Thank you bro
@Nilgiri , it's awesome to have a dot of knowledge in the mid of all ignorance around us .
Let me tell you why Pakistan failed until now compared to Turkiye . one of the best things Ataturk did that in the first years of the republic he separated the army and the army command from the state management , yes they are some ex-military around him but they never deceived the state like the modern corrupt generals . Ataturk and even Inonu didn't promote themselves as a military leaders . Unfortunately all went to shit with the successful and failed coups .
The main reason why Pakistan failed not because of Islam but because of the armed force deep intervention in everything in Pakistan . Pakistani generals are corrupt to the bone and that's well known , let's not forget the massive US and CIA support to the Pakistani generals through it's history until they throw them after the so called war on terror .
It's a long complicated subject to get into.
Of course Islam has nothing to do with a country's political system failure. That can happen in any context with any religion(s) in society.
Rather the failure is often the political system's choice to establish a religious identity as the raison d'etre and pre-eminence for the state.
What happens then is politics just more easily uses religion as a vessel for justifying corruption, unfairness, injustice (that are the inevitable fruits of politics anywhere). You just end up adding an extra massive corrupt "freebie" to existing identity politics/issues already there (that already generate enough corruption by themselves) .
This makes the accountability of the system extremely brittle and opaque with time...more than it otherwise would be (given religion and faith is such a strong matter of the heart and mind among so many).
That is why the Turkish military inherited from Ataturk's founding a strong secular basis...so that even when it intervened (in what it said was to re-correct Turkish politics back to Ataturk's principles), it did so on that secular basis.
Very different to Pakistan's military which is far more factional (having a mix of secular elements and islamist elements). Hence its interventions have often taken a different course, notably seen during Zia's tenure.
It just never developed a staunchly secular ideological doctrine like the Turkish military (under aegis of Ataturk's founding principles)...as the aegis just was not coherently defined at the start and veered fairly quickly (in the Pakistan republic setup) to some significant enough degree of Islamism.
There have been undercurrents in recent times in Turkish military vis a vis existence and undermining action of FETO that some of my Turkish friends have told me about.....but that has come about from the drift and passage of time from Ataturk's founding (and the rise of toxic geopolitical actions from foreign powers post cold war). Turkiye will have to learn from and become more attuned to this to correct and rectify this.
But it is again very different situation to Pakistan as the Pakistani military simply did not develop this kind of staunch doctrine from the get go and has essentially been a "default FETO" system IMO from the get go. This is large part of why the Pakistani military also then was able to continually and easily interfere (and now entrench) in Pakistan's politics using Islamism as the basis to do so, as the republic itself is an Islamic republic.
