So I’m not trying to attack you or anything because I understand you’re asking a genuine question that you have but I need you to understand that your question is ridiculous. The fact that you could even think ‘meh military dictatorship in Pakistan, what’s so bad about that’ comes from a very racist view of the world that’s deeply embedded in the colonial episteme which propagates ideas like poverty being an inherent part of ‘Africa’ or violence being an inherent part of ‘the Middle East’ or military dictatorships and corruption being the norm in Pakistan and so not all that horrifying. These ideas stem from the view that people who live in these countries are inferior or ‘backwards’ in some way making the violence that happens there ‘normal’ or dictatorships ‘just the way it is’ because these people clearly cannot ‘catch up’ to the civilized and perfect West. All of this ignores, of course, the role that the ‘West’ plays in constantly perpetuating this violence and poverty, in propping up tyrannical dictators to serve their own interests, in creating terrorist groups to fight their proxy wars and so on.
It bothers me to have to even say it like this but you would never ask the question “why would a military takeover be so horrifying in the US?” “why would a military takeover be so horrifying in England?” “why would a military takeover be so horrifying in France?”—do you understand what I’m getting at?
I’m not calling you racist here just to be clear, this view of the world is so extremely normalized that it’s a struggle for people in postcolonial countries to breakout beyond the racist shit they’ve been told about themselves by outsiders—it requires a lot of unlearning but you’ve got to do it man, you’ve got to move beyond the shit they feed you.
I will address your question in more specific terms though. Especially about the conditions in Pakistan under previous phases of military rule, mostly because there is a debate about whether or not Pakistan has ‘done better’ under dictatorships, I think it’s a ridiculous debate but you do need to be able to rebut the people that bring that crap up.
First of all, whenever these guys takeover they fucking love abrogating the constitution—which means basically all your fundamental rights were just shot straight down the drain. They give themselves unconstitutional powers that undermine the system of governance that we do have. For example Musharraf did this wonderful thing where he gave himself the right to dismiss/suspend the entire National Assembly, Senate, and the provincial governments. So basically if legislators didn’t do exactly what he wanted he’d just kick them out and find people who would. He also did this great thing where he tried to get the Supreme Court of Pakistan to validate the state of emergency he declared in 2007 in which the constitution was suspended again (think of the brilliant legal precedent that sets [he thought to do this because it had happened before]) and he just placed all the judges that refused to get on board under house arrest and kept the complacent ones.
These powers that they give themselves really fuck up our laws and we have to deal with the consequences for years and years. Just take the teeniest look at Zia ul-Haq’s years in power and all the messed up laws that were passed then but are much harder to repeal now. And then of course there’s the repression of other political parties, of activists, the horrifying force used against protesters, and the dissidents who are jailed/tortured.
As for the ‘is Pakistan’s economy better under dictatorships’ stuff, please read this article.
One of the biggest problems we have in getting our democracy to work in Pakistan is the fact that the military is the strongest institution of the country. Militaries are supposed to be under the civilian government but our civilian government exists at the mercy of the military institutions. The fact that the military has so much influence with civilian government affairs is a great part of what’s in our way to ‘true democracy’ as you put it. So saying that military rule isn’t that bad cuz it’s not like we have proper democracy right now is like suggesting an asthmatic person having an attack go live in a dust storm ‘because they’re not breathing properly right now anyway’.
The last elections marked Pakistan’s first ever democratic transition. Yes there was rigging, yes there were problems, but the sheer number of people that came out to vote was absolutely amazing. And it showed that Pakistanis want to participate in the governance of their country, they want accountability, they want a government that works for them and at the end of the day that’s what matters: what the people want. The people do not want a fucking military takeover: that is the most important answer to all of your questions.
I don’t think one actress should play Aphrodite I think it should be multiple woman of different races and looks because beauty isn’t just white woman alone or black woman alone or Asian woman alone or any other race alone. everyone is beautiful and that is who Aphrodite is, she is beauty.
This should have more notes
she could look different for every person because beauty is in the eye of the beholder or whatever
Remus and Harry make me so sad. Think about the first time Harry met Remus, on the Hogwarts Express. Remus is staring at this teenager, this boy that is so painfully Lily and James’ son. In another life he would have been ‘Uncle Remus’, swinging by every Sunday for supper, babysitting Harry with Sirius. Instead he’s a complete stranger.
RIGHT IN THE HEART