Democratic Pakistan: an American Conundrum
The euphoria over the successful democratic elections in Pakistan on February 18 has unleashed a torrent of commentary on what next for the US "War on Terror"? The biggest question that seems to be leading to sleepless nights in Foggy Bottom and parts of even academia it seems is whether a democratically elected government might now decide it is not in Pakistan's interest to prosecute the US's war in Afghanistan. President Pervez Musharraf had agreed to allow limited US operations from Pakistani soil but did not level with his own countrymen it seems. The story now breaking from the US is that the Predator drones that often attack targets inside Pakistan fly from a base in Pakistan.
Will a democratic government continue this practice of deception? In other words, was the US better off having an autocrat at the helm in Pakistan?
The latest hand-wringing statement on this conundrum comes from Graham Allison of Harvard, an expert on nuclear issues, who now has become an expert on foreign policy and Pakistan in particular. In his op-ed, laced with inaccuracies, in the Boston Globe he states:
A Pakistani government whose actions align with its citizen's views on these issues would be at loggerheads with the United States.
Such misguided analysis misses the point that the reason why the Pakistani citizenry opposes the US is because the US supported a military regime for the past eight years in Pakistan against the people of Pakistan. Musharraf was seen by increasingly large numbers of Pakistanis as doing the US' bidding and ignoring the wishes of his own people. Gradually, he lost the support of all major social groups that initially supported him: the intellectuals, the media, the lawyers.
Today Musharraf is isolated. No one in Pakistan speaks for him, except his own ex-military spokesman, who is paid to do so. Not even his King's Party, the now discredited and defeated Pakistan Muslim League Q that has gone eerily silent. The only voices of support now seem to emerge from his few American well-wishers, like Allison, who are looking to maintain the comfortable old patron-client relationship between the US and Pakistan.
This confuses the ordinary Pakistani: Isn't America supposed to welcome democracy? If so, why does it distrust it in Pakistan?
While the past history of Pakistan's politicians is not one to inspire confidence, they have lived through difficult times in the past eight years and if they learned any lessons, it will be critical for them to put Pakistan first in everything that they do. Musharraf used that slogan but never translated it into action. Indeed, it will be in Pakistan's interest that the war on terror now becomes Pakistan's own war, since the battles will be fought within Pakistan and not just militarily but also with economic and political weapons. For once, the Pakistan army will need to work in tandem with the political system to address the underlying issues that have fostered the spread of Talibanization in Pakistan, as Musharraf's regime dithered. If they cannot work together, the country faces dire prospects. And time is not on its side.
The challenge now facing the US is to accept this fledgling democracy and allow it to find its feet. And for Pakistan's new government to be bold in attacking the insurgency with all the weapons at its command, not just military might. The deal making with the militants that failed Musharraf will fail the new government too. It's a huge responsibility. But the new government should not sacrifice Pakistan's sovereignty to the US's short-term interest as the ancien regime did.
Shuja Nawaz is the author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its army, and the wars within, due April 2008 from Oxford University Press. He regularly appears as a commentator on television, radio, and at think tanks and on his own website www.shujanawaz.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Notice how the Bush/Cheney lies have evolved?
1. Not going to be into nation building (2000).
2. Osama Bin Laden can run but cannot hide. $35 million reward, Dead or Alive (2001).
3. Go to war in Afghanistan (2002). These terrorists hate America because we are a free and democratic society.
4. Forget Osama and go get Saddam in Baghdad. "Mission Accomplished"
5. Iraq must adopt a government like ours. Nation Building?
On and on it goes...
People around the world are not ignorant of the fact that the Bush/Cheney administration has violated the Constitution of the United States with the Patriot Act, as well as violate the rights of foreign nations by invading them. Does any nation want a constitution that can be as easily violated as ours?
Seems like this administration wants this government to be modeled after that of Saudi Arabia, the actual source of this whole mess in the first place.
The United States isn't interested in "democracy" the concept, they're interested in alliances. When they say they are spreading democracy they mean to say they are spreading pro-US capitalism.
The United States is ambivalent to pro-US socialist democracies (as we are seeing in the US reaction to Ecuador), the United States loathes anti-US socialist democracies (the United Nations has overseen Venezuela's elections), the United States is ambivalent to anti-US capitalism (as we are seeing in its love/hate relationship with China).
On the other hand, the United States wants to roll out the red carpet to Mexico, home of the disappearing ballot box and the ever-widening gap between rich and poor.
The neoconservatives have a very narrow, sick view of how a government should operate. Secrecy, fear, and oligarchic control of resources are how they govern, and the tools they use to try to control other nations. When the voters of another nation seemed unfazed by the warnings of fear and terror that the neocons broadcast unceasingly, the neocons become confused and angry. Often, they lock themselves in a room and mutter angrily. On the other hand, sometimes they destroy a small coutry like Iraq just to teach the world a lesson.
The "problem" this administration has is the same one many administrations before it has had, if it doesn't look like ours it isn't a true and real democracy. Funny thing is that many of those who "decide" in these matters seem to forget how much and how many years it took the US to get to where we are now. Many things we take pride ina s representing a democracy at times we ourselves have failed t have in our own country. Also we as "world keaders" have made ourselves the "world cops" with the CIA and other blacked out groups of our government has infiltrated and spied on almost if not all other countries to know what they are doing and how they are doing it. Also we spy to make sure no one country has WMDs which could kill us if they choose. Pakistan has ten pints againest it with the US because it's in the middle east and we know not to trust those countries in the middle east right? Many of the 9/11 terrorist were Sauds but do we not treat the country as our friend even though the womens rights issue is something we get upset at other countries about?
Pakistan is not in the Middle East. It is South Asia.
George Bush has not lost a moment of sleep over destroying our Constitution, over-riding law with signing statments, repealing habeus corpus, torture and illegal rendition, and outraging the world with two illegal wars.
But the populist movement in Pakistan--his dry run for a fascist state here--has him up and pacing the floor at night. Even though Musharraf fired the Supreme Court, declared martial law, and suspended his own constitution, The People have awoken, and spoken! What fear that must put in Bush's heart when he thinks of that possibility gaining momentum here!
Since at least the Eisenhower presidency, the U.S. consistently backed dictatorships in third world countries in its efforts to block Soviet power. With over half a century of a policy of encouraging pro-American dictatorships, perhaps it is difficult for the military, the State Dept., and the CIA to remember that they are supposed to be defending the Constitution, and democracy.
That blocking of Soviet influence waned in the 1970s and mutated into an all-out effort to conquer fast, cheap access to natural and slave labor resources. Friendly, corrupt, clean, vicious, homicidal, communist, capitalist, dictator, or whatever doesn't matter. Clean pathways for the most elite of the US's elite corporate interests is the goal. The CIA and military are just leverage to maintain the power.
The ignorance, and arrogance of the US government’s mind set is that “free elections = democracy”. And our flavor of democracy is the way the rest of the word should governed. For some countries democracy can be brought about by a evolutionary process not a revolution. Is should come from within. Be careful what you wish for – Election in Palestine and Iran are prime examples. Let’s hope things work out better in Pakistan!
Mr. Nawaz, the United States Government prefers democracies that resemble the ones in Israel, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan ...
In other words, the United States Government prefers democracies it owns.
In reality, the US doesn't really care about democracy, as long as the leaders of whatever country backs the US.
With so much of the Pakistani population uneducated (60%) and with such a huge disparity between ecomonic classes what kind of a democracy are we talking about? The lack of infrastructure in Pakistan also makes it quite difficult for "democracy" as we know it to exist.
Pakastanis have quite different points of view of what democracy actual is as well. It is an Islamic nation and they have yet decided if imposing Sharia Law means democracy or if some western secular society means democracy. You will get a different answer depending on what part of the country you are in. Our media only seems to talk to one part of Pakistani society which is elite class western educated. Thet class is certainly not a bad point o view it's just not the only point of view.
What the US needs to support is education. That's what the Saudi Arabia did. They supported the education of the poor by funding the madrassah system. The real way to fight the War on Terror is not only with drones but also with books.
Until there is education, water and electricity for all the people of Pakistan, I doubt there can be much hope of a democracy.
Let's not get too Madrasas Happy . . .
Pakistan: Madrasas, Extremism And The Military
http://www
In its new role as key ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, Pakistan's military government has toned down many policies that previously fostered militancy and religious extremism within the country and internationally. Action against the Taliban, al-Qaeda and home-grown sectarian terrorists are examples. But the military's confrontation with its former religious allies is likely, at best, a short-term response compelled by circumstances and foreign pressure.
It is doubtful whether the military government has the intent or the will to set Pakistani society on a sustainable course that would lead to political pluralism and religious tolerance. On a key test – reform of madrasas, Pakistani religious schools that breed extremism of many hues – the military government thus far has acted weakly.
Madrasas provide free religious education, boarding and lodging and are essentially schools for the poor. Over one and a half million children attend madrasas.[
. . . This problem exists with the Saudis as well.
Well, that's because, over the years, people have gotten GREEDY. Our flag is now made in china, our clothes in pakistan, bit by bit, piece by piece, we've exported the United States, just like at the end of the Second World War, we 'exported' germany. This can also be viewed as 'theft'. I believe that whenever there's a confluence of negative factors, conflict between people is the result. Money is at-issue, money drives people to do a lot of things, but at the end of the day, money is only a piece of paper, considered to have value and be legal tender for all debts, public and private'. Due to various pressures, our currency is also now scattered all over the globe, just like our military. Democracy? Well, maybe, but it's more like cashocracy, or cleptocracy, or 'goddamn piece of paper'-ocracy,
and it's time to recall our troops et. al. hangers-on, and have a big pow-wow about all of this. That's my belief, anyway. I think that there's only ONE way we got this far in debt, and that's through gross negligence and excessive pressure on our Congress. I think that high financiers have pushed and prodded our country and hence our policies out of shape to their liking and for their convenience, and there comes a point when 'corruption' must be declared. Start from the Constitution, and 'thou shalt not steal', and find the 'way forward' from there. RE-form doesn't have to hurt, but you do have to start. DIS-missed!
Nicely done, Kudos . . .
Sorry, the reason the Pakistani people oppose US policy is that US policy is contrary to the interests of the Pakistanis. It's the same reason they oppose the Islamist militants. As I understand it, we want to fight a war in Pakistan. The militants want to fight a war in Pakistan. The people of Pakistan don't want to live in a war zone. Cannot say that I blame them.
If you want to read more about my views on the situation in Pakistan, read my blog at:
http://www
Long term Pakistan's central problem is OVERPOPULATION. It's what supplies the substrate for the madrassas feeding the Taliban. To a limited extent, econ. dev. can distract/divert the formative cohort from this insidious direction but only at the expense of SOMEHOW slighting the all-controlling power of the mullahs and the influence of a "brand" of Islam itself.
The madrassas were encouraged by non other than the US ( CIA) in the 80’s to repel the Soviet Union From Afghanistan. It was the US’s way to get rid of “Godless” Soviets by creating a religious undergrounds movement “the mujiahideens”
Why would the US be wary of democracy in Pakistan? The same reason they were with Iran in the mid-20th century when they used the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government to install the Shah as dictator. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins... first hand account of how he helped shape these "political movements".
Just make sure you have a bucket nearby as you read... kids, can you say "empire?"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
