One Dictator Down
Following the resignation of General Musharraf, Kamila Shamsie (author of Broken Verses) writes a worthwhile personal account of her reactions to affairs in Pakistan.
Musharraf’s final machiavellian act in his resignation speech was to paint a picture of his presidency as a period of prosperity, moderation and good governance – set against the dismal state of the nation today, which reflects the abuses of six months of civilian rule. Right now, only the truly deluded would accept that version of events, but the fragility of Pakistan’s democracy makes the months ahead particularly perilous. If things get worse, as they may well do, it will be easy to blame democracy itself. It’s worth bearing in mind a comment made at the South Bank Centre by the Booker-longlisted Mohammed Hanif: “I think we Pakistanis need to be a little more patient with our democrats, and a little less patient with our dictators.”
After years of reading what a fine man Musharraf is (possibly) and how personally incorruptible he is (fabrication), it is refreshing to find a Pakistani person, who is not Tariq Ali, make short shrift of this particular general who comes from a long line of Pak Military dictators. Given the weight of opinion, it would not be unfair to say that opinion amongst the Pakistani community outside of Pakistan is tolerant to the point of devotion.
With one dictator down, the road to full-fledged democracy in Pakistan is wide open. But what does the future hold for democacy now? Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari, leaders of the opposition, no longer have a despotic enemy in common to rail against which means now they oppose each other. And oppostion to a dictator will always make you look good. The question is, will these politicians now feel it necessary to prove their popular credentials and support democratic institutions that they have so far paid lipservice to?
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, Pakistan
Time will prove me right, but here goes anyway. The problem we have in Pakistan is neither politician nor General support the institutes. The institutes are trodden on and put aside time and time again.
We also don’t have representative democracy we have feudal democracy, in a society where people have to wait for the land owner to return and give permission before they can bury their dead, do you think the same people are free to vote as they choose?
In Pakistan you have a choice, you either back the corrupt politicians who will loot the country and hope that they remember you when they get to the top, or you back the military man who will stop the plundering, but will do nothing to fix the causes of it.
We have the option that takes us backwards (politicians), or the one that refuses to take us forwards (military).
Sid
Musharraf has not made money for himself or his cronies — and he did save Pakistan from being a failed state. And he is secular.
When Nawaz sharif was last PM, remmebr the scenes where PML goons went and hit the supreme court justices.
platinum786 has got it spot on.
btw, where did you get the info with evidence that Musharraf is corrupt.
Agreed with Sid. Musharraf did some good stuff, but the inherent problem with dictators is that there is no mechanism for telling them when there time is up. The democrats are far from perfect but its telling that no elected parliament has ever managed to stay 5 years and be voted out by the public.
^^^ The last one just did.
“Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari, leaders of the opposition, no longer have a despotic enemy in common to rail against which means now they oppose each other.”
Sage words, for this bit of news came out:
“Sharif threatens to pull out of pakistan coalition”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/asia/20pstan.html?hp
Shamit:
“And he is secular.”
I totally disagree that he was secular. He may have not been as obvious as Huq when it came to keeping religion in the state of affair, but he 1) definitely catered to Islamists, particularly when it came to women’s rights; 2) propped up Islamists in the Balochistan region in order to discredit the secular Balochi movement and paint it as an Islamist movement; and 3) he still can’t get Allah out of the affairs of Pakistan. When someone like Musharraf talks about “Islamic democracy,” you know they ain’t talking about secularism.
Desi:
You have made your point with your username.
Musharraf has not made money for himself or his cronies — and he did save Pakistan from being a failed state. And he is secular.
Not sure that opinion would stand up in court. The charges being brought against him include corruption and murder. Sure, he’s not as corrupt as Zardari who comes across as someone who would sell his mother for the commission, but Musharraf is being pinned with this.
Desi, what in the world is your user name about?!
Leon:
Oh, it’s about Sunny likening me to Michelle Malkin, and then asking me if I prefer to be compared to Ann Coulter.
Rumbold:
“You have made your point with your username.”
I’d like to keep my handle as it is for the moment. Please do not interfere with my freedom of speech. Thank you.
And now that you’ve suggested my removing half of my handle, I determined to keep it.
Desi Italiana:
All I said was that you have made your point. I made no other suggestions.
Gen. Musharraf did save his country from chaos. The economy was booming during the better part of his rule. Foreign investment and the foreign reserves recorded record highs and aid was flowing from the West and the Arab countries.
Musharraf made the correct decision to side with the US after 9/11 and drop the support (at least officially) given to the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan and to assist the US thereafter. It is debatable whether a civilian regime could have made these drastic changes without the country breaking apart.
Musharraf made the correct decision to side with the US after 9/11 and drop the support (at least officially) given to the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan and to assist the US thereafter.
That’s a bit like saying “President Bush was a force for peace and moderation in Iraq (at least officially)”.
Denying support of the Taliban “at least officially” is exactly the same as providing support to the Taliban (or Taliban-friendly tribal warlords) covertly, which is exactly what Musharraf did.
Something Desi has already alluded to in #6.