Pakistan's Elections

Well, my brain is dry. And when I say dry, I mean, its resources are being diverted to non-blogging areas. So the posts may be sparse for a little while, but they'll pick up again soon.

Soooo....Pakistani elections anyone? Yeah, in the office, some people were "betting their life savings" that Musharraf would win. Good thing that person later declared their life savings were nothing. I think that the only reason the PPP won so many seats is due to increased international supervision. If the Americans weren't looking over his shoulder, we'd have seen much different results. I am not hopeful that this is indicative of a better and more democratic order. Actually, I'm more afraid that the international community is just going to groom themselves another puppet who will serve the international community's wants and needs before Pakistan's. That means not labelling everyone who disagrees with you an extremist *cough every government over in that general region cough*.

Whaddya think?

The Danger Continues

The latest edition of The Economist has explored the question of Pakistan as the most dangerous nation in the same way Newsweek did a few months ago. The opinion piece, The World's Most Dangerous Place, does good to recognize that the threat of Islamic extremism in Pakistan is a relatively new crisis. One need only look at the ideas of Mr. Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, to see the kind of progressive movements and ideas that have come forth in the country.

In contrast to the Newsweek article, the focus of this piece seems to point to Pakistan as a dangerous nation to its people instead of as a danger to American interests. Like Lamis Andoni's blog response on Post Global, the article also points to how external forces have also contributed to Pakistan's instability.

So, ironically, America's support for Mr Musharraf, justified as necessary to combat extremism next door, has fostered extremism at home. Similarly, in the 1980s America backed General Zia ul Haq, a dictator and Islamic fundamentalist, as his intelligence services sponsored the mujahideen who eventually toppled the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. In the process, they helped create what Miss Bhutto called a “Frankenstein's monster”—of jihadist groups with sympathisers in the army and intelligence services. The clubbable, whisky-quaffing, poodle-cuddling Mr Musharraf is no fundamentalist. But the monster still stalks his security forces.

Happily, the author does offer a bright spot, seeing a solution to all the crises.

Yet Pakistan's plight is not yet hopeless. Two things could still help arrest its slide into anarchy, improbable though both now seem. The first is a credible investigation into Miss Bhutto's murder and the security-service lapses (or connivance) that allowed it to happen. Mr Musharraf's willingness to let a couple of British policemen help the inquiry is unlikely to produce this. Every time a bomb goes off in Pakistan, people believe that one of the country's own spooks lit the fuse. Until there has been a convincing purge of the military-intelligence apparatus, Pakistan will never know true stability.

Second, there could be a fair election. This would expose the weakness of the Islamist parties. In the last general election in 2002, they won just one-tenth of the votes, despite outrageous rigging that favoured them. Even if they fared somewhat better this time, they would still, in the most populous provinces, Sindh and Punjab, be trounced by the mainstream parties. An elected government with popular support would be better placed to work with the moderate, secular, professional tendency in the army to tackle extremism and bring Pakistan's poor the economic development they need.

And the final awesome conclusion.

Sadly, there seems little hope that the security forces will abandon the habit of a lifetime and allow truly fair elections. The delay in the voting—opposed by both main opposition parties—has been seen as part of its plan to rig the results. The violence that has scarred the country since Miss Bhutto's assassination may intensify. The army may be tempted to impose another state of emergency; or it may cling on to ensure that the election produces the result it wants—a weak and pliable coalition of the PPP and Mr Musharraf's loyalists.

For too long, Mr Musharraf has been allowed to pay lip-service to democratic forms, while the United States has winked at his blatant disdain for the substance. The justification has been the pre-eminent importance of “stability” in the world's most dangerous place. It is time to impress upon him and the generals still propping him up that democracy is not the alternative to stability. It is Pakistan's only hope.

The Heir Apparent

I understand that family relationships and lineage can be very powerful elements in the societies (yes, I made it a plural) in Pakistan, but there is a point when culture becomes a mask for corruption. As you may have guessed by now, I am definitely against Bhutto's 19 year old son becoming a successor to her position in the PPP. My gut also tells me her husband is not a very good man, not a bad one, mind you. Just not a good one. Of course, I have no proof of that, but I'm sure the proof exists.

Someone needs to explain this to me. I'm an optimist, I WANT to think there's a truly progressive party in Pakistan with a reasonably uncorrupt leader. I really want someone to point out a bright side, so where is it?

If it were the case that her son, Bilawal, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, were to hold temporary positions in the party until the time comes to elect a new chairman, that would be fine with me. But that's not what's happening. As Witte from the Washington Post points out:

The selections mean that the Pakistan People's Party, which casts itself as the voice of democracy in Pakistan, will stay in family hands for a third generation.

What I don't understand is how the PPP can be so pro-democracy and yet almost acts like Bhutto was a queen nominating an heir to the throne. Apparently she had even put it in her will that her husband would succeed her. And the heirs seem to be jumping at the chance to create a dynasty, more so her husband. The PPP has to wait for Bilawal to complete his studies before he can become the new chairman.

I also find Bilawal's comment, from the same Post article, about the position fairly interesting, and a little fatalistic:

The young man representing the newest generation of Bhuttos -- who added the famous name for the first time Sunday -- noted that chairmanship of the party is a position "that often is occupied by martyrs."

Speaking briefly but forcefully at the press conference, he said he would strive to honor his mother's legacy. "The party's long and historic struggle will continue with renewed vigor," he said. "My mother always said, democracy is the best revenge."

Oh and, btw, the kid hasn't even grown up in Pakistan, and he's studying at Oxford. As if he wasn't going to have a hard enough time being so young and in charge of such an important organization, he has to deal with the fact that he's pretty much an outsider.

He's younger than I am too, which makes it even more crazy. Way to make other people feel over the hill, no one has died and left me a political organization. =-(

Soapy Soapy Time

Recently, someone sent me this message about Ms. Bhutto, and I got his permission to respond to it via this blog.

"Lets not forget that Bhutto is perhaps the only person more corrupt then Musharaff. Thats why onlt like 6% of the population supported her."

I will concede that Bhutto more than likely had an element of corruption, but I honestly cannot say how much. However, I think I can safely say that she was NOT on the same level as Musharraf. Remember, Musharraf is the one who came to power via a military coup in 1999. He was a military leader from the git-go who got lucky when the US was looking for allies in the war on terror.

Although, the argument could be made that Musharraf has had more opportunities to be corrupt because he's been in office much longer than Bhutto ever was and has enjoyed much more power.

As far as her supporters, I can't find any information on the percentage of the population, but from all the sources I've read, it is accepted that she enjoys significant grass roots support. If we all agree that elections in Pakistan are a sham, then its no use looking at the percentage of the population that has voted for her party, the Pakistan People's Party, in the last elections.

I don't think Bhutto was the most effective leader, or would have been the most effective, anyway. But she was dynamic in her ability to gain populist support, and bring important issues of democracy to the forefront of Pakistani politics. There is no question in my mind that she believed she was doing what was right and good, and she was going to do it no matter who opposed her. I may not have agreed with what she did or would have done in office, but I have to respect and admire her determination and courage. It is very sad that she was not the most competent of politicians to begin with, but its even more tragic that this is how she has come to an end.

And that is my soap box moment. Thank you all for coming.