Also agree about Imran Khan. The man only got elected because the elections were rigged against PPP and PML-N. For all his rantings against Musharaf, Altaf Hussain and BB, it is interesting how friendly he is with Fazl ur Rahman and the other so-called religious parties.

i fully agree that a religious government would be disastrous. it’ll just be difficult to stomach more of bhutto.

but the question is, really: how will the next pm/government enter power? will it be through a free election, or will it be via negotiations with the president-general (who will, hopefully, no longer be a general by then)? and can we then rely on the new government and the army to allow pakistan some political space where it’s most important: outside government?

though this army-government balance of power does seem to have worked in turkey, it must be in large part because of their particular history. the role played by the army in founding the republic and revolutionising the country, even their very culture, makes it more symbolic an institution to turks than the pakistani army is to most pakistanis, i would say. for another thing, the turkish army is conscripted, while the pakistani army is widely seen as the province of the country’s ‘military classes.’ i think this more closely ties the turkish army to turks and distances the pakistani one from pakistanis.

so, to have the army in the background of pakistani government, as an independent institution – with no popular participation in its shape or policies – would be highly unsettling. who would check the army’s power? to whom would it be accountable? and how quickly would people come to resent the army for interfering? [these are just random questions i'm thinking about by the way. i don't mean it to seem as if i'm demanding answers =)]

as far as these gains go – in terms of the media and the economy – i’m slightly skeptical. it’s clear that much wealth has been created, but i think it’s just as clear that it has been created, almost exclusively, within the top few sections of a highly stratified society.

from the exposure i’ve had to both the media and the economy over the past few years, i sense that the urban, educated, well-to-do – precisely those who are, i think, most benefiting from the new media and the economic gains – are largely tending towards a culture of consumption and of individualisation.

that was too long. i hope someone can make some sense of my comment. =S

This has had several reasons: even as education standards have not increased, the use of computers, televisions and cell phones in the rural poor (or at least the rural who are close to some urban centers) has decreased their informational dependence on their feudal lords. They might still be intimidated by the stick, but the feudal lord knows that he has to provide a better carrot as well. (This spread of knowledge should eventually spread further from these rural/urban neighbourhoods to relatively rural ones due to family and other ties).

Secondly, within the feudal lords, there is greater competition, we are decades away from the British Khansahabs’ appointments so the natural leader of a region is no longer assumed to be the traditional leader. Left, right and center, the politician with the traditional upper hand is being challenged not by the people who vote for him but by the elite who support him. This pressure has been added to by the current regime’s practice of finding any way possible to break the stranglehold of anyone that disagrees with their chosen path of govt. No less significant is the jealousy of siblings, cousins, family members to the assumed rights of the current holders of power.

Thirdly, and by no means is this list final, as new generations of feudal families are educated in western-style schools and colleges (and often studying abroad), their own ‘brainwashing’, so to speak, against the hand that feeds them means that sooner or later these men and women will have to ask themselves some hard questions.

Now, to the actual content of your article, every government needs some checks and balances. It is wrong to assume that every government’s method of this will be the same. In Turkey, the government is checked by the military; in the US it is not only the Judiciary but also the states that prevent the Federal govt from taking too much power in its own hands. In other countries, we have a thriving free press. In Pakistan which only recently has discovered a free press outside the written word, and with few established institutions (and one decision by the Supreme Court does not make it an institution that will necessarily weather the next storm), the only ones a Pakistani can depend upon are the politicians and generals, regardless of where their loyalties lie. If these two must exist compete while other institutions have time to grow, so be it. At least, it won’t be just one or the other taking stabs at these nascent institutions not allowing them to grow.

I think the thing which gives me hope is the positive developments which have taken place over the last few years, in particular the tv media and the economy. I get the sense that if these gains can just be consolidated for a few years, Pakistan will have a platform from which to move on to bigger and better things.

If you compare it to where it was 10 years ago, there is no realistic threat of a war with India, which would be disastrous and the support of the War on Terror has meant that a lot of the crippling national debt has been forgiven.

The only problems with the new names approach is that I don’t think they’ll be able to do anything given the structural problems in Pakistan such as the feudal problem and the influence of the army.

What I think will happen is that they’ll just succeed in creating hope which will be impossible to live up to and reduce further confidence in democracy. Whereas with B and M, at least we’ll know not to expect great things. Besides, its not as if a charismatic young turk has risen to challenge Benazir’s position in the PPP.
It seems that the subcontinent can’t escape from dynastic politics.

What I do agree with you completely on is I don’t see whatever government is put in place in the next couple of years being able to successfully deal with things such as the hudood ordinances. That will have to wait.

Given the tyrannical tendencies of ‘religious’ politicians in the sub-continent, your sentiment is understandable. But how on earth can any deal/facilitation involving Musharaff and Bhutto end happily?

Haven’t these two already had enough time in power to discredit themselves – and jihaidists would say by association – the notion of military and/or secular party competence as rulers…Will not appointing them only add fuel for those who want to weave conspiracies about “America conspiring to destroy Islam/Pakistan” ?

Moreover, if your aim is to limit fundamentalist influence, Musharraff and Bhutto (like Zia and Bhutto the war criminal father before them) all rode the tiger’s back of accommodating huddod laws and discriminatory rhetoric from the fringe religous party wishlists. And all have failed to repeal fedual, tribal, military ISI and jihadist gains when in power?

So it’s depressing and more than a little concerning that the ‘best on offer’ to the people of Pakistan are M and B?

If you really want to liberate the ‘inticicially non-fundamentalist’ people of Pakistan, why not get some clean new names to ‘set a good example’ for democracy and liberalism?

im hoping i can link articles, sunny? if not..apologies!

i understand corruption exists in every echelon of pakistani politics and choosing betwen democracy (given the democratic contenders) and miltary rule(in general) is like someone being stuck between a rock and a hard place. neither do i wish pakistan to be under religious rule (taleban*2?).

erm..ho hum?

perhaps pakistan does need a fresh faced, well intentioned, baby to politics – like imran khan who can, on the face, have some power while mr musharaf can control the strings behind the scenes? because lets face it, musharaf doesnt seem to want to reliquish power any time soon. maybe a newbie like I.K needs to be given a chance?

Ishmaeel: I never said we can’t allow a political party to win elections. A lot of the article is about ensuring that we don’t reach a situation whereby a religious party becomes the only viable opposition. The 7th para explicitly says this. To reiterate, I don’t think the religious parties will win elections if a civilian government is re-established.

Sophia: Of course the army is corrupt as well. However if you leave control only with the politicians in Pakistan, democracy is meaningless. The absence of press freedom, illegal action against political opposition and general corruption have all been as bad if not worse during civilian rule in Pakistan.

Katherine: I’ll point you towards Turkey. The army has staged 3 coups and has been looming over the country since 1960. Yet right now, Turkey has a realistic chance of joining the European Union.

I don’t see the military presence as permanent. However, without some checks and balances democracy is meaningless and often counter-productive.

One of the reasons I wasn’t as optimistic about Musharraf as others was because he never seriously thought about putting in checks to his own power. This has become obvious now with the way in which he has treated the Supreme Court.

However, and this answers the question Common Humanist raised about their being a better alternative, paradoxically you can only achieve stability if the army/president feels confident in removing the government and calling for new elections without having to form a military dictatorship.

Ismaeel, unsurprisingly, says: So let’s get this straight, we can’t allow a political party to win an election because we don’t like what it may do once in power despite that being the will of the majority of the people.

Which political party do you mean? If you mean the religious parties, firstly there is no widespread desire to get them into power. They win about 10% of the vote. Shariq quite rightly points out that they usually become popular when the people have no alternative between them and a dictatorship. So there should be free elections.

OR

Military Government which whilst manifestly not deomcratic might be better then the option above.

Surely there has to be a better way?

Corruption dogs NON-democratic* government everywhere – the saying goes in Tehran – ‘If its a Mercedes, its a Mullah’.

Everyone should worry about Pakistan. The last thing the world needs is another armed to the teeth theocracy.

*By that I mean accountable, transparent and derives its legitimacy from a regularly obtained mandate for a party (as in the UK and much of Europe) or a Presidential System (ala USA etc etc etc). I think Pakistan fails on much of the minuitae of all three and I don’t see that improving with Mullahs, more Generals or former PMs.

Maybe I’m missing something, but what possible justification could there be for this?