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.
