Br Sidqi, this time you have disappointed me with your post. If one really sees, Pakistan was hardly harmed by thief leaders than by overall nation’s own low IQ, in governance, shaky public institutions, army interventions, and illiterate, ignorant masses who are unable to see the difference. Tell me how much money Z.A. Bhutto or Yahya Khan embezzled that created Bangladesh. Being Momin or thief is not the sole criterion of a good leader than his brilliance of insight, ability to bring unity, peace, and prosperity to the nation.
In your opinion, isn’t it would be logical to hire a thief CEO for his ability to turn around a failed company to a 50 percent return on capital bringing happiness to all stakeholders. Later on, you can recover his theft money through judicial means. But hiring an incapable but Momin CEO would doom the company with everything go down under leaving there nothing to recover. Given the two choices which one option is better you think?
Ziaul Haq was certainly a pious person but emotionally charged illiterate masses gave him legitimacy of Mard-e-Momin that flogged so many people on the back like Moulvi punishment. But his limited vision changed national psyche towards advance Moulvism, which is proving more damaging to the nation than petty embezzlements by Zardari and Nawaz, which are being recovered through court. But could you go to the court and get Zia’s high-octane Moulvism reversed?
So crucially judge a leader by what overall valuable things that nation has obtained from him, of course subtracting his trivial issue of embezzled money which court can recover. Embezzlement is everywhere in the world but doesn’t get so off the point excluding all the other things.