By now most readers will have seen the news that Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s President, has resigned from his post rather than face impeachment charges. While for some this might seem like a happy day, a slightly closer look at the situation in Pakistan suggests that the country is not now headed for greater stability or economic prosperity.
Since his party lost the Parliamentary elections earlier this spring, he was already essentially irrelevant. The threat of impeachment announced by Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif in recent weeks says more about the desperation of the new coalition government than it does about Musharraf himself.
In the weeks to come, I’m sure we’ll see a number of accounts of the fall of Musharraf, ranging from, “well, he was bad, but these guys are worse,” to “well, he was so bad that the room can’t help but smell better now that he’s gone.” There might even be a couple of people saying that he was actually good for Pakistan (democracy is overrated), good for women’s rights (he got a couple of laws passed; who cares about Mukhtar Mai, anyway?), and an invaluable ally to the United States in the fight against Islamic extremism (though I’m not sure how anyone could really make that argument with a straight face).
A preliminary account worth reading, which leans towards the first position, comes from Fatima Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto’s niece (but no fan of her aunt or her aunt’s widower, Asif Ali Zardari). Bhutto who starts off with a description of the recent press conference where Zardari and Sharif expressed their moral outrage about Musharraf’s “anti-democratic” actions as President and head of the military:
Zardari snarled every time Musharraf’s name came up, seething with political rage and righteousness, while Sharif did his best to keep up with the pace of things. He nodded sombrely and harrumphed every once in a while. The two men are acting for democracy, you see. And impeaching dictators is a good thing for democracies, you know.
But Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari are unelected. They’re not just unrepresentative in that they don’t hold seats in the parliament – they have absolutely no mandate in Pakistan. They head the two largest, and most corrupt, parties in the state but hold no public office. Pots and kettles.
The rest of the coterie that wields power behind this administration, the attorney general and the interior minister for instance, also happen to be unelected. They serve, and I use the term ever so lightly, by appointment only. Some 170 million Pakistanis have lived under military rule of law for nine years. Musharraf stepping down from his army post has not changed that. Neither did the recent selections. Sorry, I meant elections, obviously. (link)
Here, Fatima Bhutto might be a little too dismissive of the elections that took place this past February. No matter how corrupt these guys are, it does matter that a large number of Pakistanis actively chose their parties to govern the country over others (i.e., the PML-Q). That said, I agree with her in spirit that the current passion for democratic principle exhibited by the two leaders seems questionable, not just because they themselves are currently unelected, but because of their respective histories.
Bhutto also goes after Sharif and Zardari on the law their coalition government has passed that effectively makes them immune from prosecution for the corrupt practices of their respective former regimes, which are widely acknowledged. The new law also makes future prosecution of Parliamentarians more difficult, a kind of preemptive ass-covering, as it were:
The current administration – a party coalition comprising two formerly mortal enemies, the PPP and the PML – has enjoyed five months in office. And what has this thriving democratic union accomplished? It passed the National Reconciliation Ordinance, an odious piece of legislation that wipes out 15 years’ worth of corruption cases against politicians, suspiciously covering 11 years of PPP and PML rule. Bankers and bureaucrats were also given the all-clear. Worse still, the ordinance contains a clause that makes it virtually impossible for future charges to be filed against sitting parliamentarians.
Finally, Bhutto doesn’t mince words when it comes to the dire situation Pakistan is in right now, with fighting raging in the NWFP and an economy in turmoil:
But they must have done more than that, surely? Well, all that really changed is that food inflation has accelerated, oil subsidies have been cut, gas prices have doubled, and those pesky militants in the Swat district the tribal regions have turned up the fighting. Several days before the decision to impeach Musharraf hurtled through the airwaves, a small story came in from the tribal areas: the militants are close, the story said, they’ve vowed to target the government, even to the point of attacking state schools. This is a civil war, the story said.
Musharraf’s departure is obviously significant in the sense that he has been a dictator with a particularly lively persona, who ruled Pakistan during an especially eventful period of time.
But in real terms, he was already done, back in February.
Musharraf, Bhutto, Zardari, Tweedledum, Tweedledee, …
Being a very aware child of an Indian army-officer, i know from up close what Musharraf is really all about. Now, having followed his moves over the years, i have only squirmed with rage everytime his chameleon self showed its true colors. But hate or no-hate, one cant deny the fact that he is the pinnacle of shrewdness that no politician worldwide can never reach. This man has continually moved from strength to strength and remained outside the reach of his detractors. Prof, Thanks for sharing Ms Bhutto’s write-up for i completely agree with her when she says that the whole proceedings show desperation on part of the politicians and not Musharraf. Coz i know where she is coming from. She, like all others who read beyond the printed matter, knows that eversince Congress returned to power with full majority in India, heat on Musharraf completely turned full force but even then this is one man who dictates his own terms of engagement or retirement… dicey as the situation may become for other people in his job, but a man of his stature will not be silenced by a bomb in his caravan. I am positively certain that he will live long enough to see Zardari and Sharif kill each other over the loot.
He orchestrated 2 wars in J&K including Kargill and when he arrived in India with his wife to visit the Taj, the then Indian Army General Officer Commanding in chief refused to shake hands with him in front of all and sundry. I was there and I was PROUD.
Wasn’t it a “good thing” when Musharraf ousted Sharif, those many years ago?
Fatima’s dad(who was as bad as Benazir, zardari, sharif) was rumored(more like an open secret) to have been assassinated by Benazir/Zardari back when she was PM. Her opinions should be read with a grain of salt, not because they are wrong, but because she has an axe to grind.
Mana, does your dad feel that the new Pakistani govt. may be more cooperative, straightforward in working with India on resolving conflicts or on a microlevel field officer level communicating to avoid potshot shelling/shooting etc? To me a democratic Pakistan means more attacks on India because I see a popular mandate for hostility towards us.
Louiecypher, I’m sorry but I’m no one to share my dad’s opinion as they are classified. I speak for myself and my analysis tells me that this constant live-issue of pakistan is of great use in not only the indian political landscape but also in that of pakistan’s own political calculations. Most recent Indian example was Narendra Modi and his election campaign post-Godhra where all his rage comprised of was Musharraf and Bush (no grass root issues there, as usual). Sharif and Zardari are old/seasoned cooks who will continue with their previous recipe they fed others in their time. I don’t feel that Pakistan’s democracy should be worrisome ‘coz just look at the numbers… india lost fewer men and tax-payer money during Bhutto’s and Sharif’s reign combined as compared to what happened under Musharraf’s… inflation adjusted.
Is this a widely-known fact? It seems strange; and where are these numbers coming from…?
sarita, feel free to start with http://www.finmin.nic.in good luck!
Facts and opinions must be judged on their merit, not on what motives the speaker has.
Did I miss something between discussions on some obnoxious film directors and drinking laws in Bangalore or has the current Kashmir mess of Govt inaction, communal tensions, economic blockades,etc – one of the biggest news in the Indian media last few days and with possible far reaching consequences – not been discussed on SM?
While often I have agreed with Amardeep’s various posts, nothing could be so off as this one.
SM should be unequivocally for democracy in South Asia and throughout the world. Democracy may be a flawed system and the parties in question are undeniably corrupt (as are the Republicans, Democrats, and their ilk), however that a dictator could be deposed by democratic forces should be celebrated, especially in South Asia.
You may be correct that Pakistan is not “now headed for greater stability or economic prosperity,” but this was hardly the case under Musharraf either.
Contrary to Amardeep’s “historical hindsight,” Musharraf was not “done in February.” A number of complex geopolitical moves involving the US abandoning Musharraf as well as the sentiments of the country had to be gauged. While Sharif may have had revenge in his mind for his call to remove Musharraf, that Zardari agreed has more to do with the general will of the Pakistani people and members of his party (for a complexity of different reasons) than only economic turmoil. The final page of the Musharraf saga had to be turned (hopefully it is the final page!).
Also with regards to democracy and stability/economic prosperity, there is a fascinating article in last month’s Foreign Policy magazine that touches on this issue in comparing China and India. Titled “Asia’s New Miracle“, Professor Yasheng Huang, of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, concludes:
After a long hiatus, China’s leadership has rhetorÂically returned to a vision of the 1980s—that politiÂcal reforms should be a priority. Rural China has begun to recover from the neglect of the 1990s, and rural income has grown the fastest since 1989.
All this is good news. But consolidating these achievements will require a more substantial undoing of the illibÂeral policies of the 1990s. How India managed to emerge from its own long shadow of illiberalism offers some valuable lessons. In the past, China taught India the importance of social investments and economic opening. It is time for today’s China to take a page from India—and from the China of the 1980s—that political reforms are not antithetiÂcal to growth. They are the keys to a healthier and more sustainable foundation for the future. That Pakistan would rid itself of the dictator-monkey Musharraf off its back may bode well for possible long-term growth, reforms, and freedom.
Sorry the two paragraphs – the bolded one and the one following were “copy-and-pasted” from the linked article. My apologies for not viewing my comment before submiting.
I agree with Cheney on this one (gasp!). Mushie was better than this new lot of crooks.
Why would I care? What does it have to do with America? Indian blogs are the best place to post about the minutia of Indian politics. What is going on in Pakistan more directly affects the U.S. in my opinion.
Any bets on how long before Musharraf meets an unfortunate ‘accident’.
14 · Abhi said
And a lot of posts on SM (example: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005346.html) have something to do with America?
Yes, “A LOT” (vast majority) do. The point is we appreciate everyone who comes here to read and comment. Just please don’t tell us what to write about. If you HAVE to then email us. Telling us what to write about on a post about something else is the most obnoxious thing a blogger has to deal with. Its like if a stranger walked through your front door, sat down on the table and then told you what he wanted you to feed him. We have a tip line AND a News Tab so readers can participate more. The best participation is adding your voice to the blogosphere by starting a blog.
I agree with Abhi that no one likes to be badgered to write about x or y event.
For my part, I might still talk about what has been happening in Kashmir at some point if inspired. If you see interesting points of view on the current Kashmir conflict in either Indian or western media, send us tips or do a news tab post.
And Mewa Singh —
SM should be unequivocally for democracy in South Asia and throughout the world. Democracy may be a flawed system and the parties in question are undeniably corrupt (as are the Republicans, Democrats, and their ilk), however that a dictator could be deposed by democratic forces should be celebrated, especially in South Asia.
Firstly, SM is not for any one thing. We are a group of independent-minded people with different views on things. My colleagues Abhi and Vinod have a rather different take on Pakistan than I do.
Secondly, nowhere in this post did I say I wasn’t in favor of democracy (note that I took issue with Fatima Bhutto on this — the elections did matter). But I believe real democracy has to be more than elections; it also requires an institutionalized system of checks and balances, which is currently lacking in Pakistan. In this case, the coalition government has failed to reinstate the judges sacked by Musharraf, largely because Zardari in particular would then be at risk of prosecution. Secondly, they have passed a law to effectively grant themselves immunity for both past and future corruption charges.
They can talk all they want about democracy, but they don’t really mean it, I don’t think. They are acting out of self-interest. (I would love to be proven wrong by the course of events.)
You may be correct that Pakistan is not “now headed for greater stability or economic prosperity,” but this was hardly the case under Musharraf either.
The bleak future is actually the main point I was trying to make in the post. If you agree with that, you agree substantively with my argument in this post.
Whatever happens the people of Pakistan will suffer because there will be a power struggle between Zardari and Sharif. Only time will tell whether Musharaff was better.The important thing is that DEMOCRACY has been restored,and hopefully,a fully representative govt of the people will rule PAKISTAN in the furure.
Amardeep,
I appreciate your reply, but I do believe that ‘democracy’ is one of those things you can be unequivocally for. It seems to me rather obtuse to argue against it, especially as most of us in America do seem to enjoy some semblance of it.
I may agree that the short-term economic prospects may not be great in Pakistan, but this rings true for many regions of the world and has been Pakistan’s condition for some time now. However, if you agree with Professor Huang’s thesis (also Thomas Friedman’s, but Friedman’s is far more problematic) then democracy is the best long-term solution for a greater economic future in Pakistan. So yes, Musharraf’s resignation does matter.
21 · Mewa Singh said
agreed, it will take time, maybe even one or two generations. if he was still there the country would not have been able to move on. the sad thing is no new strong leaders popped up during the elections and new lot are the old lot. very vulnerable country right now.
Mewa although you don’t intend it you sound (to me at least :)like GW Bush. He too thought that spreading democracies is ALWAYS the best thing. If it has taught us anything the last seven years has taught us that “democracy” is absolutely something one should be equivocal about. Forcing democracy, or just wishing for it really badly, in a place/context/time that isn’t ready for it is disastrous. I think you should read Vinod’s post on the topic.
I appreciate your reply, but I do believe that ‘democracy’ is one of those things you can be unequivocally for.
I would take liberal institutions over democracy any day. Democratic elections sometimes end up electing Modi and Hamas.
Amardeep, Abhi – I agree that maybe the way I expressed my discomfort about the lack of coverage on the Kashmir issue was wrong. My apologies.That said, it would be nice to see some points of view from the Indian American perspective – the plethora of Indian blogs/forums have a lot of insights but little from the Indian American/American perspective.
No matter how corrupt these guys are, it does matter that a large number of Pakistanis actively chose their parties to govern the country over others (i.e., the PML-Q).
What is the role of the Pakistani Army (is there even a navy & air force?) in a democratic Pakistan? This is one of the questions the parliamentarians ought to address and eventually have a referendum to amend the constitution. From my reading of the constitution, there seems to be a catch-22 situation especially (1) & (2).
245. Functions of Armed Forces. [259] [(1)] The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so. [259A] (2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any court. (3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forces of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245: Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power. (4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3) instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting.]
If Zardari and Sharif have a power struggle and the army does not step in, all I see happening is the jihadis gaining a huge amount of ground as the army will not want to get involved politically and is not full-on engaging with the terrorist elements. If the struggle is long lasting, I wouldnt be surprised if the feasibility of the Pakistani state is called into question in the western media.
Karachi stock exchange was reached an all time high under Musharraf’s regime and Pakistan was on the list of most promising emerging economies after BRIC, so the economy was doing reasonably well till about a year ago.
Abhi — I’d like to start by reminding you that you have wonderful hair. And are a Prince of a Man. (So is Paagal Admi for Whatever — but I don’t think he needs reminding)
But the idea that Pakistan is not ready for democracy is absurd. As Sepoy at Chapati Mystery has noted, Pakistan just had a “colour” revolution, where a bunch of unarmed, black-suited lawyers brought down a military dictatorship by rallying the public to demand the rule of law. Thousands of people lining a highway to hear a Supreme Court Justice speak? Beat that, Scalia.
Pakistan has liberal institutions. It also has corrupt politicians (and is unique in South Asia in that regard!). The democratic arena is the place for corruption to be addresses, not the barracks.
Anyway — a Pakistani dictator only gets about 10 years — Ayub, Zia, and now Musharraf. Tick Tock, to steal a phrase from a better writer.
To forestall another sterile debate on whether brown savages are ready for democracy, I’d point out that today’s Dawn has a really great set of articles on Musharraf — ranging from from an assessment of his legacy to a really interesting article on how Bush was persuaded to abandon Musharraf — apparently he was the last holdout.
This last is probably the most relevant for an American audience (ebcause, really, analysis of Pakistani politics is usually better done by Pakistanis) — Anne Patterson seemed to have a key role, and Cheney flipped before the President. Also, Pakistani Ambassador Hussein Haqqani apparently wokred wih “think tanks” to get this switch — Haqqani worked at the neocon Hudson Institute before becoming Ambassador.
This suggests that if McCain wins, Pakistan will have good access to the White House.
29 · Ikram said
When those democracy penguins are wearing harem pants and entertaining mountain folk with their newly acquired falsetto singing voices they will wonder where it all went wrong. Many of the Iranian students in the Revolution found out the hard way that their bearded allies of convenience weren’t really into compromise
Except that the Mullahs were allies of Musharraf, not the lawyers.
To rephrase Louie, — when the twin towers fell, the Americans (including Desi-Americans) finally realized that their bearded allies of convenience — through the Cold War — weren’t really into compromise.
32 · Ikram said
I’m pretty sure Indian-Americans knew that all along Ikram, after all those days we were are all suspected of harboring pro-Soviet sentiment;-) It may not have occured to Pakistani desis as they were being feted for the assistance of their military/ISI cousins back home
Abhi,
Point taken that I may “sound” like GW, but that was the entire problem with him. GW stated that he stood for democracy, but his actions and policies often were the opposite. Approve or disapprove, Hamas was democratically elected. Bush hardly recognized them and has done everything possible to undermine the democratic decision of the people in the West Bank. Sometimes in democracies you will get results that you don’t like (for me the US elections of 2000 and 2004 are great examples), but that is how a democracy functions.
In many Muslim majority countries, the United States is referred to as a “shaythan.” (almost implies mischevious, someone that deceives) In fact members of my family (Sikh) use the same words in describing some American government actions. Americans translate this to mean “The Great Satan,” but the difference between a shaythan and Satan is remarkable. The reason for the term shaythan is because of the hypocrisy. Americans espouse the rhetoric worldwide of democracy, but in the past and present have been only too willing to undermine democrats (small d) throughout the world by becoming bedfellows with dictators. This deception and hypocrisy is frustrating and sometimes considered far worse than a stated enemy.
Some members of the Sikh community in considering Musharraf’s legacy are lamenting his departure. In fact, one Sikh living in India has even offered to invite Musharraf to his farmhouse. However, I do believe that one must unequivocally AND consistently demand democracy. I feel these people are foolish for trying to honor a tyrant.
Democracy Now had a great interview on Monday morning with Ali Ahsan. From the website:
Do get a chance to listen to it if you get time.
Finally with regards, Abhi, to the link you sent by Vinod (summarizing many points by Zarkaria), it is definitely food for thought, but its historical argument is hugely flawed and the suggestion of the benefits of a “liberal tyrant” is somewhat patronizing. Still I think Vinod’s contrarian perspective is needed. Zakaria’s (not necessarily Vinod) allegiance to a New American Century vision has been well-commented on on the internet, however a multi-polar is emerging and the “we don’t like the results of your democracy, so we will call it ‘illiberal’ argument” is fast losing steam.
Damn did I really say West Bank, sorry I meant Gaza Strip.
34 · Mewa Singh said
The formatting didn’t show up right last time. Anyways, “shaytan” and “satan” are cognates.
Regarding Pakistan’s economy VS India’s – guys they are VERY VERY similar according to Wikipedia (I’m looking at the PPP). Pakistan has a PPP of over $3300/person, whereas India’s was re-adjusted downwards by 40% to $2700. Remember that PPP is a much better indicator of standard of living than the nominal GDP.
Their budget is actually BETTER than India’s. India’s budget debt divided by GDP is 58%, and Pakistan is 52.8%, according to Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is of ill-repute, but it cna’t be that bad for data like this.
Hi!
thanks for quoting Fatima had been meaning to google up her reaction to this development but didnt get the chance.
I think what she says is true. Those guys are covering asses and all that also Pakistan is in a very precarious situation with two leaders who essentially have a lot of suspicions about each other which may flare up any moment.
But then one is unable to see any other option in the horizon as well. But then dont most countries stand in the same arena?
Highlighting the importance of the resignation, Pakistani-American blogger and South Asian graduate student Manan Ahmed writes:
When did the legal penguins start to show some spine? When the US started pushing for the rageaholic beardos to be grounded ? Where were they before? Clearly Pakistan was not a bastion of civil liberties before the the US started getting “hands on” or the Mush putsch.
my good man, you’re very off in your conjecture that that popular mandate has anti-indian connotations. with a conflict raging on one border, and threat of attack by a superpower hell bent on its scam war on terror, and internal terrorist attacks, and economic turmoil, that quite a thing to say that the popular mandate is anti-indian. i believe the pakistanis have much more on their minds right now.
34 · Mewa Singh said
Palestinians have the right to elect their leaders democratically, but they also must accept the consequences of their political decisions. Hamas launches terrorist attacks against Israelis and Westerners. Just because Hamas won an election doesn’t mean the West has to ignore its terrorism and accept it. Just as the Palestinians have a right to elect Hamas, the West has the right to take the position that they will not negotiate with groups that commit terrorism against Westerners.
Democracy in Pak is as difficult as growing because Islam does not allow freedom of thought, speech or action within muslims and non-muslims(kafirs) However, the various attempts to restore democracy in Pak is really commendable and reflects the relatively liberal of the Pakistanis. Unfortunately, that liberal side of Pak only manifests as beautiful Fashion models and some very good sufi singers but never in politics. In Pak politics as it is said, you have to hate India to survive. Even Benazir Bhutto, with all her western education, accent and liberal upbringing played to the tune of appeasing the hardliners by saying some nasty things about India.
Oops, I meant Democracy in Pak is as difficult as growing hair on Bruce Willis’s head 🙂
As a young Pakistani-American, I have to say that I am very happy that Musharraf has resigned. Although Zardari and Sharif are certainly not paragons of virtue, they have been elected by the people (insofar as any election in Pak is truely free and fair). I agree with those posters above who note that democracy is something that should be unequivocally supported (of course there is a difference between true democracy and the “democracy” that Bush wanted to support in Iraq). I think that removing a military dictator from office is an extremely significant step for Pakistan and as a Pakistani I am proud to see this day.
Kabir
JGandhi,
You’re right, but your analysis of Hamas is far too simplistic. Plus the whole America “supports democracy” idea rings hollow. America only supports those democracies that “we” like.
Hi all,
Its quite thought-provoking to witness the anti-Pakistan attitude and Pakistan-centric obsession amongst Indians in this day and age. While, majority of us are moderate and believe in peaceful co-existence, we wish if you guys would leave us on our own. Live & let live and long live Pakistan:-)
as a Pakistani who is not very fond of pakistani politicians b/c of their hunger for wealth and power and complete callousness to public welfare, you would be amazed to note that Pakistan only developed during 40,s, 60’s, 80’s, and then early 2000’s during Musharraf rule. except the 40’s all the other three decades saw military in power. all major dams, major projects both civilian and military were developed during these times except 2 motorways. During the time of democracy and politian’s rule mainly in 70’s and 90’s we suffered like crazy with debt mounting w/o a trace of economic development. The politicians got richer, the country poorer.
actually for nascent countries, a mix of democracy9people power), technocracy, bureaucracy and armed Forces and also State Bank economists gives a better govt rather than every thing being run by people’s representatives…especially when 70% population is illiterate.
Anyway…..as for Musharraf..the educated and the balanced people in Pakistan like him especially who understand strategic isues and World economics…Those who don’t and who are in majority support the two parties…PPP and PML N…….they just want their party in power no matter what it does.
as for relationship with India, Pakistan is the only country in the world today that has multiple security threats emanating from all sides…….Those who are against Musharraf’s support to US in 2001 do not know that our nuclear installations and perhaps our major infrastructure would not be there today had he not taken this bold decision…and time has proven it was the right decision……taliban are evil and now many Pakistanis agree.
as for US intervention after 2001, its the fault of al qaeda and Taleban and not Musharraf…Who created Al Qaeda and Taleban….uS had brought in 25000 Arabs from Middle Easat to afghanistan and asked Pakistan to train them and KSA to finance them….As for Taliban they were created during Benazir Bhutto’s time theough her favorite General Nasirullah Babur and her favorite Mullah Fazlurrehman………..o i don’t know why the heat on Musharraf…….He is responsible for Pakistan’s survival in 2001……Not a singlre country would have helped us then trust me had US attacked Pakistan……
as for fatima Bhutto, she seems like a nice and educated person who can rise above family linkages to see reality and truth. She has got those guts. Let’sse how she gets along with politics in future.