November 05, 2007
In defense of a dictatorMusings
I love the ACLU. I believe that a person shouldn’t be allowed to run for President of the United States unless they are a card-carrying member (as opposed to our current system where you have to be a member of the NRA). Likewise, I think that Human Rights Watch rocks and that any government that questions their findings or calls them inaccurate are doing so mostly because they are annoyed at being caught doing something pretty heinous. However, unlike some of my co-bloggers, I also think I support Musharraf’s intention to stay in power and am willing to forgive his autocratic moves for the time being. Why? Because countries like Iraq (and a few others I can think of) have taught the world a very important lesson in recent years. Insisting that they quickly transition to a democracy because its what we (sitting in our stable homes) are fortunate enough to enjoy, doesn’t always result in the best outcome for them or us. History has repeatedly shown that a weak central government is sometimes much worse for everyone than a dictator who, despite curtailing personal freedoms, provides stability for the vast majority. The key is that a path to an eventual transition or succession be clearly defined.
The fact that Musharraf has not developed and cultivated a method for succession while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble.
What was it that went wrong in Iraq? We foolishly believed (and by we I really mean those Neocons) that a community of exiled intellectuals could pick up where a brutal strongman (Hussein) left off. We learned the hard way that exiled intellectuals (like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan) are out of touch with the needs of the masses and will end up fighting amongst themselves while emptying the state coffers. Hussein, just like Hitler and Kim Jong Il, was a very bad man responsible for the death of thousands of his own people. That isn’t why we invaded Iraq or decided that they needed to be democratized though. We invaded Iraq in the expectation that we’d bring about greater long-term stability for us (and for them as a secondary benefit). Nobody would suggest that Musharraf is anywhere near as bad as Hussein and the stability he has been providing is not bad, all things considered. And let’s not forget the reason he seized power in the first place and has been popular in Pakistan for most of his tenure:
Nawaz Sharif was also involved in corruption at the highest level during his tenure which brought further mistrust of the people towards his government. The Nawaz government launched a scheme called “Karz utaro, Mulk savaro” whose intent was to pay off debt of the nation through the Pakistani people’s pockets. Pakistanis took part aggressively and emotionally to help Pakistan pay off the debt. Many Pakistanis living abroad took part in this scheme extensively and sent millions (maybe billions) to help pay off the debt. Even the poor living in the country helped, to the extent that women sold their jewellery to help the cause, but to no avail. As of this date, it is not known what happened to the funds and the national debt never decreased. It is widely believed that the scheme was to benefit Nawaz Sharif & family, and not to pay off the country’s debt. [Link]
Look who we currently have protesting in the streets of Pakistan: lawyers, intellectuals (exiled and in-country), and Islamists. To be clear, I do not condone the jailing of lawyers and judges but Pakistan is not ready for the type of democracy they currently protest in favor of. There is not one shred of proof pointing to a better outcome if elections were to take place, nor a single candidate that one could point to as a competent successor to Musharraf, one likely to provide stability in Pakistan and by extension in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the contrary, Bhutto was almost assassinated within a day of returning. The division of power following an election in Pakistan would be a huge blow against America’s “War on Terror” as well as Pakistan’s continuing effort (although not at 100%) of curtailing the activities of insurgents within its borders and in bringing about a better life for its people. A democratically elected weak central government will benefit nobody except for the well-educated lawyers who may run for office and empty some of those state coffers. I think Musharraf knows that and its why he can’t accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.
American foreign policy experts are not blind to what I am writing here. They were hoping that Musharraf would be able to hold power by at least making a show at democracy. They now have to weakly condemn him because of America’s stated “principles:”
Even before Saturday’s crackdown, U.S. State Department officials said they had struggled with what to do if Musharraf went through with his threat. They didn’t know then, and they don’t know now.
“Frankly, it ain’t easy,” one official said. “We are looking at our options, and none of them are good.”
The United States has pushed for Musharraf to shed his army uniform and hold elections by January. And it repeatedly has told him that his cooperation in the war on terror is not a replacement for democratic reforms…But officials acknowledge any U.S. response will boil down to one thing: al Qaeda. [Link]
The situation in Pakistan will now come down to one thing: the common people. If the lawyers can convince the masses that instant democracy is better for them than stability then Musharraf’s days are numbered. If he overreacts or commits violence on a large scale against the protestors, then there is a chance the common people will turn against him. His best short-term strategy now is to maintain stability and normality by keeping a low profile. The longer that he maintains stability the greater the chance he will retain power. In the long-term he must devise and publicize a means for succession, even if it means diverting a bit of his attention away from his obligations to the U.S.
And so I will not yet support an uprising by “the people” in Pakistan against Musharraf. I think it is best to study and understand the situation some more before displaying the same hubris we have in other areas of the world. The past decade has taught us all about the soft naivete of high expectations. Democracy doesn’t just sprout from a seed. You need to keep turning over the soil for a long time and sometimes pray for rain.
abhi on November 5, 2007 11:38 PM in Musings, News, Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
That was a nice apology for Musharaf's military rule and his declaration of emergency there!!!
I thought it rather mutinous.
I'll tell you what's mutinous-- the ex-elephant feeling solidarity for all them pointy-headed intellectual muslimists. ;)
Wait-- where are all those people who kvetch about everyone in the bunker marching in lockstep again?? See? We totally disagree with each other. :D
wrong. there is no parallel between iraq and pak.
The problem with suspension of civic liberties is that there needs to be a timetable as well as well-defined metrics to guide the resumption, so that these short term 'emergency' measures are bound in time and/or scope.
Man, I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this one.... :)
"In the long-term he must devise and publicize a means for succession, even if it means diverting a bit of his attention away from his obligations to the U.S."
some pakistanis would say that he's had eight years - long enough to devise a means for succession.
"while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble."
some - both pakistanis and others - question how much he really is "helping" and how much he is using that "help" and the threat of withdrawal of that "help" for his own ends. and how exactly is he helping to fight the war in iraq? and afghanistan, especially, isn't always that impressed by his/the army's ability to dissuade insurgents from causing trouble in their territory.
"that exiled intellectuals like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan"
exiled maybe. but intellectuals?
I'm in like Flynn. But then I see western democratic imperialism as inherently despotic as well. We all have to grow up sometime- there's no such thing as a truly liberated regime, at least as how we have been encouraged to define the concept.
but in the same spirit - good crop rotation requires that a leguminous crop be planted at periodic intervals to replenish nitrogen in the soil, however much money the farmer is making by growing potatoes for the McDonald's chip factory.
-commence eyerolling-
True, but most of that time he has been focused on doing the U.S.'s bidding and trying to not get assassinated. He just has never struck me as the typical power hungry type (as opposed to a great many out there who do).
Your interpretations for why we went to war in Iraq are perhaps the most charitable I've seen that didn't come directly from a GOP mouthpiece.
But that's kind of irrelevant.
I do agree that there are no good "post-Musharraf" options for Pakistan (or for the U.S.), so getting rid of him seems like a bad option.
I think it highly unlikely that Musharraf will demonstrate much restraint in dealing with protests. I'm fairly certain he thinks his own best option is to come down with both feet on the back of any protest; hence his treatment of the demonstrating lawyers. He'll also round up anyone suspected of opposition and "detain" them for a while, too.
I'm sure that the relative dearth of legal representation for those arrested is just a happy side-benefit for him.
And of course, Bush and Rice are busy wringing their hands on the sidelines wondering how they can prevent Pakistan from being distracted from the War on Terror.
Really? Stability = flowing oil. That's charitable?
"He just has never struck me as the typical power hungry type (as opposed to a great many out there who do)."
he may not be the corrupt type- in terms of money- like the bhuttos and the sharifs, but i think he's proved that he's power hungry, from kargil to now. it's a different sort of hunger for power. and i don't think he's always doing exactly what the u.s. expects of him with regard to quelling terrorism, despite his claims. maybe he is the best of a chocie of unappetizing options - i'll defer to pakistanis.
No, no mutiny here, unless you consider going against Anna mutinous! Your voice is one with the US establishment and government:)
Abhi,
Wow.
Was just writing a comment on Anna's post and was about to close my window when I saw this post. It makes me sad.
I'm hoping this post is not rallying against democracy and the freedoms that go along with it, like a free press, the rule of law, the right to life and liberty...
It's sad but your post sounds just like the lines conservatives now like to use to fan the flames of the War on Terror's goal to eradicate true democracy in order to replace it with neocon 'freedom'. All through the post there are tones (after the somewhat jarring support of human rights groups, a sector of Pakistani society that is being persecuted as I type)... 'human rights are white values', 'democracy can be imperialistic'...
It's sad because underneath arguments like that is the concept that people in countries like Pakistan, Iraq and Aghanistan can only be ruled by brutish junta or military commanders. What I don't get is why people don't stop to think...
maybe 'democracy' failed in Afghanistan because Hamid Karzai is not a politician but a Californian restaurant owner plucked from Washington to lead a puppet government and ensure that the nation remains pliant to the building of oil pipelines and the awarding of no bid Haliburton contracts to help it 'rebuild' itself for freedom...
maybe 'democracy' failed in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was funded, propped up and coddled by the US government until they beheaded him in an emasculating attempt to prove their own might, and then in his place the Bush administration installed another puppet government pliant this time to laws allowing Shell and BP access to the country's massive oil reserves?...
maybe 'democracy' failed in Chile because its elected leader Salvador Allende was assassinated in a CIA coup and then replaced by Augusto Pinochet, a brutal military dictator who began his bloody rule by 'cracking down' on 'insurgents' and taking 'all necessary steps' to keep his nation safe, just like Musharraf is doing right now?...
maybe 'democracy' failed in Iran because its elected leader was also ousted by the CIA and replaced with the Shah, paving the way for the mullahs to terrorise citizens with fundamentalism in a formerly moderate country?
I know this site is a private blog for your private views, but your post -ironically- achieved the 'shock' and 'awe' that I thought you were against.
I'm not saying that a corrupt wolf in sheep's clothing like Bhutto is better than an overtly anti-democratic leader like Musharraf. But to talk of a nation like Pakistan making a 'quick transition' to democracy as if the idea is new to them or somehow originates in America seems ridiculous.
And as someone writing from outside the States I have to say that the fact that you sincerely wrote the above post shows that the slow removal of freedoms occuring in the West has led to people acceding to the disintegration of true freedom and democracy in pursuit of an enemy (al Qaeda) whose danger to humanity in comparison to the state sponsored terrorism of Bush and Musharraf makes them all look like old pals.
I know I'm just a commenter and that this is your private blog, but after reading a post called 'In defense of a dictator' while activists, journalists, opposition party members and lawyers are being tortured in jail right now, I will not be visiting SM for a while.
This is from the Huffington Post:
A look at some of the restrictions and suspended rights in the state of emergency declared by Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf:
_ Protection of life and liberty.
_ The right to free movement.
_ The right of detainees to be informed of their offense and given access to lawyers.
_ Protection of property rights.
_ The right to assemble in public.
_ The right to free speech.
_ Equal rights for all citizens before law and equal legal protection.
_ Media coverage of suicide bombings and militant activity is curtailed by new rules. Broadcasters also face a three-year jail term if they "ridicule" members of the government or armed forces.
I hope this post was an intellectual exercise. It should be obvious by now that Musharraf is a military dictator, not a transitional statesman slowly restoring democracy.
Musharraf is not transitioning to democracy he is transitioning away from democracy. Pakistan is not a nation that needed to be introduced to democracy, it had one for many decades and Musharraf ended it in 1999 purportedly so he can create a more stable democracy. Since then he has consolidated power and slowly chipped away at all of the democratic insitutions of the country. The judiciary and constitution are the latest casualties. With each succeeding year since 1999, democracy in Pakistan has become more implausible because of Musharraf's actions.
A democracy requires citizens to have democratic habits (paying attention to politics, voting, respecting the results of the votes, restraint from the urge to overturn election results one dislikes). The longer democracy is witheld from the Pakistani citizens, the harder it will be for them practice it when it is eventually, if ever, reintroduced by Musharraf.
know I'm just a commenter and that this is your private blog, but after reading a post called 'In defense of a dictator' while activists, journalists, opposition party members and lawyers are being tortured in jail right now, I will not be visiting SM for a while.
Are you going to Pakistan to join the protests?
But...not...everyone...at SM...agrees with Abhi's position. :( It's my "private blog", and yours, too.
and it's not as if elections would result in "instant democracy" in pakistan. it may have been flawed (which democracy isn't), but it's had more experience with democracy in the past than iraq.
Then think of the democracy in Iraq where activists, journalists and opposition party members are being tortured right now. Or think of the "democracy" in Russia where people are poisoned with radioactive material. We don't need another fake democracy like that. The title was meant to be provocative not literal.
Dude,
Iraq and Pakistan are not the same. All the instability in Pakistan is Mush's own making. We also need to recognize the fact that there are democratic institutions already present in Pakistan. There is a strong judiciary and bicameral congress. It has a history of democracy.
This comparison with Iraq is pretty dicey. I don't think intervention is the answer. We need to let the people work it out. I have a strong feeling things have already been set into motion and that Mush is on his way out.
Tash,
Maybe 'democracy' failed in the US because Bush established Guantanamo.
Maybe its a total joke because activists in the good USA can and have been brought into the mental health system and shot up with drugs and given electroshock treatment and had all of their constitutional rights suspended under the rule of law but have been derided as insane when they fought to free themselves.
Maybe 'democracy' has symbolic freight rather than being an everyday, instantiated reality.
Personally, I like that SM can break free from the ideologues now and then.
What's wrong with being a member of the NRA?
Tash,
I think there's a definite difference between the neocons' racist rants regarding how "they (Iraqis, Muslims, brown people in general...take your pick) aren't ready for democracy" and honestly acknowledging a likely power-vacuum resulting from deposing a dictator and trying to replace him immediately with an elected democracy without fully understanding the situation on the ground, and planning appropriately.
Abhi's right in that replacing Mussharaf with an elected democracy immediately would probably result in complete chaos.
That doesn't mean that the Pakistani people aren't ready for democracy. I'm sure they are. I don't think there are many people on the planet who are "not ready for democracy" (the exceptions would mostly be dictators and despots, and the people who benefit from their rule). But there are certainly many countries that are not ready for democracy, especially in the way it's practiced in America.*
Trying to tease out the will of the people from the will of a government is no mean feat. The mere act of attempting it is usually enough to provoke violence. There's a whole fascinating discussion about sociological and cultural structures and their effect on governmental institutions, but it probably doesn't belong here.
*And I don't think that American democracy is some kind of glowing Ayn-Randian ideal, either. There's plenty of room for improvement in these United States.
Feel free to post it on the "kill lawyers" thread, then. ;)
i can understand the suspension of the constitution and imposition of the emergency because i believe the process, by definition, is a special measure in the current constitution and serves a particular need. i can even respect Prez M's judgement to invoke the emergency as the head of state for the pakistani government, and in that he is not acting as a dictator, but as an administrator of the country as per the guidelines set for him by the constitution.
I will stick with my comment in #4 that the emergency powers should be bounded in time and scope, and indeed...
That said, I should also point out that I do agree with the commenters saying that Iraq and Pakistan are not the same; Pakistan's democratic "experience" is much deeper and longer. At the same time, I do think that the presumed power-vacuum of a deposed Musharraf would be a dangerous thing, especially when there are so many groups with strong and conflicting beliefs and histories of violence vying to fill that void.
my point above is that the headline is messed up and so is the rationale. the iraq linkage is fruity (as per #4) and so is the headline - mush is not acting as a dictator but as a tool of the constitution in suspending the constitution, as per the powers vested in his position.
ok. gnite folks.
"while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq"
so venkig has posted a story on the news tab which quotes us military officials as saying that instead of spending u.s. largesse mostly on counter-terrorism, which musharraf claims is his chief goal and main obstacle to stability, he is spending it on things more suited for conventional warfare with india (or someone else).
He allowed almost unprecedented freedom of expression both in electronic and in print media, all after 1999, and far and away much more than anything Pakistanis had known under either of the Bhuttos or Sharif. In 1999, for example, Pakistan had a single TV channel, PTV, today it has dozens, and several very good political talk shows, which are in fact better than Indian, or for that matter American political TV talk shows. These have actually been responsible for the high expectations of political and civic life that educated Pakistanis have now come to have. The quality of journalistic reportage and editorial comment in Pakistani newspapers is also very good, and has improved substantially during his regime.
And BTW, at an individual level he is smarter by far (like two standard deviations smarter) than Sharif and Benazir put together, and he is certainly at least twice as articulate as they are, and communicates extremely well, both in Urdu and in English. Even more, his grasp of geopolitics and international macroeconomics is at least five times as good as that of Benazir and Sharif. He's nobody's fool, and for a dictator, his tolerance for personally directed criticism exceeds that of any other comparable political figure, across continents and political systems. And as I said earlier, all the repression he has let loose so far is quite tame by South Asian standards, even by Indian standards. Let's give the man some credit.
not everyone hates you abhi! ;-) i really don't know what to think because i haven't done the research, but too much excitement about democratic revolutions lead to expectations which are dashed. we need to be realistic and explore all the options.
It's sad because underneath arguments like that is the concept that people in countries like Pakistan, Iraq and Aghanistan can only be ruled by brutish junta or military commanders. What I don't get is why people don't stop to think...
yeah, and you're going to live in the NWFP under pashtunwalli because that's the inclination of the majority?
the people are not always right, and democracy untempered with liberalism is mob rule. look at the gordon riots for an example of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Riots
the broad masses were outraged when the elites attempted to slip in a step toward emancipation for the roman catholic minority.
this isn't an argument against democracy in pakistan. it is an argument against using the word and concept of democracy as a cudgel against considering the downsides of democracy.
we cheered during the orange revolution. during the cedar revolution. hell, many observers were excited at first at the overthrow of the shah in iran. but the reality after the cameras turn away is more messy.
"yeah, and you're going to live in the NWFP under pashtunwalli because that's the inclination of the majority?"
didn't musharraf and the army help the mma to come to power in the nwfp?
He allowed almost unprecedented freedom of expression both in electronic and in print media, all after 1999, and far and away much more than anything Pakistanis had known under either of the Bhuttos or Sharif.
There is some truth to that.
Chachaji, I must give you that, you are one of the few commenters on this thread who knows about what they are talking about. Ikram also knows quite a bit. You are right Musharraf did not dissolve their legislative bodies.
Musharraf is not going anywhere, America needs him, most of the Pakistani middle class needs him. It is true that he seen as a "traitor who sold his soul to West" by lot of people on the street, and that puts him in a very tight spot. It is Zia-ul-Haq's changes in Pakistanis society that is becoming somewhat a problem.
Ali Eteraz wrote an excellent article in Gaurdian.. He says it all:
Disengaged western audiences, pumped full of the current pro-democracy intoxicants, will almost universally decry Musharraf's behaviour. I decry it too, precisely because I am a disengaged westerner and I have that luxury. However, the story in Pakistan is not so straightforward.
BTW, Human Rights Watch is a bunch of mostly suits from NYC who collect newspapers cutting like a high school sophomore does for their scrap book. They run like headless chickens, who talk what $500/ plate dinner parties in NYC want them to hear, there is absolutely no indepth analysis or sometimes even common sense. They are not Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins of human rights.
bean counters.
Still, it is not in American interest to weaken Musharraf. The US has supported military dictatorships in Pakistan for the past 60 years, and over time its interests have become closely intertwined with the Pakistani military. It cannot do a sudden about-turn on such a longstanding policy. However, it will still be in US interest in the (very?) long term to try to return democracy to Pakistan and weaken the military: the military has traditionally propped up Islamic fundamentalist parties in Pakistan, even while they have not enjoyed strong support in the Pakistani populace. But I doubt that will happen: the US trusts the Pakistani people even less than it trusts Musharraf. As Jon Stewart said not so long ago: "The bad news is that Musharraf has subverted the Pakistani people's will. The good news is that the Pakistani people's will has been subverted".
Remember how Burma was the flavor of the month not so long ago
the analogy to the burmese regime is weak i think.
It's sad because underneath arguments like that is the concept that people in countries like Pakistan, Iraq and Aghanistan can only be ruled by brutish junta or military commanders. What I don't get is why people don't stop to think...
First, he is not a brutal dictator.
The biggest threat comes not from the lawyers in the coming weeks but:
a) Some junior military officers overthrow him since they think he is too much close to USA and west.
b) Some extreme group lead to suicide bombings, and that might lead to a dangerous chain reaction on the street.
I agree. I was making a different point, about how short-lived public attention is.
nice apology, after 8 years in power and countless gymnatics Musharraf has played to stay in power, you really must be naive to think that this is all for the good of pakistan and its people. I am getting tired of this people-aren't-ready-for-democracy crap. am also impressed by your concern for all those who were detained, beaten and put away becuase the general decided to stay in power, and tell me again, for what?
I'm sure this is quite an emotional subject for many, but there are pragmatic realities in this post and the main one is there really isn't an option other than Mr. Pervez right now in Pakistan. By design, lack of intention, or simply piss poor leadership of opposition members and former CIVILIAN MEMBERS WHO DID SQUAT when in power (Benazir and Nawaz), the situation in Pakistan is really a stalemate or in other words, a shiit sandwich. While the Military does hold power, it's fighting competing forces who would take Pakistan in completely different directions (Islamists vs the liberal elite).
There are far too many intersecting roads that go through Pakistan, which can affect the world. Nuclear technology, a large population, a difficult neighborhood (Iran, Afghanistan, India, China), insurgencies, drum beats for democracy....
For everyone calling for democracy in Pakistan, which leader has gained enough traction to be a credible PM/President in Pakistani eyes? Is there an effective party that can administer Pakistan right now? The opposition is far too fractured to mount a credible war against Musharraf, gain majority consensus, and effectively govern. What are the options for the middle class????
From an American perspective, we are also coming up on another election year in 2008. Are we as a government prepared to deal with all the different scenarios that an abrupt Musharraf departure would present? An outgoing President who can't govern, a chaotic congress, and a new future President would have to deal with the foreign policy ramifications if things go south. While it may not be the answer people like to hear, the best situation for the United States is to have a more stable front on the foreign side this next year or so. We've got our hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, so while a positive development is great in Pakistan, it's chances of succeeding are minimal at best for the time being (that is a key phrase - time being does not mean static support).
"For everyone calling for democracy in Pakistan, which leader has gained enough traction to be a credible PM/President in Pakistani eyes?"
in democracy this process is called election. let the elections hold, a leader will emerge.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119430082029583076.html -- a perceptive analysis. it seems insane to me that he's alienating the liberal/moderate intelligentsia whose support he should be leveraging if he was truly serious about tackling the extremists.
Kush, I agree. If there is anyone who can actually push Musharraf out of power, it's junior level military officers (Colonels or junior General officers who are in direct command of divisions/battalions). Unless the protests mutate into a larger phenomenon with overwhelming public support against Musharraf (like millions spilling into the streets), officers that control the armed corps are the only with enough power to push Musharraf out collectively.
Practically speaking, do you think a true leader will emerge, or just another re-cycled politician of the Nawaz or Bhutto mold? When freedom movements take hold, prior to an 'election' there tends to be a symbolic and political leader that emerges whom people back. Such a leader can come to power many ways. I'm not saying one won't emerge someday in Pakistan, and one could be forged as we speak, but the democracy movement needs inertia behind one for it to actually succeed. A true leader whom the people aren't skeptical of and support of those people on various political levels is needed for success.
I don't think anyone here is saying Mushie is truly good for Pakistan, it's just that the options presented aren't very compelling to forge a strong, successful, and stable Pakistan at a time when Pakistan seems to be at it's weakest internally speaking. Maybe it isn't a bad thing if several provinces on the North west side decided to detach itself from Pakistan. A recent issue of the National Geographic profiled the struggles of Pakistan in a cover article.
"it seems insane to me that he's alienating the liberal/moderate intelligentsia whose support he should be leveraging if he was truly serious about tackling the extremists."
agree. most people he has imprisoned are the secular minded people - the judges, lawyers, writers, activits, and human rights activits. on the contrary i hear that several terrorists outfits are called for negotiations, ceasefire and so on.
agree. most people he has imprisoned are the secular minded people - the judges, lawyers, writers, activits, and human rights activits. on the contrary i hear that several terrorists outfits are called for negotiations, ceasefire and so on.
Because judges and lawyers have very little grass root support for now (it might change soon).
But those outfits is another story...they do have strong support in parts of the country.
Najeeb, I do not want to be a cheer leader for Musharraf but he has not canceled the elections yet. He just seems too pissed with the Supreme court judiciary, and felt that they might short circuit his plans for himself.
Were these liberals/moderates questioning the military's support of the Taliban and the destabilizing effect it could have in Pakistan pre-9/11 ? I ask because I don't know, not to question their credentials.
As i understand it, yes. The activists and islamists are against Musharraf, but don't doubt for a minute that it is for the same reasons. Musharaf has been in power for 8 years and what has be brought to pakistan and its people - i'd like to hear. i have heard people talking about his anti-corruption moves, but according to transparancy international, this is highly questionable. He has made it abundantly clear that what matters to him is power, nothing else. All his talk about him being kamal pasha and the reformer etc are the lip service for the west.
Musharraf hasn't proved his support from the people either. he sacked those judges becuase he clearly knew they were going to be a thread for him being in power. he had 8 years to institute a real democracy if he wanted, he didn't and i don't think that he is going to do it now. (btw, I wasn't too much against him when he came into power partly becuase it was a bloodless coup, but time and again, he has only devised ways to keep the power).
i hope not. Tariq Ali said it best, "Martial law in this country has become an antibiotic: in order to obtain the same results one has to keep doubling the doses. This was a coup within a coup.".
you are right about Zia messing up Pakistan big time, but Pakistan will only descend into further chaos with this martial law.
PAKISTAN, it has been said, has always been triangulated by the three As: Allah, the army and America.
I have heard this many times before, and I am quoting this from The Australian in Sepia Mutiny News Tab.
I agree no one can be control of Pakistan for more than 24 hours without the blessing of all three As.
Wow, Abhi. To compare Pakistan and Iraq is to compare mangoes and coconuts -- and for you even to suggest that analogy as meaningful makes me wonder where to start on anything else you have to say. Let me instead just pose the same question posed earlier today by Sepoy over at Chapati Mystery:
Moreover, I assume that the success of any "succession" you would like to see will depend upon the very institutions and individuals in civil society that are being torn asunder as we speak. And it's all taking place on the Bush Administration's dime. Our tax dollars at work.
That's garbage. The instability in Pakistan was there before Musharraf came to power and likely will be there for years to come. With the current alternatives being (a) military coup, (b) Bhutto/Sharif, or (c) "democracy" without stability, Musharraf's actions appear to be better in the long term for the Pakistani people.
Is this a serious opinion or an attempted parody??. I was checking to see if this is posted under fun section..
You could equally well argue that democracy is bad for the US of A too, that it allows a dangerous maverick like Bush to wage world war over oil contracts. My opinion is that Sharief is better than Bush. Of course, the suggestion that a country run by whites should be saved from its own choices may seem outrageous to you.
Keep the faith, Abhi. Democracy looks bad, but is like God in that it often works in mysterious ways, the rationale of which is understandable after many years.
Abhi gets 0/10 for this post.
I'm leaning to this conclusion as well -- this is depressing. Granted there are nuances and complexities I'm ignorant of, but it seems like if this was such an existential crisis for pakistan he'd focus on the *real* issue at hand. His dictatorial instincts are overshadowing a more level-headed approach that would tackle the extremist issue first. Alas, he's a flawed human, and whatever glimmer of level-headed reformist people may have seen in the past, has seemingly been subsumed by issues of power and ego. Inevitable I suppose..
43 · GujuDude said:
Don't you kind of need a free press for stuff like this to happen? The right to assemble? The right to free speech? The right to free movement? Protection of life and liberty? Equal rights for all citizens before law and equal legal protection? The right of detainees to be informed of their offense and given access to lawyers? Because according to Tash @ 14 and the Huffington Post, those rights are all suspended.
If Mush can quote Lincoln I can get away with Churchill:
Democracy excists as the better form of government till we found a better system and can only trive well in a.. better system. Any desi can tell how dramatically chaotic and corrupt it is on the South-Asian subcontinent!
Eventhough his action are very Maoish - zero tolerance towards diffrent thinking, religious and academic people - I support Mussharaf regime for Pakistan has nukes (I know cliche, cliche)and I have some faith, because he still talks to the west and tried to explain his actions (which to me indicates a certain level of consideration towards the West), that they won't accidentally hit Indian soil.
If there are free elections who knows what kind of person/party will rule the country, under what circumstances and with what result. At least he keeps the dialoge with the rest of the world alive. The last thing Pakistan (and it's neighbours)needs is isolation from international politics. We all know that nobody wins in that situation.
how the hell are they exiled "intellectuals"?
While I agree that a democratically weak state benefits no one, I believe that is what the US already has in Pakistan. The overall problem is US credibility. The US cannot claim to support democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq while denying it in Pakistan. In fact Musharraf seems to be fueling more violence and radicalizing Islamists more than he is stopping it. News reports show the insurgency is gaining strength along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately this situation is bad no matter what happens, but I believe if Musharraf remains in power the politics will grow more extreme and anti-Western. That is the last thing the US needs, a radicalized nation in possession of a nuclear weapon.
I get Abhi's point. I cant really get outraged by Musharaff because the alternative doesnt give you a vibrant democracy either. The ISI controls the country anyway. Now, do I prefer they be democratic regardless of all the corruption? Sure. But it really registers very low on my outrage meter. What bothers me more is the junta in Burma when you have a MUCH superior alternative of a Democracy with leadership ready to take over.
American Footprints, A foreign policy blog has an interesting take:
Can anyone substantiate the alleged yeoman's work that Musharraf has done for advancing US security? I do remember a few drone-assisted assassinations, but outside of that, where has the $1 billion+ per year in aid money gone and to what constructive and valuable end?
I agree that immediate democracy in Pakistan wouldn't lead to a necessarily better outcome than musharraf, but what exactly has he done to merit our approval as a dictator who can quiet the masses, maintain strict control over all areas of the country, provide useful and timely intelligence to the US? IMO, he hasn't been able to do any of those things and if he hasn't fulfilled his reason for being where he is, why do we need to persist with a proven failure? A strong-man may be needed, but is it Musharaff who should be doing the strong-arming?
He has blamed, in his apparently more lucid moments, the judiciary and press for his apparent inability to control terrorism and terrorism-related activities--are you seriously signing on, Abhi, to this fairly madcap notion? That Iftikhar Choudhry and a few newspaper editors were running willy-nilly throughout the country, doling out the time and date of gov't raids and making the $1bn in US aid as effective as a few coins thrown in a claw-crab machine?
Imprisoning all those who don't agree with you publicly, including public servants, is an integral part of this Emergency Rule and I don't honestly see how this eases the way for democracy in the future. Those who are wronged now will not easily forget their treatment at the hands of Musharraf's goons and a truth and reconciliation commission will not work in Pakistan (arguably it hasn't worked in S. Africa either). Musharraf may be able to cow the population into a semblance of peace, but without decades of such unnatural political and social repression it is unlikely that any future generation will accept this as the status quo and move on to being prosperous (decades of autocratic rule by essentially one family in Singapore produced a system in which many people accept limited social and political freedoms for substantial economic benefits) democrats. In Iraq, the decades of dictatorial rule did not result in a populace ready-made for US-style democracy.
Can anyone come up with an example (other than Singapore obviously) where this fairytale became true?
No. I don't think he's a great guy nor do I believe all the things he claims to justify staying in power. I don't think that he's helped in Iraq and Afghanistan nearly as much as he could have (although he has helped). I don't believe that it is ever right to detain innocent people. Most of all though, I don't believe that those who expect to see any sort of reasonable democracy in Pakistan (and an associated good outcome for America because of it) in the near term know what they are talking about. I don't mind if some of the more naive idealists out there think I've suddenly sold out for saying so. The last thing the world needs is more instability in that region, regardless of who is ultimately to blame for it.
this is what i'm apparently not getting--what packets of salted peanuts has the US received from it's investment in Air Musharraf?
I hope you are not lumping me in with this population. I'm neither naive nor ignorant but I will cop to an unfailing weakness for macro details--i.e. how would such a dictatorship work and how would it be of benefit to both the pakistani population and the US. Also i think this is becoming somewhat of a straw man as when pressed on the question, even those who disagreed with the spirit of your post, would agree that a lack of Musharraf and the subsequent "democracy" it might create would probably be worse than the state of martial law.
How long can he realistically press his iron thumb before someone or some institution finds enough wiggle room to destabilize the whole country?
Wow. To quote another commentor on another blog, I'd expect this post from an utterly uninformed redneck Gora writing about Paky-stan, but a supposed Mutineer?!
Let's stick to factual mistakes in the post.
1). "fact that Musharraf has not developed and cultivated a method for succession while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in ... Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble."
Abhi, outline for me exactly what measures Pakistan has taken to help the US war in Iraq.
2) "that exiled intellectuals (like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan) are out of touch with the needs of the masses "
I think that's the first time in history Nawaz Sharif has been called an intellectual. Was it the hair-plugs that made him smarter? Bhutto (a university drop-out) is no genius either. What both of them are is politicians with a significant mass base, as the success of their political parties in the last elections showed.
3)"I do not condone the jailing of lawyers and judges but Pakistan is not ready for the type of democracy they currently protest in favor of. "
Abhi -- do you even know what the protests are about?! What triggered them? This isn't about democracy. Musharraf has agreed to hold Parliamnetary election in January, as promised. What he won't do is choose between being army chief and President ("take off the Uniform", as Condi whispers to him a night). You sound like you're poorly informed about Pakistan.
4) "a single candidate that one could point to as a competent successor to Musharraf, one likely to provide stability in Pakistan and by extension in Afghanistan and Iraq"
Do I need to send the Mutiny a map? Have you gotten lost? How is stability in Iraq an extension of stability in Pakistan?!
5)" I think Musharraf knows that and its why he can’t accept the Supreme Court’s ruling."
Name the ruling, Abhi. Again, you sound like you don't know what you're talkinga bout. The court has ruled on corruption in the privatization of the steel mill, and on illegal disappearances. Neither of these is the excuse for the emergency.
I wasn't
What makes one mutinous is not that they always think what people expect them to think and say what they are expected to say. Its that you think for yourself and express your opinion without caring who judges you (a redneck) for it.
Abhi writes:
>>I also think I support Musharraf’s intention to stay in power and am willing to forgive his autocratic moves for the time being...And so I will not yet support an uprising by “the people” in Pakistan against Musharraf
I fell off the chair, spilt my coffee on the kybrd and hit the ceiling, all at the same time while rubbing my eyes in disbelief. I looked out of the window - no - the sun did not rise from the west.
This is truly mutinous.
M. Nam
Ikram, I have to get to work so I will have to dismantle you later. Peace out everyone. No SM at work.
Now I'm waiting for Abhi's post proposing an amendment in the US constitution to give Bush 4 more years to fight the terrorists. The Dems are too sissy. :)
Abhi wrote:
I don't believe that those who expect to see any sort of reasonable democracy in Pakistan (and an associated good outcome for America because of it) in the near term know what they are talking about
That's quite rich, coming from you. But it hits the heart of the problem with this post, and the problem with some Pakistan blogging here at SM.
I read SM to get a "insiders" view of Desi issues (and a desi view of American issues). I read because the people who post here know the difference between a Somosa and a Paan, are vaguely familar with Akbar and Aurangzeb, and don't need a detailed explanation if I use the word Ayodhya. (And at the same time, understand American culture).
But the Abhi's post above is utterly clueless about Pakistan. It's an outsiders perspective of Pakistan. There's nothing wrong with that, I'd love to read Abhi's posts on Pakistan at his new group blog, "The Gora mutiny". But my SepiaMutiny should have sepia posts.
And I'm not talking about the viewpoint here. Many Pakistanis (and Indians) could write cogent defenses of Musharraf's rule (although not in the past two days), but not one would call Nawaz Sharif an out of touch intellectual!
My point: accept that this Mutiny stops at the Radcliffe line, find people who can write less goofy posts about Pakistna, or, at the very least, don't disparage people better informed than you by saying they don't "know what they are talking about".
Shoot. I just read Amardeep"S (as usual) excellent post. I take my cracks about SM the blog back. But I mean everything i say about Abhi's post. Great job Amardeeop.
good post abhi!
it is not completely clear what the full implications of this situation are, but it is a more predictable situation than if pakistan descended into chaos. i would also guess that from india's---and the regular pakistan guy---point of view, today, this is probably better. thanks to musharraf being forced to rein in terror groups in pakistan at the behest of US, terrorism in kashmir and the rest of india has come down the last year.
it is very easy for many of you to speak of democracy in pakistan---for all the fuss people in the west make, terrorism is not a constant threat as in india and pakistan. more people die of terrorism every year, both in pakistan and india than 9/11. islamization under zia has made pakistan into a terror base for military islam, and it is difficult to see how "quick fix democracy" will change that better than musharraf. and until islamization of pakistan is not undone, true democracy has no chance either.
I agree with you Abhi. For the moment, I think Pakistan is better off under Musharraf's benign dictatorship than any of the other alternatives.
T
I agree with Abhi. Musharraf is unfortunately the best person for the job at the moment. On a side note Bush 41 resigned from his NRA life membership (after his presidency) and Clinton and the NRA couldn't stand one another.
I read Pakistan posts here for Ikram's comments.
Abhi has said what needed to be said about "democracy".
Interstingly Musharraf spent some time living in Turkey as a son of a diplomat.Ikram,
How do you explain the support that Pakistan's middle and upper middle class people seem to have??
I am surprised that with this amount of thought you have not shown up on cable TV as a Pakistan expert. They seem to be dime a dozen these days.
So you are sitting here in democratic amrica enjoying all the freedom and rights and telling people that loosing their freedom and rights in pakistan is not really that bad...atleast for the moment! Forgive mushraff who did this to you and don't protest....just listen!
Not really. Take the freedom movement in the subcontinent from the British for example. Leaders who continually challenged the system with strong ground roots support rose to galvanize the opposition against the British Empire. Without talented and honest leaders fronting the movement for democracy, it'll only fizzle out. Then again, I nor do many of us live in Pakistan. As I said earlier in one of my comments - there could be a young leader being forged right now as we speak. More power to him/her if they can manage what others have failed at. But I'm not too optimistic about such a scenario. I won't tell people not to protest or demand their government take better care of them. After all, the role of leaders in government aren't that of a king where the masses serve you, rather a true leader is a steward of the people. Taking a look at current Pakistani leadership, it doesn't look too bright (sadly). Will a freely elected democratic leader have enough support to protect him/herself against fundamentalist islamists or the military? Musharraf has barely escaped assasination a few times with the massive military protecting him.
It needs to be the middle class who have the numbers, yet are silent to rise up and fight the tide, but it'll take a talented, charismatic, and honest leader to slowly build such support and convince often burned Pakistanis that he/she is indeed a different breed of politician.
Between Abhi and Amardeep's posts, IMHO, it covers the difficult situation (and opinions) with Pakistan. The options aren't easy here and many, many, fear the consequences of a disruption in the status quo can be extremely harsh.
I know abhi's defense of the dictator sounds horrible, but this is not a country that has civilian's trusted enough to take the reigns. Sharif and Bhutto created the enviornment in which a dictator such as Musharraf was warmly welcomed in 1999. Democracy has not been developed in Pakistan and it will take a man, such as the Musharraf of 1999, to be respected by the populace to then develop the foundations of democracy. However, instead of using the respect he garnered from the populace to bring a stable democracy about, one in which he could run for President, Musharraf kept his dual role and further eroded the civilian institutions of power through bogus referendums and deals with Islamist parties. The sad aspect of this is that the Musharraf of today seems unwilling to do anything for democracy, cutting deals with one former corrupt leader and deporting the other out due to personal grievances.(neither of them should be considred intellectuals)
I understand his hand's were tied in the previous years due to 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, but Musharraf has wasted an opportunity to have been a great leader of South Asia, one who successfully brought democracy to Pakistan. With the jettisoning of the Supreme Court and the house arrest human rights leaders such as Asma Jehangir, what is Musharraf trying to do besides firm his grasp on power? He reminds me more of a militant Andrew Jackson than an Abraham Lincoln.
I don't think its accurate to say that Pakistan isn't ready for democracy. This is nothing like Iraq or other places that may not be ready for straight up liberal democracy. There is a democratic tradition in Pakistan and institutions are already in place to function as the machinery of that democracy. Most Pakistanis understand the responsibilities of the citizen in a democracy and are moderates who don't want any sort of theocracy (I think the same could be said for Iraqis on this point). And there is no dominant ethnic or religious divide- most Pakistanis are Sunni (although I don't think this means that Pakistanis are necissarily compassionate to others unlike them- Pakistan has not been kind to ethnic and religious minorities, which is probably why it is more homogenous).
The main problem, which you point out, is that there is no real viable candidate to replace P-Mush. Sharif and Bhutto, are not exactly the smartest folks around, and have shown to be power hungry and corrupt in the past. They aren't entering the fray with any ideas, but rather, just on name recognition.
But the problem is circular. Because there was no democracy for the last 8 years, and opposition leaders were muted, no other leaders have been able to come to the fore. This problem isn't gonna be solved unless democracy returns.
ah yes, poor mushy bears the great brown man's burden in shepherding an ignorant populace towards the beacon of freedom. hope he does not descend into the heart of darkness.
personally, i find the democrats completely ineffectual - what has their congress achieved, and what vision do they provide? i do hope cheney becomes our great eternal leader and will willingly abrogate my freedoms in service of this ideal. onwards! upwards!
A judiciary willing to take on a dictator is another point in favor of Pakistan being ready for democracy. I get the feeling America is not ready for democracy...in Pakistan.
There is a good article in the Christian Science Monitor with some interesting tid-bits:
Abhi, I may be misunderstanding you, but if you mean to be saying that the anti-Musharraf movements are seeking "instant democracy" -- and those are your words -- then I think you may be misunderstanding this situation rather fundamentally. I doubt many Pakistani citizens are under the illusion that civilian rule in the 1990s was perfect or that dumping Musharraf would be a panacea. (Certainly no more or less than, say, citizens of Bihar have illusions about their government.) For starters, read the thoughts of Asma Jahangir from the summer:
(Those protests, by the way, were supported by large numbers of the "common people" you celebrate -- while Bhutto and Sharif weren't even in the country. Go back and look in the news archives from before this week.)
I'm also not sure I understand this:
What supports such a charitable view? Musharraf has been systematically undermining the very institutions -- courts, lawyers, independent media, civil society organizations -- that are preconditions for the kind of "succession" I assume you favor. This has nothing to do with him being too busy helping the U.S. fight its war on terror. It's about him viewing himself as indispensable -- hardly surprising, given that he's been hearing that from his Iagos in Washington for a long time now.
One final set of comments by Asma Jehangir -- this time from an email sent this week: