| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
062504
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
135991
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There are several theoretical frameworks proposed by a wide range of scholars to explicate and understand civil and military relations. Rebecca Schiff's concordance theory is one of the recent models in this theoretical tradition. She argues that the theory of separation of civil and military relations given by Huntington not only fails to give an adequate account of domestic military interventions in Pakistan but also attempts to impose the American model of civil and military relations on it. Given the problems and flaws of the separation model, she proposes the concordance theory in place of the separation model. Schiff claims that the concordance theory provides an appropriate model to explain and to avoid military intervention in Pakistan. She purports to demonstrate that a military coup takes place due to discordance among three partners on four indicators. This article will show through the case study of Pakistan that concordance theory fails on four accounts. First, Pakistan's military coup is not the consequence of discordance but concordance. Second, there are not three partners but two. Third, the notion of four indicators runs the risk of oversimplification. Fourth, concordance theory makes somewhat the same mistake committed by the separation model attempting to superimpose the American civil and military framework upon Pakistan. This article will demonstrate that concordance theory draws the civil and military relations upon two rival approaches: abstract theoretical and multicultural approach. By consequence it goes through the internal contradiction because of which it is fated to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
171867
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Pakistan’s progress toward full democracy is dependent upon many variables. One major obstacle to establishment of a mature democracy is widespread corruption, which penetrates deep into the institutions of governance and accountability. Three civilian governments (1958–1971, 1977–1988, 1999–2008) have been overthrown by the military, and three (1988–1990, 1991–1993, 1994–1996) removed by elected presidents on charges of ‘public corruption.’ The extensive literature on causes of corruption in Pakistan has focused on the most apparent reasons, which include politicized bureaucracy, weak institutions, and incompetent political classes. No attention has been paid to the role of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), a legal framework under which the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has been operating since November 1999. This study is the first to highlight the NAO’s role in spreading corruption. Rational choice theory and the economics of crime are applied to evaluate Pakistan’s anti-corruption law, particularly the settlement system. The study concludes that flaws in the law in an environment where the NAB lacks institutional autonomy result in the benefits of a crime outweighing the costs for an offender. In other words, awareness of gaps in the law increases corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
061658
|
|
|