Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not the whole thing no, but in the regions they dominate yes.

dogma wrote:Well, not really, if Pakistan doesn't care about large chunks of what we define as its geographic territory, then they aren't the same.

Pakistan can claim sovereignty over something and recognize their inability to do more than mark it as theirs and make token attempts at control. It's also not as clear cut as say, West Virginia doesn't recognize the authority of the US government. It's more like Fred of Virginiaville, West County WV and his family don't recognize it while Bob down the street does.

Oh, and Fred has a few hundred friends with kaloshnikovs and RPGs.

LordofHats wrote:
Pakistan can claim sovereignty over something and recognize their inability to do more than mark it as theirs and make token attempts at control. It's also not as clear cut as say, West Virginia doesn't recognize the authority of the US government. It's more like Fred of Virginiaville, West County WV and his family don't recognize it while Bob down the street does.

I would argue that there are pretty clear regional patterns regarding the recognition of the Pakistani state by Pakistani citizens.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
Pakistan can claim sovereignty over something and recognize their inability to do more than mark it as theirs and make token attempts at control. It's also not as clear cut as say, West Virginia doesn't recognize the authority of the US government. It's more like Fred of Virginiaville, West County WV and his family don't recognize it while Bob down the street does.

I would argue that there are pretty clear regional patterns regarding the recognition of the Pakistani state by Pakistani citizens.

Did everyone in the South want to leave the union? A majority can exist in a recognizable region and not deny the existence of a disagreeing minority. It takes only a few people to destabilize the rule of a weak government, and they don't even have to do that much. Then there's the fence sitters, who have no side as a normal state of affairs but will likely pick one under duress.

LordofHats wrote:
Did everyone in the South want to leave the union? A majority can exist in a recognizable region and not deny the existence of a disagreeing minority. It takes only a few people to destabilize the rule of a weak government, and they don't even have to do that much. Then there's the fence sitters, who have no side as a normal state of affairs but will likely pick one under duress.

That seems like a really weak criterion for an unstable state, as it would apply to basically every state that exists.

And Pakistan's government isn't really weak. The institutions that underpin it are, in the sense that they aren't respected, but the government itself can crack skulls pretty well. The issue is corruption due to a lack of agreement on purpose, or direction, within the state/military.

dogma wrote:That seems like a really weak criterion for an unstable state, as it would apply to basically every state that exists.

Well I do like to think that everything is in a constant state of decay

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:That seems like a really weak criterion for an unstable state, as it would apply to basically every state that exists.

Well I do like to think that everything is in a constant state of decay

But to create a state has to imply that conditions had to improve to reach statehood, unless the metrics we use for statehood only occur when a state is formally created.

WarOne wrote:But to create a state has to imply that conditions had to improve to reach statehood, unless the metrics we use for statehood only occur when a state is formally created.

Nah. It's the circle of life. It breaks down and then springs up and instantly starts breaking down again

That and I was joking cause I didn't really have a response to that I wasn't even talking about criterion for state stability with the comparison to the South, just the nature of how regional recognition is not indicative of everyone within a region of being of like mind. The minority that recognize Pakistan's government maintains that governments interest in claiming the region as theirs (that an the British partition plan), but the majority that rejects their authority keeps them from effectively enforcing the rule of law. That same majority is also interested in an eventual removal of the current Pakistani government and the rise of their own. Really this comes down to a discussion of whether hostilities must be actively occurring to determine a state is unstable.

I take the stance that Pakistan is not in a stable state of affairs. Maybe Dogma just wants me to really think about that idea and articulate it or maybe he disagrees with me. I can never tell with him But I think comparing the political situation in Pakistan to the drug cartels in South Western US is not a good comparison in the first place.

LordofHats wrote: The minority that recognize Pakistan's government...

It isn't a minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote: I can never tell with him

That's the idea.

dogma wrote:It isn't a minority.

Examples Dogma examples If I wanted to write a paper on it... I'd write a paper on it I guess. Not what I'd chose to write about though.

Does minority or majority really matter? One can destabilize a situation as well as the other given the opportunity. Minority factions have probably won more revolutions than majorities historically speaking. For me, Pakistan lacking the ability to exert its control over entire regions of the country due to a minority group is enough to qualify for instability in this case. Drug cartels can do as they please in South Western United States, but they hardly qualify for disrupting the United States ability to assert authority in the same way. Maybe the question of political stability is situational and not easily categorized. I've never been one for trying to boil complex issues down into check lists (or maybe I'm just lazy).

I'm a historian darn it not a political scientist! Wait-

That's the idea.

Well be cryptic why don't you

LordofHats wrote:
Does minority or majority really matter?

Yes?

If the majority of nation X turns against the state, its generally not the same as when a given minority does.

LordofHats wrote:
One can destabilize a situation as well as the other given the opportunity.

Sure, but then, again, we end up at a point where we have have to define what "stability" means in this context. And you can't just say all states are unstable, because then stability becomes meaningless.

LordofHats wrote:
Minority factions have probably won more revolutions than majorities historically speaking.

Generally revolutions are fought between minority factions, relative to the general population.

LordofHats wrote:
For me, Pakistan lacking the ability to exert its control over entire regions of the country due to a minority group is enough to qualify for instability in this case. Drug cartels can do as they please in South Western United States, but they hardly qualify for disrupting the United States ability to assert authority in the same way.

The United States claims that immigration is controlled, and that drug trafficking is illegal, yet both occur with abandon. It seems like not only do the cartels dispute the US authority in the region, but so do guys trying to get jobs picking fruit.

LordofHats wrote:
Well be cryptic why don't you

Funny thing, since I've started teaching, I've gotten even worse in that sense.

dogma wrote:The United States claims that immigration is controlled, and that drug trafficking is illegal, yet both occur with abandon. It seems like not only do the cartels dispute the US authority in the region, but so do guys trying to get jobs picking fruit.

Cherry picking perhaps? It's not the same. I wouldn't say the drug trade goes on with abandon. We fill our prison with users after all (and its worked out so well). I'd draw a line between law that is ineffectively enforced and law that isn't enforced at all. The US deports illegals, and arrests drug dealers on a daily basis. That is a problem with specific laws and the way they are enforced, not the ability to enforce laws as a matter of state. Were our laws on the matters more realistic to our situation we'd probably be able to enforce them. I don't think Pakistan has that option.

dogma wrote:Funny thing, since I've started teaching, I've gotten even worse in that sense.

Darn you and your desire to educate You remind me of my philosophy professor, except you don't constantly say "not that I agree with that"

LordofHats wrote:
Cherry picking perhaps? It's not the same. I wouldn't say the drug trade goes on with abandon. We fill our prison with users after all (and its worked out so well).I'd draw a line between law that is ineffectively enforced and law that isn't enforced at all. The US deports illegals, and arrests drug dealers on a daily basis. That is a problem with specific laws and the way they are enforced, not the ability to enforce laws as a matter of state. Were our laws on the matters more realistic to our situation we'd probably be able to enforce them. I don't think Pakistan has that option.

Sure they do, they could simply adjust their laws to reflect their ability to enforce them, same as the US.

To elaborate, the issue I have here is that Pakistan has less authority regarding their borders than the US, or any other Western nation, does. For example, even if they said that Waziristan was not Pakistan, we would still say that said claim was indicative of Pakistani weakness; largely because we would still call Waziristan a part of Pakistan.

LordofHats wrote:
Darn you and your desire to educate You remind me of my philosophy professor, except you don't constantly say "not that I agree with that"

You haven't been in my classes, because I say that all the time. I'm actually much more of a questioning prick in that atmosphere.

If it helps, I have had many profs. do the exact same thing to me.

dogma wrote:Sure they do, they could simply adjust their laws to reflect their ability to enforce them, same as the US.

Not if the way the laws are enforced isn't the problem. I suppose we could say they've already done this. In some places they just don't try. I'm not sure that's going to help them avoid the coming storm. Their situation isn't getting better. Right now the US is drawing a lot of attention, but I don't think we'll have the presence in Afghanistan we have now by the end of this decade.

You haven't been in my classes.

If it helps, I have many profs. do the exact same thing to me.

I don't mind it. It's preferable to say, my Anthropology prof last semester who constantly went on irrelevant political triads. What does gay marriage have to do with the Yanamamo of southern Venezuela I mean, if he brought up when we were talking about marriage I'd get it, but then he was talking about tax reform!

LordofHats wrote:
Not if the way the laws are enforced isn't the problem. I suppose we could say they've already done this. In some places they just don't try. I'm not sure that's going to help them avoid the coming storm. Their situation isn't getting better. Right now the US is drawing a lot of attention, but I don't think we'll have the presence in Afghanistan we have now by the end of this decade.

I would guess that we'll have a permanent base there for at least 20-30 years. We'll lift plant elsewhere if necessary given the budget.

I think I might not be making my point well, so I'm going to hyperbolize (great word, btw). If the US banned firearms, its legal authority would not likely permit it to enact said ban in any realistic sense. The failure to enact the ban would not indicate that the state was unstable, but it would indicate the limits of US power over its citizens. This failure would not, however, indicate that the US was unstable, weak, or otherwise incapable of governing.

To clarify, Pakistan isn't so much unstable (ie. there is not likely to be a revolution which fundamentally alters the way Pakistan is run) as it is tumultuous (the system of succession is violent).

LordofHats wrote:
I don't mind it. It's preferable to say, my Anthropology prof last semester who constantly went on irrelevant political triads. What does gay marriage have to do with the Yanamamo of southern Venezuela I mean, if he brought up when we were talking about marriage I'd get it, but then he was talking about tax reform!

That's a weak tangent, I've turned logic lectures into lectures about why the Bears suck.

dogma wrote:I think I might not be making my point well, so I'm going to hyperbolize (great word, btw).

Hyperbolas are used to take down titan king tyrannosaurs, but I digress.

dogma wrote: If the US banned firearms, its legal authority would not likely permit it to enact said ban in any realistic sense. The failure to enact the ban would not indicate that the state was unstable, but it would indicate the limits of US power over its citizens. This failure would not, however, indicate that the US was unstable, weak, or otherwise incapable of governing.

To clarify, Pakistan isn't so much unstable (ie. there is not likely to be a revolution which fundamentally alters the way Pakistan is run) as it is tumultuous (the system of succession is violent).
.

I agree that this would be impossible for America to enact, as it would have to take copious amounts of its authority vested in the Constitution and dramatically alter them to be able to ensure the law would be carried out.

The event of failing to enact the ban in any even though would not indicate the state was unstable, but it could be an event that triggers a slide into instability, especially given the current political climate. It is acrimonious, but not to a point where we have armed rebellions going on against the regime.

But you are correct that the failure would not mean Americuh is feth yeah unstable.

Suffice to say, Pakistan changed its form of government in 2008, has spend considerable military capital in fighting to divest insurgents and militants from areas they control, has had riots with considerable deaths for various reasons, and lest we forget the occasional terrorist attack to remind them all that the War on Terror is conveniently on their front doors.

Despite all these challenges, Pakistan still remains firmly within control of itself. Perhaps that wariness of India helps pressure the majority to work together...

WarOne wrote:
Suffice to say, Pakistan changed its form of government in 2008...

Well, it didn't change its form of government, it held elections that were postponed due to Bhutto's assassination.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
Suffice to say, Pakistan changed its form of government in 2008...

Well, it didn't change its form of government, it held elections that were postponed due to Bhutto's assassination.

The government went from a Presidential/Prime Minister form of government to a Parliamentary Democracy. The key difference is that the power vested in the President is reduced in the latter form of government, thus rendering him more or less a popular figurehead.

WarOne wrote:
The government when from a Presidential/Prime Minister form of government to a Parliamentary Democracy. The key difference is that the power vested in the President is reduced in the latter form of government, thus rendering him more or less a popular figurehead.

No, Pakistan has been a parliamentary democracy since independence. After Musharraf's resignation the office of President lost many of its power, but the basic form of government remained the same.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
The government when from a Presidential/Prime Minister form of government to a Parliamentary Democracy. The key difference is that the power vested in the President is reduced in the latter form of government, thus rendering him more or less a popular figurehead.

No, Pakistan has been a parliamentary democracy since independence. After Musharraf's resignation the office of President lost many of its power, but the basic form of government remained the same.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has not been consistent with its governmental type since independence.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Pakistan-GOVERNMENT.html

Pakistan came into being as a self-governing dominion in the British Commonwealth in 1947 and declared itself a republic in 1956. Under a constitution framed by Zulfikar Bhutto and effective as of 14 August 1973, it is federal in nature, and Westminster-style cabinet systems operate at the federal and provincial levels.

Pakistan's constitution, which is the framework to which their government functions, has also been suspended. This has happened in 1977, 1999, and 2007- thus nullifying the governmental type until such a time as the constitution was resinstated.


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3453.htm

On September 6, 2008, Asif Ali Zardari, widower of assassinated Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Benazir Bhutto, was elected president and head of state. The PPP-led coalition government moved forward on long-awaited constitutional reforms. In particular, on April 19, 2010, Zardari signed into law the 18th Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution. The amendment realigns executive powers by restoring the prime minister as the premier civilian official and returning the presidency to its original, more ceremonial role as head of state, which largely eliminates constitutional changes made by former President Musharraf to strengthen the presidency. The reform package also abolishes the two-term limit on prime ministers; restricts the president’s power over judicial appointments; and reorganizes center-province relations, empowering provincial assemblies to elect their own chief ministers. The amendment also renamed the North-West Frontier Province to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which means “Khyber side of the land of the Pakhtuns,” in a nod to the region’s ethnic Pashtun majority.

This implies a signficant departure from one governmental type to another. Prior to 2010, the government operated in a semi-presidential form of government wherein the president and prime minister both shared obligations of running the state. Under the 2010 amendment (which formally changes the constitution), the government now runs under a parliamentary democracy.

Now their constitution calls for Pakistan to be a Federal Republic. Now perhaps this is the form of government they use. And yet the system they have adopted is a parliamentary democracy. So perhaps then this means that we can change systems of government but not the form under which it operates?

WarOne wrote:
Unfortunately, Pakistan has not been consistent with its governmental type since independence.

Right, the nature of the parliamentary democracy has varied over time, but its never been anything by a parliamentary democracy. Even through its various coups, it has remained a state predicated on the parliamentary system.

WarOne wrote:
Pakistan's constitution, which is the framework to which their government functions, has also been suspended. This has happened in 1977, 1999, and 2007- thus nullifying the governmental type until such a time as the constitution was resinstated.

It was also abrogated in 1958, and 1969, which points to tumult, but even under martial law Pakistan was nominally run via a parliamentary system of democratic governance.

WarOne wrote:
Now their constitution calls for Pakistan to be a Federal Republic. Now perhaps this is the form of government they use. And yet the system they have adopted is a parliamentary democracy. So perhaps then this means that we can change systems of government but not the form under which it operates?

Well, they are also a federal republic because they operate using a federal system, and lack a hereditary leader.

Anything can be cahnged about governance insofar as people want to do so, my point is that, though all its travails, Pakistan has not ceased being a parliamentary democracy.

dogma wrote:

Anything can be cahnged about governance insofar as people want to do so, my point is that, though all its travails, Pakistan has not ceased being a parliamentary democracy.

So basically you are arguing that it has remained one form of government? So the other labels I can attach to their government are basically temporary statuses to which it operated for limited times?

WarOne wrote:
So basically you are arguing that it has remained one form of government? So the other labels I can attach to their government are basically temporary statuses to which it operated for limited times?

I'm arguing that there are very few governmental labels that are mutually exclusive.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
So basically you are arguing that it has remained one form of government? So the other labels I can attach to their government are basically temporary statuses to which it operated for limited times?

I'm arguing that there are very few governmental labels that are mutually exclusive.

Well, that would of been much easier to state at the beginning of the discussion then.

So even when their government is toppled and the constitution is suspended or when the military intervenes, it still exists as a parliamentary democracy?

WarOne wrote:
So even when their government is toppled and the constitution is suspended or when the military intervenes, it still exists as a parliamentary democracy?

So long as the system being adhered to is a parliamentary democracy, yep.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
So even when their government is toppled and the constitution is suspended or when the military intervenes, it still exists as a parliamentary democracy?

So long as the system being adhered to is a parliamentary democracy, yep.

Here is a bit of food for thought...

http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/pakistan/GOVERNMENT.html

Seems like a decent and comprehensive look into the history of Pakistanian government in all their trials and tribblations (up until a certain date).