The other day I asked a very dear friend, who is a die-hard Nawaz Sharif fan, why does he so passionately support PML-N? My frustration was his approach towards a political debate which started with bashing Musharraf and ended up with bashing PTI on the way bashing PPP, Army, ISI and what not and all of this was done under the title "Why I support PML-N".
On other occasions the argument was based on cheaply done photos of Hitler and his words written next to Imran Khan's picture so sometime about 2 weeks ago I requested him to please stop doing it as it doesn't help the political debate, I mean what purpose does it serve? there is no end to this mud slinging road, tomorrow somebody will put a picture of Nawaz Sharif next to a donkey with the words "dekho dekho kon aya sher aya Jeddah se" and this drama will continue without any intellectual debate or outcome but we all know PML-N fellows are big time fans of *mud slinging* and *topi drama*, did I say Ch Nisar? No I didn't, come on.
Anyways to my humble request this friend of mine, an established educationalist, used the *google machine* and probably searched "Why I support PML-N" which in itself shows the irony of the situation. Anyhow he found a link to a blog written by a seemingly decent and polite PML-N enthusiast Adnan Chaudhry. My friend was walking with broad shoulders, he sent the link to me then probably emailed a 100 other people and finally put it on his Facebook profile with the title "to all PTI jiyalas". I hope this explains the extent of joy he felt in discovering this link, so I promised him I will read it thoroughly and respond with my perception and understanding.
Nothing that comes ahead is in any way meant to be derogatory to Adnan Choudhry or for that matter any PML-N follower. However, I strongly suggest that any growth indicator can not be seen as an atomic value, it has to be seen in context, of the time period of the growth that follows before and after it. You can not and should not say that my score at the 23rd minute of a cricket match was 10 and because 10 is bigger than 0 I won the match or I did a great job, you have to see where you ended, what was the target and so on. Moreover, a text that contains a dozen decimal figures doesn't make it authentic or scientific or for that matter true. I will now review the "Why I support PML-N" article point by point as it is written.
The Team
The first thing Mr Choudhry mentions is "The TEAM" and lists about 26 of PML-N leaders he thinks are political gems of the party.
AC Argument: He writes and I quote "It’s not only one person; it’s the team which makes goals achievable …"
My Questions:
How does a democratic party, that according to you has the most credible team, always had one leader elected again and again for more than two decade? Was there no political gem in the party to take leadership, especially when Mian Nawaz Sharif was in Jeddah?
As a passionate follower of PML-N who of the 26 political gems of PML-N, you think, will replace Mian Nawaz Sharif if there is a need ever?
Or let me ask you bluntly has ever or will ever there be a PML-N president whose surname will not be "Sharif"?
How could a team as elite as you think and portray it is failed twice at completing its elected terms?
Doesn't that show political incompetency? Even Zardari could complete a term under much more pressure and conspiracies than PML-N faced so does that mean he has a better team than PML-N?
How can you trust a team, you consider ELITE, to complete a term 3rd time when they failed miserably in the first 2 attempts, what has changed in the team to make sure they won't mess up and run to Jeddah this time?
The opposition will always be there, conspiracies will always be there, Generals will always be there, ISI will always be there, a good politician is the one who can handle all these variables and still goes on to help his country or at least complete his elected term. Apart from Zardari both Nawaz Sharif and BB have failed miserably at that. Then what team or what leader you talk about?
AC suggested to use Google to know more about their candidates so I did a Google search about Mushahidullah Khan and I found this youtube video, see and judge for yourself how political gems of PML-N talk. Listen to the content of discussion brought to table by PML-N leaders and make your own judgements.
There are more such clips of Rohail Asghar and others and these examples are not recent if you dig Mian Nawaz Sharif's and other IJI leaders past addresses there was a time they were so immoral and cheap that they used to discuss Zulfiqar Bhutto's penis in public addresses, whether it was circumcised or not, whether he used to drink or not and so on; personal attacks, cheap remarks and immoral accusations has been PML-N's main weapon throughout and the irony is that today their followers talk about professionalism and ethics?
Though not to mention that the list has some very decent politicians like Ahsan Iqbal, but such people will never be in a decision making role in a party that runs by bloodline and not political stature or achievements. Is Hamza Shahbaz or Maryam Nawaz more capable than Ahsan Iqbal or Javed Hashmi? Is Bilawal Bhutto Zardari more experienced than Amin Faheem or Aitzaz Ahsan? Will Ahsan Iqbal or Aitzaz ever lead PML-N or PPP? answer these questions for yourself.
Just to give the readers a glimpse, see how the lion responds to his tax payments question,
Lastly, just let me share with you the level to which PML-N and PPP teams can fall, is this what you call *the team*?
Just to give the readers a glimpse, see how the lion responds to his tax payments question,
Lastly, just let me share with you the level to which PML-N and PPP teams can fall, is this what you call *the team*?
PML-N PPP fighting during the budget session 2012
Conclusion: The author has given a list of decent political figures but asks the reader to google and find their achievements making the section lack material and evidence. It is probably better if the author can pick 2, 3 or 4 candidates and discuss their achievements otherwise the argument is valid for all political parties, they all have candidates who have won frequently form their regions but in the political reality of Pakistan it doesn't mean they did work or achieved milestones in their tenures unless stated.
First Two Terms
This is perhaps the most interesting section where AC reviews the economical achievements of PML-N during their two terms and selects a variety of growth identifiers to support his argument. This section is full of intentional or unintentional misquoting of facts potentially misleading the readers.
For example, the 1990 elections were not won by PML-N they were won by IJI (Islami Jamhori Itehad) formed and groomed by ISI to prepare an opponent against PPP. Yes it is the same ISI PML-N enthusiasts hate more than anything today. So the author should convey to his readers the facts about the elections he is quoting, for example, IJI led by Mian Nawaz Sharif formed and funded by ISI won the 1990 elections.
The above invalidates the elections themselves and any forthcoming achievements by the resulting government as the party was openly supported by establishment, if PML-N can blame PTI for ISI support for their rallies then based on the same logic they won 1990 elections by the support of the same ISI, isn't it?, however, we won't leave it to that.
Now we move to some of the economical misquotations of the article, such as, AC writes and I quote,
"The strength of economy of any country can easily be determined by Growth Domestic Product (GDP)."
Now to bluntly put this is a lie, distortion of fact in itself, because in the last decade and since late 90s there is a growing understanding and debate over the inaccuracy and inadequacy of GDP growth as a measure of welfare and well being or for that matter economic growth of a state [1][2]. The most important lacking of the GDP measure is that it does not cover the poverty gap among the population, which is extremely vital in judging the progress of a poor country like Pakistan. This was purely to contest the claim that GDP can "easily show strength of an economy.
Now lets talk about the GDP spike at the start of PML-N's (read IJI) first term that the author has implicitly quoted as "spectacular economic growth". If you observe closely that spike shows looting rather than *growth* by IJI to probably cover for election costs. As per the World Bank data no doubt there is a spike in GDP in 1991 but is that in parallel to other variables, such as foreign debt, national reserves, GNI index, poverty gap and much more. Above all can the author not see or intentionally ignore the steep fall after the spike? (see Ref. Arrow 4) In essence PML-N ended at a point lower than where it started, then is that progress? It is like saying that I give you 100 Rs and steal 200 Rs from you the next minute and claim that I helped you economically grow by 100 Rs.
Figure 1 - GDP Growth
Consider the GDP growth graph shown above that PML-N lovers are beating the drum about. I have marked peaks and lows as per PPP and PML-N governments. Firstly, the growth peak reached by PML-N (Ref. Arrow 2) in 1992 was a post election revival and was by no mean higher than the previous GDP trend and that curve can be seen before and after every election. That spike was not sustainable as it can be seen from the chart, true GDP growth is the one which is sustainable, probably common sense, right? What good is a 7.7 that is followed by a 1.8 in the next 6 months? Not to forget that the 1992 GDP drop (Ref. Arrow 2 to 4) during PML-N government was the steepest and lowest ever dip in the 10 years before 1992 and 20 years after that. So beating the drum about a number that stayed for 3 months is probably being naive. Now consider (Ref. Arrow 4 & 5) and see that both the lowest GDP thresholds were achieved during PML-N terms.
Lastly, if GDP is the sole growth parameter as per AC and the people advocating that viewpoint, then they should immediately change their association to PPP because the most consistent GDP growth achieved was by PPP during their second term (Ref. Arrow 3) or even PML-Q (Ref. Arrow 6) but definitely not PML-N.
So although we have seen that the GDP spike of PML-N's first term (PPP and PML-Q have done much better than PML-N) is not an achievement we will still go and discuss why it is not even considerable. Now, GDP, so dear to PML-N lovers, consists of four parts, (1) the amount of consumption of goods and services by private individuals and businesses; (2) business investment in capital for production of goods and services; (3) the amount of spending and consumption by government agencies at all levels; and (4) the net amount of exports to other countries. An important part of consumption of services is *real estate* and PML-N is known for its land mafia tactics. Also consider (3, the amount of spending and consumption by Government agencies), rings any bell? and yes this is how flawed GDP is. So to verify the GDP growth we need to look at other indicators to see if they support the GDP growth, for example, the debt interest payment which should be regular and growing if a country is progressing but see Figure 2 (again marked with PPP/PML-N terms), in both PPP terms there is a consistent considerable growth in debt interest payment but have a look at PML-N, in their first term the graph is almost a straight line and in their second term they have done a little better after starting off poorly, this is the term when people were hoaxed with the Qarz-utaro-Mulk-Sunwaro scheme.
The strategy of PML-N in both terms is equivalent to saying that I owe you 100 Rs since 10 days and the interest rate is 10 Rs per day and I in the next month I save 200 Rs by giving my family less food to eat and cutting their electricity, then at that point I decide that I will not even pay 1 Rs as interest on my debt but I will buy new clothes of Rs 200, the people seeing me from outside (GDP) will conclude that I am doing good if I am buying clothes of 200 Rs but in the long run and in actual I am increasing the burden on myself (as the interest continues to grow) and my future (future governments).
Figure 2 - Debt Interest Payment
Another important part of GDP are consumptions so to check where that spike came from we explore as many indicators as possible of the GDP composition. In Figure 3, we see if the GDP growth came from the trade component of the GDP and the answer is no, in fact trade ratio actually fell during 1990-91.
Figure 3 - Trade %age of GDP
We look at Foreign Direct Investment in Figure 4, and the answer is still no.
Figure 4 - Foreign Investment
We look at tax revenues in Figure 5 hoping that PML-N started paying and gathering more tax during their first term and the answer is still no.
Figure 5 - Tax revenue %age of GDP
Surprisingly, we then come across Gross Savings which are calculated in layman terms by deducting the consumption expenditure from the production monetary value, see Figure 6. So basically from 1990-91 PML-N government reduced the consumption largely, which is again their trademark tactic stocking sugar, rice, wheat, in turn forcing reduced consumption, which results in a linear GDP as you can see from 1990-91 and rapid increase in savings which again you can see in the savings graph.
Figure 6 - Savings
Now you may ask why would did they do that? Normally governments do that to accumulate national savings and reserves for better future and periods of depression and recession but if a governments intentions are honest you see the effect of the GDP growth by savings in the following years by a consistent growth or linear graph but have a look at Figure 1 and see what happens, from 1990-91 government increases savings, GDP is linear, from 1991-92 savings fall and GDP grows steeply because government spending is the part of GDP, if the government says they have spent 10 million dollars in creating a public toilet that counts as GDP growth, it is not GDP calculators responsibility to check how can a toilet cost 10 million dollars, so as I gave the 200 Rs example, so the government spends all the savings from 90-91 in 91-92 and none of that is traceable in debt payment or interest payment, and basically a lot of savings and national reserves ACTUALLY disappeared from 1991-92. Even if you don't believe or agree to it you can't deny the fact that PML-N left GDP at a much lower level then where they got it, is that progress? is that economic growth? Not to forget that the GDP free fall from 92 onwards is the biggest decline of 3 decades, yes you are right the growth achieved by spending savings fell miserably because the same save and spend cycle could not be repeated. Where did that growth which in turn was a stock of savings disappear? London, Jeddah, Saudia? probably yes.
So unless PML-N or its lovers can justify where that spike and the savings behind that spike disappeared they should try to realise that bringing up that 1991 spike is a point that goes against them unless you are in a gathering where people are bamboozled if your sentence has 2 or 3 numbers in it.
Inflation Annual Percentage
Next we move to the inflation annual percentage and two interesting observations at once. First the author doesn't mention which measure of inflation is he discussing; is this in context to the GDP growth or consumer prices (we assume consumer prices) and secondly the biased nature of the article becomes evident when he conveniently ignores the period of PML-N where inflation rose but proudly presents the brief period where it fell.
Figure 7: Consumer prices inflation history [3]
To investigate the fall in inflation rate during PML-N's second term we need to reconsider the external debt (Figure 2), foreign investment (Figure 4) and Savings (Figure 6). The main decrease that is highlighted in the article under discussion is the disinflation between 1998-99, if you revisit the charts mentioned above and rewind the 1998-99 period you can see that there was no increase in tax revenue or foreign investments, rather Pakistan was facing sanctions because of the Nuclear tests so how come this disinflation occurred; the answer again is in the wedge you can see in the savings chart (Figure 6), it was the same strategy as adopted by PML-N in their first term where the government stopped paying interest on debt, decreased consumption for a year adopting various methods (most of which you can recall) and then using that mini-spike as an indicator of disinflation, immediately following it by a sudden dip. Therefore, on paper it looks like disinflation however in actual its harmful for the country in the long run as the savings have suddenly been consumed and is actually a *mini-inflation*, ask yourselves, was there a rapid decrease in consumer prices in 1998-99?
Once again if disinflation rate is the criteria for your vote, vote for PML-Q because the highest disinflation rate was achieved by them in 2003.
Motorway the backbone of today's economy:
This section of the article has no argument, no reference, no evidence to prove or advocate what it claims so I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it, unless the author comes forward with some data or evidence that suggests that the 30.5 billion rupee M-2 allegedly constructed by PML-N to have a direct road route between Raiwand and Islamabad is the *backbone of today's economy* or has earned Pakistan more than its cost. Not to mention that M-2 was constructed by consuming 40% foreign loans [4] and you can see from the charts above PML-N in its 2 terms didn't even pay the interest on the existing debt what to talk of the debt or principal payment on 14 billion borrowed for M-2.
You can also briefly see in [4] that the M-2 passes through agricultural land and is seen to possess harmful effects on the environment and agricultural land. so unless somebody can come up with the revenue earned by M-2 against the cost of its construction and maintenance it appears to be a white elephant. Claiming that it is the *backbone of the economy* without any evidence is equivalent to saying that "the stone I removed from sidewalk yesterday saved the world".
Poverty:
This is probably the most interesting section of the whole article because when I started reading the reference it is based on, I had to go through it twice to make sure if I am understanding it correctly. The author writes and I quote,
"After coming into government in 1990, within two year Poverty decreased from 37.4% to 25.7%. "
Now the reference used is an interim assessment report prepared by World Bank and is titled 'Poverty In Pakistan in 1990s' [5]. The purpose of this report is to highlight the inequality between rich and poor which is one of the core missing elements of GDP, as we have discussed earlier and is a very good reference. I will simply copy and paste the text from the same report the author probably overlooked the text that accompanied the numbers. The report mentions on pg. 2-3,
"On the whole, growth and to some extent, changes in distribution of consumption are important in explaining changes in consumption poverty in Pakistan. Between 1984-85 and 1987-88, substantial poverty reduction took place, as a result of strong growth performance that led to sizeable increases in mean consumption, along with reduced inequality in rural areas. From 1987-88 to 1990-91, lower growth rates combined with slight worsening of inequality, led to smaller gains in poverty reduction. This pattern was carried into the 1990s, a period that also saw large variations in growth rates that led to fluctuations in consumption poverty. During the later part of the 1990s, growth performance dropped off considerably, which led to worsening of the poverty situation since 1996-97. On balance during the 1990s, incidence, depth and severity of overall poverty remained almost unchanged if one were to compare the beginning and the end of the decade (1990-91 and 1998-99)."
Read the highlighted part and observe that it is always better to read the text that comes before the numbers. The insignificant change in the percentages does not map to the on ground indicators and the report itself suggests that overall the situation remained the same with minor recovery periods during 1996-97 (which was PPP government). Again I refer to a portion of the report with a visual, pg. 6 [5],
Figure 8: Transcript from 'Poverty In Pakistan in 1990s' [5]
The graph clearly suggests how the inequality rose specially in PML-N's second term. Another interesting part of the article is that the author has contradictions within the report, for example, in the inflation section the author advocates that PML-N made drastic disinflation during its second term 1998-99 and in the next section advocates that poverty rose in the same time frame but it was "understandable" because of the nuclear tests, so dear author I am confused how true disinflation can occur in a period of rising poverty unless it is a mini-inflation appearing as disinflation only because it followed a period of rising inflation. I leave the inaccuracy of the poverty section here unless the author responds with a clearer explanation of his understanding. To put cherry on cake I end with another quotation from the same article that the author has used as a reference,
"As this report strongly suggests, issues of governance, in the form of lacking accountability, voice and participation, are at the heart of many of the difficulties encountered in mitigating poverty and broadening access to social services in Pakistan. Neither debt reform nor the mere availability of donor funds is likely to dispel these problems. The strategies and tactics to bolster human development in Pakistan outlined by this report take this into account, emphasizing also the need to consider and implement concomitant policies in a comprehensive, mutually reinforcing manner."
Essentially this means that in both PML-N terms the gap between the rich and poor widened considerably, the poor got poorer and the rich got richer and this is the most harmful and dangerous trend for a 3rd world economy like Pakistan as it undermines any GDP, GNI or GNP growth.
Corruption
Again the author fails to provide any explanation, the reference is dead and I could not find anything of the sort on google, the only corruption perception index that I could find was on the World Bank [6] website and Wikpedia [7], and both start after 2002. So I find that section incomplete and hence can not comment on it.
Although, from this point onwards the article is just wishful thinking of Choudhry Adnan, I will still discuss them in a summary. The next 4 sections titled "Quality of Work", "Releasing the Industries, Promoting Investment", "Relationship with India" and "Conclusion" have no data in them and are solely the views of the author. For the industrial revolution you can always refer to the tax, reserves, services and other data freely available and if there was any development only the author knows about it because no growth indicator suggests the same. Reading these last 3-4 sections is like a 3 yr old mentioning to his friend how his fathers' diy tasks are so nice and better than the rest of the world. The problem with that is that you can not argue with a 3 yr old if he has decided his dad is the best, the author says that everything PML-Q did required repairs in 2 years where as Shehbaz Shrif works survived 15 years, I find it very cute and naive and can only smile on it as a response.
In conclusion the author says that if PML-N can do this much in 6 collective years they can do a lot more given another chance, this, to a neutral reader reads like, if they have done this little in 2 terms and couldn't complete even one of their terms there is no hope they will complete a 3rd term and will leave Pakistan in a mess and probably run to Jeddah, as per the historical data and circumstantial evidence.
The rest of the article is full of personal views, I would't comment on them author is entitled to them, but here are a few glimpses of some of the gems, on the issue of Mian Nawaz Sharif leaving behind all his party and workers in turmoil and running away to Jeddah with his Nihari cook signing a deal with Musharraf, the author writes,
"It was a “Lost War” for Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Cutting long story short Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was sent to prison and later exiled from the country on conditions that he would not participate in country’s politics for next 10 years.
Many of friends claimed it as “a cowered act” but they never realize that after loosing a war all that matters is “Survival”. Because only survival can give a warrior chance to rebuild himself and fight again which exactly he did, coming back in 2007 to fight. If escaping as survival from a lost war is a cowered act then how come all great warriors of the history like Tipu Sultan and others were not referred to cowered when they survived after loosing war and then rebuilt themselves to fight again?"
May I ask the author when did Tipu Sultan left his soldiers and companions in the battlefield and signed a deal with the enemy to run away from the battlefield, he did lose battles but lost them gracefully not like Mian Nawaz Sharif. A warrior (as AC quotes Sharif) is no warrior but a coward if he leaves his comrades in the battlefield and runs away, warriors even when they lose battles protect their comrades and companions before themselves in any surrendering deal they make. Then Mr Choudhry talks about Lal Masjid, May 12, 3rd Nov emergency, charter of democracy an event here an event there none of which adds any value to the stature of PML-N.
Character of Nawaz Sharif
I stopped reading the AC article when at this point I considered it lacking any further academic value, when he writes,
[AC Quote] "If anyone can remember the year 1988 then how can he forget 1999? If anyone says that PML(N) is created by establishment then how can he forget about the fact that it was kicked out by “Establishment” in 1999? From 12 October 1999 the party has suffered and struggled a lot but never compromised on principle stand. One must notice that if he is going backwards from 2011 to 1988, he must pass through 1999."
Dear Mr Choudhry the fact that your leader was kicked in the butt by establishment in 1999 changes NOTHING about how his party came into being, read again, it changes nothing. The reality still remains that PML-N is an illegal child of ISI, renamed from IJI to PML-N to save face. It will always remain that, the fact that daddy kicked its ass in 1999 is because it tried to be over clever which only proves that PML-N leadership is not capable of completing a term they will always do blunders, it changes NOTHING about PML-N's birth certificate.
This is Nawaz Sharif's reality, has been and will always be,
Just because one general kicked his ass the whole PML-N is against Army and ISI and when another general was kicking somebody else's ass the whole PML-N used to sing praises of Army and ISI. This is not following principles, this is being selfish and cheap. This is the King of U-Turns, this is the height of hypocrisy. Those who stand on principles don't alter principles based on personal relations, not like Nawaz Sharif whose principles change based on his personal relations with people and organisations, people like Nawaz Sharif are selfish and self-centred as long as their motives were fulfilled by establishment all was well as soon as the relations got poor they started acting as they are the most clean political party in Pakistan.
If this is your argument to justify Nawaz Sharif's establishment based origin then every other leader and party who are doing the same can not be criticized by PML-N because give them 15 years and they will also be against establishment. So don't criticize the approach that you have adopted yourself, unless you come outright and apologise to the nation for doing that.
PML-N; An icon of U-Turns, Hypocrisy and Lies
I often find some friends; surprisingly astute PML-N followers (I have friends who follow PPP but they are much more admitting of their deeds) who blame east, west, north and south of establishment support, my surprise and only question to them is that how can you blame something you were created out of, no doubt if today you realise that establishment support is a poor thing you can raise voice against it BUT only after you admit that you have done the same crime for over a decade. Unless you do that your criticism only shows your hypocrisy and selfishness.
Next on the list of PML-N's hypocrisy list is the so called support for judiciary, the true fact of the PML-N long march was the show of power to PPP, restoration of Punjab government and eligibility of Sharif brothers, this was proved eventually after the wikileaks documents came to surface as they showed that Shahbaz Sharif was willing to compromise on the restoration of CJ if all the other demands are met and something face saving is done about CJ [8]. The ones who themselves attacked the SC in 1997 after a verdict against them was expected are today raising slogans about protection of judges, a shame in itself. Now many PML-N followers will raise hell on the eligibility of wikileaks as a validated reference, it is a whole different debate, though not many will disagree that they are a much more reliable source of information then PML-N spokespersons. To add weight to the argument; Gohar Ayub Khan, a veteran ex-PML-N leader (and soon to be a non-ex-PMLN member) in his book "Glimpses into the Corridors of Power", remembers how when driving with Nawaz Sharif from the Assembly to his house one day, Sharif naively asked him : "Gohar Sahib, show me a way to arrest the chief justice and keep him in jail for a night" [9]. This is the true face of PML-N hidden behind bullet proof windows and acres wide Raiwand mahals.
Next on the list is PML-N's criticism of Imran Khan for changing his stance on MQM. Imran Khan never changed his stance on MQM, he went all the way to the end with pursuing cases against MQM in UK, the case died the legal death when the PPP government refused to provide any support to scotland yard's investigations. As far his stance becoming softer is concerned it is a true part of politics, it is about coalitions and compromises, if this approach helps his party or politics then why not. Haven't you my PML-N friends done the same? No, well think again and see Ishaq Dar explaining politics to you [10].
If we have to talk about the U-turns of PML-N and Sharif brothers we can not and should not forget the biggest U-turn on the issue of signing 10 year agreement with Gen. Musharraf. For months and months every stooge of PML-N was as confident as he was of his surname about the fact that his brave leaders, the sharif brothers, had not signed any agreement with the General, it was only after that Hariri offspring and Saudi Intelligence head came to Pakistan, did a press conference and slapped every PML-N leader and follower, on the right and left cheek, probably at the same time. From saying that there is no agreement [11], to saying that there is a verbal agreement, to saying that there is a 5 yr agreement to finally admitting there is a signed 10 yr agreement, was that not a lie, a u-turn, an act of hypocrisy?
See below and decide for yourself if this a truth speaking lion or a lying coward.
Then there are a million videos of Mian Nawaz Sharif claiming that he will not accept any PML-Q leader because they left PML-N alone in time to trouble (ironically he never realises he did the same) and then comes the U-turn, first Mian sb decides to accept the forward block, then he decides to accept any odd PML-Q leader here and there and the list is still growing with Marvi Memon the latest addition to Mian Sb's comrades.
Lastly the conspiracy theory of the Sharif's, Musharraf and Brigadier Niaz; Love Triangle is not to be forgotten but as I have no documentary evidence of that I will leave it at that and let your judgements do some exercise.
My Conclusion
The claims that there was immense growth and development in PML-N terms are incorrect and the indicators used to advocate these thoughts are misquoted. There was no exceptional growth and the grave reality is that Pakistan lost considerable national reserves in the two terms of PML-N. Nothing in PML-N's or PPP's two terms is worth giving them a 3rd or 4th chance, there are huge gaps in national reserves and huge rise in external debt in both their terms. If they couldn't and haven't done it in 2 and 3 terms what do you think are the chances that they will do it ever? Sharifoon aur bhuttoan k munh ko awam ka khoon lag gaya hai aur ab loot khasoot ka yeh nasha utarnay wala nahi. As long as people of Pakistan continue to vote for Bhuttos and Sharifs they will continue to suffer. As long as they don't turn up to vote they will suffer. Don't vote for PTI but don't vote for PPP or PML-N either, vote for your independant candidates or contest the elections yourself. Unless you show these corrupt leaders that they are dependent on your vote to come to power they will continue to treat you like garbage. Don't vote for PPP or PML-N because your uncle has a ticket from that party, it might do good to your family it won't help Pakistan. Explore the candidates in your area, make them work for your vote, PPP and PML-N has beyond a hint of doubt looted Pakistan over two decades if you still want to vote for them it is your choice for which maybe your kids and their kids will suffer, not Bilawal or Hamza or Maryam or their kids they will be either in Jeddah or UK, you will be in Pakistan and you will bear the consequences. When Nawaz Sharif was in trouble last time he left you alone for 10 years he will easily do that again. No Tipu Sultan has ever left his people and soldiers and ran away for 10 years, the people who compare him to Tipu are naive and I feel sorry for them.
If I have to choose between Nawaz Sharif and Zardari I will choose Zardari 10 out of 10 times because both are corrupt but at least Zardari is a better politician.
You have their lifeline in your hand and that is your vote, if you waste it again its only yours fault and only you are to be blamed for it.
References
[1] GDP: The Measure and Mismeasure of Economy (http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211/45129.html)
[2] Jean-Paul Fitouss, Amartya Kumar Sen, Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2010, "Mismeasuring our lives: why GDP doesn't add up", Google Books Link
[3] The World Bank Open Data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG)
[4] Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (http://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/conference/ex_pk_7_ali.htm)
[5] Poverty In Pakistan in the 1990s: An Interim Assessment, World Bank, January 2002, Link
[6] World Bank CPIA (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.TRAN.XQ?page=1)
[7] Wikipedia, Corruption Perception Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)
[8] Wikileaks Document 196903, Link
[9] Judiciary Attacked 1997 (http://www.seamonitors.org/id35.html)
[10] PMLN meets MQM (http://tribune.com.pk/story/202447/we-are-in-contact-with-mqm-dar/)
[11] Nawaz Sharif denial of any agreement with Musharraf (http://archives.dawn.com/2006/02/06/nat3.htm)
[11] Nawaz Sharif denial of any agreement with Musharraf (http://archives.dawn.com/2006/02/06/nat3.htm)
No comments:
Post a Comment