<
p align=left >I often see myself as sort of the David Brooks of Sepia Mutiny – a soft contrarian vs. the general political clime here. So, I was surprised to see Abhi’s take on Pakistan. There aren’t too many issues out there where Abhi & I tend to agree rather than disagree and it appears that Pakistan is one such situation. (On the other hand, I don’t think the ACLU does enough for the NRA 
)
In our politically-correct, post-modern world, criticism of government flows easily, criticism of the “governed”, not enough
My underlying reason for taking a “looks bad, but I’ll wait and see” attitude towards Mushie rather than condeming him outright was perhaps best spelled out in a seminal Foreign Affairs article by desi-pundit Fareed Zakaria. Well before he broke onto the public consciousness with a famous Newsweek cover piece, and before he was for the Iraq war, then against its execution, then for it again, Zakaria coined the phrase “Illiberal Democracy” to describe situations where serving the “will of the people” is’nt exactly a Good Thing –
THE AMERICAN diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered a problem on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, which were meant to restore civic life to that ravaged country. “Suppose the election was declared free and fair,” he said, and those elected are “racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma.” Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world. Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life — illiberal democracy.
It’s important to note that the “liberalism” that Zakaria speaks of here is more in the traditional sense of “classical liberalism” rather than “Democrat politics” or progressivism. Still, what Zakaria vividly illustrated & teased out was the role of one of the most important “invisible hands” underlying the historical development of Democracy; in short, for most of history, the productive, peaceful, tolerant culture & society came before the democracy.
Sans those precepts, the naked pursuit of Democracy – so the argument goes – becomes a sort of Cargo Cult pursued by well intentioned, often outside reformers with potentially tragic results. In an incorrigibly tribal or sectarian context, elections can merely result in one group gaining the bludgeon of state power to loot the assets and trample the rights of another.
Before Zakaria, the Founding Fathers famously used the aphorism “Tyranny of the Majority” and the diktat “People Get the Government They Deserve” to describe exactly such a breakdown. The implication is that in our politically-correct, post-modern world, while criticism of the government flows easily from our lips, perhaps criticism of the “governed” doesn’t flow quite enough. [Lets not get into Iraq for now…]
In the spirit that most of life’s choices aren’t between “Good and Bad” but rather between “Bad and Worse”, if you are at real risk of having an “illiberal democracy”, then often your alternative isn’t “substantive democracy” but instead a “liberal tyrant”. In fact, one could argue that most democracies in history have had at least one or 2 “benevolent dictators” responsible for leading a country into a modern liberalism before the populace was quite ready.
American liberalism was imported from Britain prior to democracy.The Brits had their Victorian mores well before full democracy. Japan had its Meiji. Singapore its Yew. Turkey its Ataturk. South Korea for most of its modern, 20th century life, was a quasi-military dictatorship with Taiwan following a nearly identical path. The path is rarely straight and narrow, of course, Russia had its Peter the Great and a several modernizing czars before Leninism and Stalinism. China, in its own way, is arguably in the midst of a long liberalism process initiated tragically by Mao. Napolean in France is inseparable from the horrors of the revolution; still, military exploits aside, he was also an unabashed social liberalizer and modernizer and actually welcomed by some of the conquered downtrodden as a liberator. And so on….
Against this backdrop, one of the many things that made the American Experiment so unique was that the cultural precepts of liberalism were wholesale imported from Britain practically on day one prior to creation of the state. In America, the cultural amnesia created by the long arc of history for other nations was reinforced here by a voyage across the seas. One of those great intellectual history “what if’s?” is to try and guess what would have happened had the US had been colonized in force 100 years before the UK had been infected by the Scottish Enlightenment or what if the 13 colonies had been dominated by the Spanish rather than the Brits. (Alternately, without the organization and scientific knowledge of the Scots / Brits – could it have been?)
So, is Musharraf potentially such a “liberalizing tyrant”? In a separate piece, Zakaria argues “yes” –
There is a simple story line: Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has abused his authority; he faces massive street protests and should be nudged out in favor of a civilian government. It’s a tempting view. Musharraf is a dictator, and his regime has not been wholly committed to fighting Islamic radicals. The Taliban has reconstituted itself in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and Al Qaeda’s top leaders appear to be ensconced along its border. If there is a central front in the war on terror, it is not in Iraq but in Pakistan.
Now, the complications. Musharraf has, on the whole, been a modernizing force in Pakistan. When he took power in 1999, the country was racing toward ruin with economic stagnation, corruption, religious extremism and political chaos. It had become a rogue state, allied to the Taliban and addicted to a large-scale terror operation against neighboring India. Musharraf restored order, broke with the Islamists and put in place the most modern and secular regime in three decades. Under him the economy has boomed, with growth last year at 8 percent.
<
p>Just like the (bulk of) the Saudi government is considered more liberal than the population as a whole (the urbane latte-shops of Riyadh perhaps excluded); so too is the (bulk of) Musharaff’s regime probably more liberal than the population as a whole (similarly, with urbane quarters of Karachi and Lahore excepted). Every modern democracy at one point seemed like Lord of the Flies writ large
Does that mean that Pakistan is doomed to an autocratic state? No. Although Bush usually gets quoted here in derision, he is correct that in every society that is now a successful democracy, there was a point where it too appeared incorrigibly backward, sectarian and more like Lord of the Flies writ large than adult civil society. In Ceasar’s time, for example, the Brits were barbarians and Gregory Clark’s Farewell to Alms expends much effort trying to figure out how they later”crossed the chasm” into an industrially productive culture.
So where and how do the ‘adults’ emerge in Pakistan? I don’t know. It is worth noting, however, that you can’t become one without at least a few growing pains and heartbreaks along the way. Suicide bombing (and the entire conceptual baggage train from idealogues to bomb maker) will only stop once the Pakistani’s themselves master the internal processes to channel man’s need to make a statement into alternate, more productive economic and political pursuits. “Yeh Hum Naheen” shows Pakistani’s telling each other, in their own words what isn’t the way; part II is the message about what the alternate way is.
The process, of course is critically important to Americans and the world at large. We can (sometimes) help by opening a door, not blocking one by accident, and so on but they ultimately must walk through it. How a nation deals with the ajudication of power between political rivals intra-state (concession speeches post elections vs. suicide bombs) is perhaps the single best predictor of how it deals with differences inter-state.
But the problem is that Musharaff is not saving Pakistan from anarchy, but saving his job. In 1999, he organized a coup not because Pakistan was about to go over a cliff, but because Sharif was going to replace him. In 2001, he failed to eliminate the Islamists. He then held a rigged election to deny secular segments a voice, and thereby artificially creating a larger Islamist presence. Prior to Musharaff, no Islamist party won a provincial election. Now, NWFP is under Islamist control, and not surprisingly, it was where most anti-Afghan attacks are hatched.
Musharaff maybe a secularist, but that does not mean he is any less interested in preserving the army’s dominance in Pakistan. So long as there is some degree of instability in the region, that argument gains credence.
yes. have people forgotten kargil?
KXB – I thinkt he point is that sometimes the personal ambition of the leader can
Vinod – correct me if I’m wrong but Zakaria does not view the trend toward Illebral Democracies as a good thing and that’s what shoudl concern anyone about what has been hapenning in Pakistan since 1999.
I believe this is a very dangerous thought that a democratically elected government is not acceptable if it is not peace loving or is not liberal. The only thing that the we should look at is whether the elections are free and fair. Once they are conducted, whoever gets power is the leader. In any democracy, initially, radical ideas may get more traction. Then over a few election cycles, the voters see that a radical does not generate good results and he is then removed or he moderates his views. However for this to happen there should be continuous election cycles at least (2-4) during which free and fair elections are held.
If the world expects democracies to be made in a single election they are sadly mistaken.
–> I am curious, how much of the growth is due to foreign aid ? After all, Musharraf as the head of army and president, receiving copious aid from US directed mostly towards army, can show economy is better than Sharif as the president with (sulking) Musharraf as chief of army, on the hook from US for indulging in Kargil misadventure.
Does it seem to any of you that the problem is the military culture in Pakistan, not quite its democratic institutions? Ever since FM Ayub Khan responded to communal riots and took over the presidency in ’58, the Army has retained a willingness/desire to step in politics in a way not seen in stronger democracies.
Mush’s non-achievements include no breakthrough in peace with India even when there were promising leads, no real gains in the war on terror (witness the Waziristans’ “terrorist haven” status and frosty relations with the Afghan government), spiraling separatist ambitions in Baluchistan and NWFP, resurgent political Islam in the form of MMA governments in Baluchistan and NWFP…where’s the enlightened or “benevolent” dictator here? Whatever achievements that Zakaria talks about are the result of generous US aid to Pakistan for their role in the war on terror and extremely benign economic conditions in the global economy over the last few years in the form of low interest rates and unprecedented liquidity seeking higher, “exotic” returns that have helped the Pakistani economy, not the result of good governance. Your historical reading is praiseworthy, but it’s analogical relevance to today’s Pakistan is far from evident.
Exactly … I also fail to see how shutting down the mobile phone network, and detaing lawyers and the opposition is good for the nation.
As for Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore, yes, it is a major financial hub that certainly benefitted in the early days from Yew’s leadership (and Yew is still very much an influence with his position as ‘Mentor Minister’) but it is still yet to realise a fully free democracy – freedom of speech or media is a joke (except on the web where the goverment has given up and Singaporean uptake is high); the opposition are frequently bankrupted, suppressed or sued; and citizens are unable to gather en masse to ride their bikes … the people fear their government. There’s something not right about that.
Just one question, how can one describe Pakistan as a democracy? Illiberal or otherwise.
Just a small pointer from a Singaporean:
his last name is Lee and his first name is “Kuan Yew”. The Chinese put their surnames first. I saw the same mistake a few days ago on an Indian news site
Vinod, were there 2 in the US as well?
What was this period for the US?
vinod – am a great admirer of your work(including the ‘infamous’ papers). But this post must rank amongst your worst.
Am disgusted that SM would advocate dictatorships. To paraphrase the BJP – SM is pseudo-liberal. Democracy is the will of the people – not the will of America or Americans.
Why is it that India was asked to pressure Burma to remove the junta, but we hear no such calls for Pakistan? (I know the history, is that all?)
Vinod, don’t know why there’s so much hating on your post. I’ve never looked at the formation of liberal democracies this way before and you bring up some very valid points. Maybe democracy for its own sake isn’t always great…
Ever lived in a dicatatorship ?
This is a common sentiment espoused all day by those who want to petulantly shake their fists without listening to what I, and now Vinod, are actually saying.
some statements arouse a visceral reaction. I tried to be dispassionate and analytical but this proposition runs against my grain (as in oak, not pine or quinoa). cthulhu cthulhu.
what you are saying is that the pakistani people are not capable of choosing their own leader, and hence we should prop up a strongman since America (and he) knows best. now, this is a viewpoint that must be examined with the utmost skepticism, especially when the facts on the ground do not support it. the islamic parties have had a consistently small number of seats in parliament, which puts paid to the lie of a wave of fundamentalism sweeping pakistan, and mushy himself has at best been incompetent, and at worst, been diabolical, in squelching terrorist and religious fundamentalist movements in nwfp. so neither is the reality as dire as people seem to want to believe, nor is the alternative as wonderful, convenient though this story line is.
the only thing that is clear is that the pakistani people have poor choices – democracy with the corrupt and self-centered bhutto, or dictatorship with a dissimulating musharraf.
freedom of speech or media is a joke
what does this have to do with democracy? people here are confounding many independent dimensions here. democracy does not necessitate freedom of speech. freedom of speech does not necessitate democracy. democratic athens practiced direct democracy for citizens, and yet did not make speech rights inviolable (e.g., think socrates corrupting the youth with his ideas).
btw, i haven’t kept track of the issue to give a thumbs up or down to musharraf. but, i do think there seems to be a tendency here to scream “burn the witch!” because abhi & vinod aren’t giving due reverence to the god of democracy.
Vinod, you make good points worth thinking about. I suspect many people will have a negative gut reaction to your post, but hopefully they will address the issues you raise. While I also agree with much of what Amardeep wrote, I’ve often felt that many countries weren’t “ready” for democracy and your post articulates the “why” of that well. The belief in democracy as a magical force that many commenters espouse sounds eerily similar to the thinking put forth by people like Wolfowitz and Co.
The belief in democracy as a magical force that many commenters espouse sounds eerily similar to the thinking put forth by people like Wolfowitz and Co.
many of the neocons were trotskyites in their youth. it shouldn’t be eerie.
A number of people are pointing out that in Pakistan the Islamic parties are not really that strong, that they have very few seats in Parliament, they won’t have much impact, etc. I agree that there won’t be a “wave of fundamentalism.” My questions are: how much fundamentalism would be acceptable? How many women murdered in an honour killing? How many terrorists sheltered and supported? Why is it that the individuals who would most be affected by any amount of fundamentalism (it wouldn’t be the middle class and the elites certainly) are apparently less deserving of protection?
it is an article of faith that governments adhering to published/publicized guidelines are the best form of governance for the masses. the closest i (personally) came to endorsing musharraf was in acknowledging the constitution gives him the right under specific circumstances to impose the emergency. well – i considered the facts. these were NOT the right circumstances. that’s my logical side.
my B-side of course is refusing to listen to arguments in support of the Moosh.
It is Mo-vember so Moosh must go for now.
it is an article of faith that governments adhering to published/publicized guidelines are the best form of governance for the masses
what does this mean? can you elaborate?
the point is that the country will not be overrun by fundamentalists, since the people and the leadership do not come from that ideology, nor do they have to pander to it for electoral reasons. it is not as if musharraf has tamped down on fundamentalism in any way – mukthar mai and lal masjid happened under his watch, so let’s no delude ourselves into thinking he is a beacon of hope. the argument that he is the only tenable moderate force, and hence this requires
uspakistanis to swallow the bitter pill of abrogation of their most fundamental rights and due process is a red herring.“published/publicized guidelines” –> reference to a constitution, written, codified or otherwise.
Still, what Zakaria vividly illustrated & teased out was the role of one of the most important “invisible hands†underlying the historical development of Democracy; in short, for most of history, the productive, peaceful, tolerant culture & society came before the democracy.
I agree with Vinod. There is no need to “rush” democracy in Pakistan. What has worked however imperfectly in India is not ready to work in Pakistan. Stability in the state trumps any other considerations, lest it split into pieces again, and benefits India as well.
To paraphrase Melbourne Desi: ever had a family member killed by a suicide bomber? Just a few fundos and a few deaths is enough, right?
Unfair questions aside, there’s a difference between the ideal (democracy works perfectly, everyone accepts the outcomes, opposition is peaceful, people enjoy agreed upon freedoms, etc) and the reality. I hate to speculate, but I suspect that Lal Masjid and even Mukhtar Mai’s case would have turned out worse under a different administration.
Aya. Fareed’s thesis does not compute. If Musharraf is a vanguard for a liberalization as claimed, why is he locking up and punishing the real agents of liberalization while cutting deals with and appeasing the fundamentalists?
Good post Vinod.
See? Even a card-carrying member of the … can see the merits of a good argument 🙂
This is defending the indefensible. How about using the same argument of a society not being ready to act against 1) wife beating 2) bride burning 3) infanticide – male or female 4) rape 5) ‘honour’ killing 6) communal riots Keep adding to the list.
If people elect crooks / fundamentalists – then so be it. The frustration is that those who have relative comfort and freedom would seek to deny it those who yearn for it. I suppose Mushie serves American interests and hence is a ‘good’ guy. Bah.. American Hypocrisy at its best.
Does any know the status of a former guest blogger-SIN ?
Even “free and fair” elections cannot produce a democracy in Pakistan. People forget that Pakistan is still a feudal state – majority of the population is rural, and are essentially coerced into voting for whoever their zamindar tells them to vote for. We never had land redistribution like India, so true democracy cannot really emerge until that changes. Why else would people continue to support cronies like Bhutto and Sharif?
You forgot to mention Hitler. It should round out the list nicely. Honestly, I generally appreciate you comments but self-righteousness never solved a thing.
Wont fall into that trap 😉
Thank you.
Please elucidate.
seems to be a tendency here to scream “burn the witch!” because abhi & vinod aren’t giving due reverence to the god of democracy.
Part of it (on my end, I won’t speak for others) is that Abhi and Vinod misunderstanding the matzav in Pakistan. Musharraf is not going to stop Democracy. All pakistani dictators — Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia, and Musharraf, held elections. The country has almost always had a National Parliament elected by the people.
Musharraf has said (though Shaukat Aziz contradicts him) that Parliamentary elections will be held in January. It’s even possible they won’t be rigged too badly. He’ll allow elected mayors, Nazims, provincial assemblies, you name it. What he won’t allow is any system of checks and balances on his own power.
There are four public institutions in Pakistan (in descending order of importance)– the army, the civil service, the courts, and the parties. Musharraf has emascualted to in the civil service by appointing army officers in place of bureaucrats and he has exiled poltical party leaders and split oppostion parties. The courts and lawyers were the last check agianst unfetterred army rule.
So Vinod has an interesting thesis, one worth discussing (especially since the Desi Zakaria is promoting a very desi idea — was Shiv Sena’s Maharashtra illiberal? Modi’s Gujurat? Laloo’s Bihar?) but it’s orthogonal to the situation at hand. Musharraf is no longer a liberal dictator, he is a illiberal dictator. And Zakaria has no theory on that.
I enjoyed the read to a point but I fear I diverge on the merits of a liberalizing tyrant. There are examples from history, in Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe, of leaders who have done well for their countrymen to a point but have ultimately driven their respective nations to ruin.
I do get your (Abhi & Vinod) points. You may be right but it is a roll of the die. If Musharraf stays on he will he be openly flouting the judiciary’s authority. That’s a bad sign. If that happens, the odds would not be good for a stable progressive Pakistan.
the most cherished quality in a diplomat/foreign policy analyst [according to an ex- american ambassador to india , who lives in my building] is the ability to analyze critical national security scenarios dispassionately. your sole criteria – what is good for your country?
so, setting aside your inner idealist momentarily, what would your [those critical of current policy] realistic recommendation be to dubya on what america ‘s pakistan policy should be as of today?
keeping kashmir and india aside for a moment, my recommendation would be in full agreement with what abhi and vinod wrote.
Mushie is good for America – absolutely. Probably even good for India. Is he good for the Pakis and for the growth of democracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/asia/07lawyers.html
I would be sympathetic to the central argument of this post if Musharaff were, in fact, a liberal dictator. But, alas, he’s no Ataturk or Deng Xiaoping. He may personally believe in/adhere to (classical) liberal values/ philosophy to some degree, as may much of the elite, but it hasn’t shown in significant ways in his actions. What’s more, he’s clearly, in the early days of this second coup, targeting the very liberalizers one desires to be influential in Pakistan!
You point out that “the productive, peaceful, tolerant culture & society came before the democracy”. Sure, great. But he’s targeting that productive and importantly tolerant part of Pakistani society that is emphatically needed for future reform and political stability (as a liberal democracy of some sort)!
I find it difficult, after some 8 years of his rule — wherein we have plenty of datapoints to judge his character and behavior — to believe he will actually be the sort of liberal dictator you/Zakaria implicitly argue is useful/necessary for a responsive, educated and tolerant civil society to emerge. Thus, I see a few salient points:
1) He is frankly not fervent enough in his liberalizing beliefs/ instincts/ ideology (he may have been trained in Turkey, but that’s apparently not enough) for him to be the liberal dictator you desire
2) Furthermore, because of the latter point, this is a problem of personality not ideology. he can’t work with the other liberalizing/reformist forces (for reasons of ego or whatever) and that’s trumping whatever secularizing/reforming instincts he might have — and causing him/has caused him to make deals with more religious entities/parties/groups
3) He is also not powerful enough, and forceful enough in his personality to be a tyrannical liberalizer like Ataturk or Napoleon. People forget that there is some civil society, political process and responsible government in Pakistan — something that’s much stronger here than in previous personality-cult dictatorships one might term liberal, like Ataturk. (Remember Ataturk arose after the Ottomans, themselves autocrats).
I believe there is some evidence to support the view I’ve articulated. From the NYT article:
Yes, from the American/Western perspective the best thing to do now may be to sit and wait (at least from a short term analysis). A longer term view, however, would be looking beyond Bhutto/Musharaff (who are liberal talkers, but not real reformists as far as their actions are concerned). Incidentally, from this latter perspective, one also finds what is best for Pakistan: either a quasi-democracy with a true liberal autocrat/strong-leader transitioning to a real democracy (pipe dream?). I must conclude that Musharaff’s coup, in its actions, will not be good or useful for the long-term goals of Pakistan, the US or India. It’s about ego and personality.
I think melbourne desi brought up an important objection: is liberalism the new god now, instead of democracy? So now are we spreading liberalism? Remember that the US position in Pakistan is not non-interference, but active support of Musharraf, even against agitators of democracy. Democracy at least has the nice quality that it is more easily defined. Support of liberalism is such a nebulous idea it pretty much allows you to support or oppose whoever you want. In fact, that is what I think is being done in this post. For example, quoting Musharraf’s vague war against Islamism while ignoring his attack on the judiciary means he is now a liberal. Of course once we stop liking him, he is not a liberal because he attacked the judiciary, didn’t he?
I think there are solid reasons for US support of Musharraf, based on its own interests in the region. I don’t know why we have to play these complicated moral games, when they have no impact on US foreign policy.
btw, Musharraf described himself as Lincoln. But now it seems he is also Ataturk, Peter the Great, Chairman Mao, and Napoleon. And did I miss a few others. I hope he lives up to your expectations. 😉
The emergency telegraph
ahhh, these american nationalist blogs…
full of long latinate words, but in the end, basically justifying US foreign policy as it exists today…
no need to investigate why pakistan was roped in as an “ally” starting in 1948, the endless romance with dashing paki dictators, the crude contempt for small brown people living far away….
It really doesn’t matter if the commentator is an american brown; in the end, its the same old thing – we are strong, you are weak, and we will spin things so that “freedom” and “liberty” mean the exact opposite in your lands.
al beruni, “no need to investigate why pakistan was roped in as an “ally” starting in 1948,”
pretty much every pakistani i meet, be it at the council on foreign relations, columbia university, asia society, or in a new york city cab, invariably blames america and/or india for their plight.
begs the question – why wasn’t evil america able to rope in india [a much juicier “prospect” according to the americans] as an “ally”?
to quote shakespeare, “the fault, dear brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
nafar – I offer no support for the loony world-view in which all the faults of pakistan or india are due to the “foreign hand”. Pakistanis should try to think thru why they have gotten entangled in all these alliances and allowed foreign powers (Saudi Arabia, USA) free reign over their country and culture.
But what about the foreign powers themselves? Especially those that consider themselves paragons of freedom and liberty? Dont we need a discussion about why the USA is addicted to pakistani dictators? What is it about US culture and society that allows it to make these disgusting interventions with other countries? When will we be discussing this important issue?
Not on this blog, my friend. Actually nowhere in the mass media. Maybe there is a Chomsky here or some professor there who points to this issue. But thats about it…
Leaving aside the issue of Musharraf, who I think is an obvious deviation from the idea of a liberalizing force (as others have convincingly argued above), the larger question of whether strongmen should be supported to prevent the population from eating itself is an interesting one, for about five minutes.
In fact, dictatorships have most often decayed into the same form. Dictators are mostly interested in their own power, not in liberalizing their country. And Zakaria’s argument about “most liberal democracies” is mistaken. England, for example, was not an example of a benevolent dictatorship that liberalized as a result of the sovereign’s wisdom. Democratic ideas gestated in an environment of dictatorship, but were not PRODUCED by that environment – democracy was the ultimate outcome of a liberalizing trend. Most of the examples you give are similar – people whose ultimate goal was democracy and were interested in reforming the system to that end, NOT people who suppressed democracy in order to control a rabid population. (I’m not sure why you included South Korea in the 20th century in your list, since the South Korean population has consistently been more liberal than its murderous tyrants.)
Actually we can much more easily find examples of the population becoming much more fundamentalist in the Muslim world as a result of dictatorship. Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, etc. And maybe Pakistan. In all of these countries, the effect of repression is to increase sympathy for Islamists, who are at least opposed to that repression, and sometimes the subject of it. In contrast, there are very few examples of sustained democracies producing illiberal populations. (Let’s not confuse years and years of tyranny followed by a single election for “democracy”.) Can you point to any?
So, we should give short shrift to the idea that Musharraf is doing anything good by shutting down elections and the courts, and closing up the press, to save his own neck. Those ARE liberal institutions. Their suppression cannot possibly promote liberalism.
Barnett Rubin, who is certainly no idealist, has his own take on the situation in Pakistan
Memo to Media – Supporting Musharaff is NOT Realism
I agree that promoting democracy (even if it were done sincerely and intelligently, which is not the usual practice) sometimes has less priority than other goals. In any case, democracy cannot function without internal security and the rule of law.
But don’t the reporters notice that the very pictures they are showing contradict the realist frame? General Musharraf has not suspended the constitution to fight terrorism. He has not even continued to fight terrorism while suspending the constitution for other reasons. Of course the Pakistan Army is happy to pocket the $100 million a year it receives for giving the U.S. basing rights and otherwise supporting the effort in Afghanistan (while undermining it in other — and cheaper — ways). The Pakistan Army is not about to commit suicide by openly defying the whole international community and cutting off support for NATO operations in Afghanistan.
Vinod, My favourite right of center commentator on TV is David Brooks (umm.. after F. Zakaria), although I vehemently dis-agree with his support of the imperialist Iraq war (which is the biggest human rights violation in the world going on right now). But we need a David Brooks of SM and on this post I agree with you completely.