- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
Pakistan’s Sharif seeks progressive reform
Arnaud de Borchgrave’s Jan. 6 column “Catch-22 in Pakistan” (Commentary) has come as a surprise and a disappointment to me and countless other Pakistanis. Having been a regular reader of Mr. de Borchgrave’s perceptive pieces over the past decades - many written after visits to Pakistan - we expected him to be more objective.
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is the leader of the most popular political party in Pakistan today - the PML-N - which, by all accounts, would win the next elections hands-down whenever they are held. His popularity is based not on any anti-American stance, but on hard-core principles and policies that he has followed consistently throughout his two tenures in government as prime minister and ever since returning from exile in 2007.
Mr. Sharif’s bold economic reforms of privatization, liberalization and deregulation, introduced in 1990-91, brought a paradigm shift in the national economy and introduced Pakistan on the world map as an economically progressive country. These reforms were later emulated by India. It makes no sense to assume that a popular leader who initiated bold economic reforms would follow socially regressive policies.
Mr. Sharif is recognized both domestically and internationally as a leader whose commitment to democracy and refusal to countenance any extraconstitutional measure to destabilize the current government is keeping the democratic system in place. This policy could not have been advocated by a politician who believes in “bloody revolution.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Get Breaking Alerts
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- NAPOLITANO: Pope Francis should be saving souls, not pocketbooks
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics