime being overthrown by a revolution and one faction of that revolution basically 'bolsheviking' its way to the top of the heap getting rid of those who worked to overthrow the oppressive regime. And you basically ended up with another relatively oppressive regime in its place, albeit religious based. Also with Iran as far as the religious base, they were indeed from the Shi'a sect of Islam but Khomeini or his teachings/thoughts/outlook as far as Islam is concerned is not taken as infallible or even proper by many other Shi'ites, including those scholarly enough to earn the title of Ayatollah. It's not necessarily 'fundamentalism' per se, as it basically established a theocracy run by a small group of clerics. It's possible that policies of the regime may change based on who succeeds who within the regime esp. if it involves the Supreme Guardian Council (for example, if Ali Khameini was to be succeeded by someone more along the lines of al-Sistani, there may be less involvement of this elite group of clerics within the direct governing of the Islamic Republic...or if Mohammed Mezbah Yazdi gets replaced in the marjils with someone more tolerant, you may see the persecution of Baha'ii go down and more freedom of the press).

In Pakistan, it's more of a country tearing itself apart between pretty much local ethnic groups, one of which is relatively well-funded known as the Taliban which has fundamentalist religious teachings based on Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist sect of Islam. The question for Pakistan is will it be Balkanized into the several "-stans" that make up the ethnic tribal regions (i.e. a Pashtunistan for example?) or will it be totally Talibanized ? It's not a self-contained revolution like what went on in Iran as it will (and probably already has) spill over into the neighbouring countries of India and Aghanistan.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1913388
Iran's fall into theocracy was more nuanced, and happened under different circumstances.



PS.
Iran's revolution is also a warning to all socialists and communist groups that religious reformers working
"with you", especially Islamic reformers, can and will betray you.
By Donald
#1913740
No.

The religious forces in Iran were actually quite organized during the revolution. It was more like an early modern church, wielding great political influence and seizing power violently from both the nobility, petty bourgeois, radicals, etc. The Shia can probably stage Islamic revolution alot more successfully than sunnis could because they can easily rally around religious leadership, while sunnis have a very independent take on Islamic jurisprudence; they are less prone to the organization, leadership and popular support that require successful revolution. Pakistan faces so many splintered sunni threats...the Taliban, Wazaristani tribes, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba. No real leadership, no real popular support. These are groups of mensheviks. The Pakistani army would fight bitterly to prevent one or a few of these factions from taking power.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1913907
Iran has an infrastructure that is developed and isnt blowing up, or being blown up. Is stable. Not entering a civil war. Hasnt had a civil war in decades.

Its not necessarily a better place to live, but if you conform then your more likely to live clean and well.
By Muslim
#1913981
In Pakistan, it's more of a country tearing itself apart between pretty much local ethnic groups, one of which is relatively well-funded known as the Taliban which has fundamentalist religious teachings based on Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist sect of Islam.

This is confusing me. Maybe I am not quite informed about the subject; what I think is that it has nothing to do with ethnic groups. It is just the increasing power of Taliban of Pakistan that allowed them to clash with the government. And why do you say they are well-funded? Who would fund such sieged movement? (Don't say you are talking about Saudi Arabia!!)

I have to say that, despite of my disagreement with the tough way Taliban leads people, I can't deny that they used to have some positive points when they ruled Afghanistan during the 90's. Most of the time, they protected Afghanistan from the continuous fighting among war lords and squeezed them to some small part in the North. They also banned Opium. The same when fundamentalists ruled over Somalia. Still, the eternal problem is that they believe that applying the Sharia is the end of the story, they didn't try to develop their country (perhaps because they lack the knowledge to do so).
The Shia can probably stage Islamic revolution alot more successfully than sunnis could because they can easily rally around religious leadership, while sunnis have a very independent take on Islamic jurisprudence; they are less prone to the organization, leadership and popular support that require successful revolution.

Absolutely correct.
PS.
Iran's revolution is also a warning to all socialists and communist groups that religious reformers working
"with you", especially Islamic reformers, can and will betray you.

It is a simple rule: political Islamists are pragmatic. Deal with them as you deal with politicians. Radical Islamists, on the other hand, never compromise. But they are too radical to accept any co-existent ideas at all.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1914024
@ Muslim

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Cha ... WssEmC0%3d

I hope, and suspect, Waterloo Uni Library has a copy. If not, its only ~$25. Its worth the read, but if you reject the idea of politicians able to misuse Islam, then it would be lost on you.

It is a simple rule: political Islamists are pragmatic. Deal with them as you deal with politicians. Radical Islamists, on the other hand, never compromise. But they are too radical to accept any co-existent ideas at all.


Khomeini played the part of a meak man who was willing to compromize. He manouvered the communist forces in Iran to kill off the rest of the left wing, and then had the communists wiped out. His extreme side didnt manifest politically untill he got in power.
User avatar
By Shah
#1914509
I have to say that, despite of my disagreement with the tough way Taliban leads people, I can't deny that they used to have some positive points when they ruled Afghanistan during the 90's. Most of the time, they protected Afghanistan from the continuous fighting among war lords and squeezed them to some small part in the North. They also banned Opium. The same when fundamentalists ruled over Somalia. Still, the eternal problem is that they believe that applying the Sharia is the end of the story, they didn't try to develop their country (perhaps because they lack the knowledge to do so).


The Taliban were indifferent towards opium production during the 90s. They only banned it in 2000 and didn't enforce it much, Afghanistan still accounted for 75% of the world's opium production. Calling all of those in the north "war lords" is just a way to discredit them. They were a legitimate movement to rid Afghanistan of these clowns. The only reason they were able to come into power is because of Afghanistan's neighbors (specifically Pakistan) funding extremists and intensifying the Afghan Civil War.

And the Taliban have always been funded by elements of Pakistan's military. The Saudis also supported them.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1914518
Obviously not:


1.We did not overthrow any goverments.

2. Popular sentiment is against the Taliban, who are overly viewed as the enemy.

I was worried about the situation but less so now.
User avatar
By Holt
#1914904
If only. Pakistan is a shithole compared to Iran.

This.
Last edited by Holt on 23 May 2009 07:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Political Interest
#1914927
What is the likelihood of a military coup within Pakistan? Suppose the convservative elements within the military see that Zardari is making them fight the Taliban and still yet bringing about no resolve to the crisis, could there be a military takeover? Let us not forget that many in the Pakistan military are opposed to actions in Afghanistan etc.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1915113
Many in the top echalons of the Pakistani military were placed there by Musharraf. He would have appointed men loyal to him and who hold similar ideals. The Pakistani military will oppose severe military action unless they can lead as they wish to, get credit for any success and blame the government should it fail, and will use either outcome as a means to further empower themselves. I dont see another Junta for a while though, they will wait (and perhaps Engineer) for failures to rock the current government.
User avatar
By Political Interest
#1915697
Many in the top echalons of the Pakistani military were placed there by Musharraf. He would have appointed men loyal to him and who hold similar ideals. The Pakistani military will oppose severe military action unless they can lead as they wish to, get credit for any success and blame the government should it fail, and will use either outcome as a means to further empower themselves. I dont see another Junta for a while though, they will wait (and perhaps Engineer) for failures to rock the current government.


Mind you, Musharraf was not something of a US puppet until the US-Afghan war. What he feared was an American presence in India which would then fortify India's position, something which he perceived would prove disastrous for Pakistan. Another fear of his was that the United States would attempt to unseat him, or launch an invasion if he should have been seen to be backing Taliban. Perhaps his hosting of US troops and aid to their war effort was more of a means to secure his position internationally. Because of this, one can imagine the officers he appointed are not all that liberal. I am sure they are just as conservative, simply forced to accede to foreign interests. Remember, those like Zia Ul-Haqq came largely from the military. Many members of Jamaat E-Islami also gained high rank within the forces.

With all this in mind, could there be a military coup, one which would perhaps preserve the old political structure of Pakistan, while at the same time revive the good relations between state and the people? If the Taliban should become a mass movement, which with the number of refugees I see it fast becoming, it would no doubt be necessary for any new government to gain their acceptance. With leaders such as Zardari, Musharraf and Sharif, I fail to see how the Pakistani state can stand. I am also becoming fast tired of hearing the misery which is taking place in that country. Seeing the refugees being forced from their homes by the military shelling is a heart breaking sight. I wish the best for Pakistan.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1915960
With all this in mind, could there be a military coup, one which would perhaps preserve the old political structure of Pakistan, while at the same time revive the good relations between state and the people?

What happened to Bhutto would come to mind.

With leaders such as Zardari, Musharraf and Sharif, I fail to see how the Pakistani state can stand.

Juntas are not uncommon within Pakistan. The state will remain. Though if their position does become problematic then I suspect problems with India will be engineered, raising India's ire and thus forcing Pakistan to back its military.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13075090
Yes

Quite possibly much worse, and more people in the[…]

Not a whisper from you on those "toxic" […]

I wondered how a post could have more than 3,700 v[…]

College Admissions Scandal

The fairest thing I can say about this is that co[…]