While presidential contenders in the U.S. debate the record of Pakistan in supporting the fight against Al-Qaeda, Islamabad prepares for elections. The last few months have put President Musharraf’s military dictatorship in a tough spot, putting into question the general’s re-election hopes.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned—much to the delight of an emerging civil society that turned out in droves to protest Musharraf—the administration’s decision to remove regime critic Iftikhar Chaudhry on apparently trumped up charges.
In addition, the court has allowed for the return of exiled opposition party leaders Bhenazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League respectively, to campaign for the approaching election.
Although Ms. Bhutto has yet to voyage back to her country, she has been busy maneuvering for the election. This week, former Prime Minister Bhenazir Bhutto reached an electoral agreement with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. The deal is simple: Bhutto offers her support in the upcoming election in exchange for Musharraf stepping down as general, giving up his dual role of military commander and president.
The Musharraf-Bhutto accord raises three important questions. First, is Bhutto selling her soul to the devil, denigrating democracy by aligning herself and her party with a dictatorship for electoral gain? Second, will this extend the life of the Musharraf regime? And finally, will this strengthen Musharraf, allowing him to better take the fight to terrorists taking sanctuary in Pakistan?
Bhutto is certainly no supporter of Pakistani military autocracies, as her father was executed by a former military regime and she herself was thrown out of the country and accused of corruption in 1999 after Musharaff took power in a bloodless coup. So why is she seemingly allowing the administration to continue governing?
Her former rival Sharif has indeed characterized, in so many words, her negotiations with the regime as a Faustian betrayal of democracy, declaring it a “clear violation” of an agreement that “says no deals with military dictatorships.” Yet the PPP leader’s decision is a shrewd one, which could perhaps lead to the full return of democracy to Islamabad.
By forcing Musharaff to slip out of his military uniform, in return for short-term support, she has weakened his backing from the powerful military, which could lead to his eventual downfall.
She has also bought her way back to Pakistan, allowing herself the opportunity to rally the troops and plant seeds for democracy—she was the one who actually made progress in forcing the regime to reform, albeit slowly. Moreover, the move distances herself from potential adversary Sharif.
What does Musharraf stand to gain from acceding to Bhutto’s demand that he end his military career? The (former) general wishes to shore up support for this important election after a shaky few months has endangered his stay in power. Musharraf thinks he solidifies his position with the assistance of the popular Bhutto.
Whether it backfires in this election is doubtful but remains to be seen. His military removal, however, could certainly undermine his long-term legitimacy in the eyes of the armed forces and lead to democracy.
Some American officials would like to see the restoration of Pakistani democracy. Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama recently stated: “our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”
His opponents quickly jumped on him for this remark. Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd scolded: “While General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country.”
The remarks from Obama and Dodd sum up the classic quandary in American foreign policy in general, and specifically in regards to current relations with Pakistan: should we push for democracy in a country in which the results are unpredictable or do we continue supporting an allied, yet autocratic, dictatorship?
Dodd’s statement that democracy would bring radical Islamic sentiment to power in Pakistan is likely untrue. Islamists, when running, have never garnered more than ten percent in national elections, and would unlikely do so in the near-future.
At the same time, Obama’s comments could be described as naïve. Democracy, as seen in Iraq, is not a panacea for the country’s problems, and the fact that Pakistan is host to nuclear weapons should preach caution and stability. While Musharraf, to be sure, could do more, he has been an erstwhile American ally.
Musharraf needs support, and Bhutto’s sponsorship will give the president more room to fight extremism, and Washington should be happy about the deal. Democratization should be homegrown and gradual.
The U.S. should support democratic institutions and civil society in Pakistan, hopefully leading to a stable democracy in the long-term. Musharraf and Bhutto’s agreement, while perhaps Faustian on Bhutto’s part in the short-term, could lay the foundation for this to come to fruition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with your sentiment that Bhutto's recent deal could be a short -term political move but also a move that benefits democracy over the long-term in Pakistan.
And Senator Dodd pretty much nailed it on the head, but I don't see it as mutually exclusive with Obama's. We can support Musharraf and still try to prod him into more democratic practices.
The bottom line is, as you point out, that democracy is gradual and homegrown. I think Musharraf wants a democratic Pakistan, and wants to shed the Generals uniform, but he can't do that if he gives up military power and is overthrown. The Musharraf-Bhutto deal is probably a step in that direction.
The one thing I would disagree with in this blog post is when you use Iraq as an example for democracy not being a panacea. I would have used Palestine for this example. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, Iraqi democracy elects the mayor of the Green Zone. The Palestinian people elected a Hamas slate to lead their government, leaving the United States dealing with a government lead by a State Department-defined terrorist organization. This is the kind of conundrum that Senator Obama ignores by pushing for democracy in Pakistan.
Post a Comment