Sbarrkum had put up a post comparing JR and MR. This is my take on the question.
It is a tricky question, undoubtedly JRJ's regime was a turning point, he set the stage for autocracy and escalated the conflict to the level of a real war.
But what of MR, the man who took the maximum use of JR's constitution and then made it worse, via the 18th amendment? After the conflict ended he expanded the draconian PTA, which now incorporates the key provisions of the emergency regulations, so that we are now effectively under permanent emergency regulations.
What of his dismembering of the judiciary? JR started it but it is at a whole new level now.
What of MR's stoking of new inter-religious tensions? Against the Muslims and Christians. New tensions were created out of nothing. International pressure resulted in the genie being placed back in the box, but trust between communities is fractured.
We still do not know what happened in the last few months of the war. Even I have been surprised by what is emerging on corruption. Who knows what will emerge on the war?
We may have to wait awhile before we can assess the real legacy of MR, so a favourable comparison with JR may be premature.
Fortunately it appears that both of these are now in the past, perhaps we may hope for a better future?
Related posts here and here.