Pakistan is heading towards serious trouble

supreme court declared the state of emergency illegal. musharraf has sacked the supreme court.

musharraf's proclamation is the most amusing rant i've read in a while. proclamation

 

This really show a double standard on the US's part, if some other country such as China, Iran, or what ever country we are not allied with would have done this we would have gone out with all force opposing it.

 

It isn't surprising that a dictator like him would take dictatorial measures. I would like if the U.S. actually started supporting another faction in Pakistan and helping them take over.

 

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

I think that is really the calculation that has been going on here; whether there is a better option that will actually work. I think we should have made the same calculation in Iraq, and we could have avoided that misadventure and spent the last four years focusing on doing something useful in Afghanistan.

Of all the possibilities for change in Pakistan, most of the scenarios that I can think of turn out worse for the USA and almost as many turn out worse for democratic ideals than the current forced meta-stability of Musharraf.

 

Actually they are, Bhutto is getting a lot of support from the West, they feel she be willing to take action against the extremists.......however she's a thief...corrupt as hell.


That whole country is a mess; most of their politicians can't even read and write...

 

that is simply factually wrong. the islamist parties have never been that supported in pakistan and in fact they supported musharraf in 02. even today an islamist party supports musharraf. the others are heavily disliked due to their support for musharraf previously.

secondly the two main political leaders, bhutto and sharif, are moderates and for the most part pro american. sharif went to clinton in the late 90s to save face and get a deal to end the war with india over kargil and bhutto has been making the rounds essentially saying she'll be more pro american than musharraf.

no other party or leader in pakistan has any ability to win.

pakistan has repeatedly been told by the US not to do this. the head of centcom (admiral fallon i think) said do not do this in the previous few days.

as far as the state of emergency is concerned, it is not legal under the constitution. that would require all four parliaments of the provinces to be on board. one of them has been dissolved recently and hence there can be no state of emergency under the constitution right now in pakistan.

secondly the constitution requires that state of emergency can be declared only when the boarders are at risk and there is a imminent threat of war. while there certainly are terrorist attacks, that is not the same as war. and musharraf's entire rant is about the judiciary not terrorism.

 

You make assumptions about what I was thinking. These assumptions are all wrong. Perhaps next time before saying that my thoughts are wrong, you might bother to actually consider figuring out what my thoughts are.

 

what are your thoughts?

 

i thought it was pretty plane what you were saying. but if im wrong i apologize. please do share your cryptic thoughts.

 

She may wish to do more against extremists and terrorists, but she won't. She will be completely deadlocked. See her fist term and the inability to get anything done. So any period of her in power will relive popular democratic pressure, but will result in deadlock and indecision.

But, if she tries to govern effectively, she won't remain in power long. The Muslim extremists hate her because she wants a secular state. The army hates her because she want's to rein them in. The social conservatives hate her because she wants to upset the social structure of the country. What do these groups have in common? They are all very fond of picking up guns or other implements of destruction and killing people. Her supporters? Not so much. They could probably effectively deadlock an elected conservative, but never remove him.

She will be dead or deposed within a couple of years, and once that happens the ball is up in the air again, but this time it could land with a religious fundamentalist or a more brutal and conservative army man. But she is simply too liberal for the violent conservative minority to tolerate her. The only way Musharraf gets away with what little he does is because he has the muscle of the army on his side, and they protect him. But the army really, really doesn't like Bhutto. There are ways she could survive, but every option that I can think of severely compromises here effectiveness as a president.

As far as strongman dictators go, Musharraf is about as good as it gets. If you have to pull another strongman out of the air in Pakistan, they will surely be worse. And no liberal democratic president will in the near term be effective in any shape or form in Pakistan.

So there are several way that this could shake out. Running through the spectrum of options in my mind, none of them have much hope of being better long term than the current arrangement. As I said there are more scenarios that are favorable for democracy than there are that are favorable for the USA, but they are still limited as far as I can see. Almost of them don't involve effective and liberal and democratic government.

You could, in the best case that I can think of, end up with a liberal/moderate religious leader that might not flip out the some of the less extreme religious elements, and still be acceptable to the majority of the country. But as a religious candidate, with any religious support, going after 'mujahadin' in the Northwest Frontier, even if you strongly disagree with them, is problematic and this leader would be further restricted by needing to placate the army. So you end up with a democracy and a moderate, but less support for the US on the borders with Afghanistan and less real power to get things done (because of the parliament and military apathy).

 

I love how that no matter what country is having what problems its always the USA's fault.

I'm gonna start blaming Sweden for everything.

 

Isn't "deadlock and indecision" the major characteristics of a democracy?

So now you would rather sacrifice democracy for reduction in terrorism? I guess many of the 24% deadenders think like this...

 

I don't think he is blaming US. He is just saying US has double standard which I think is a compliment because that's what a country should be run, which is to do things to maximize its own interests.

 

Deadlock and indecision are not hallmarks of democracy. Extensive and time consuming consensus building and discussion are. Since there have been laws passed in the history of the United States, we can safely say that we have not spent 250+ years in deadlock.

And apparently you haven't read many of my posts if you think I'm one of your '24% deadenders'.

 

I think the U.S. should learn from the cold war. When the U.S. and communists were both supporting different factions in other countries they made it seem like their side was for the people, while the U.S. was supporting the oligarchies, and wealthy elite.

In simplified terms that was often the case. The U.S. should get in their and find a group that actually is on the side of the people and support them to take over. Do that, and you will have a populace that is actually grateful and appreciative of the U.S. The terrorists won't find popular support amongst the people because we helped them overcome their current dictator in charge. We would be actually be doing good for the people.

That is how you build a solid ally. Start now from the beginning and we will be there from the beginning and in on the ground floor with a new govt. in Pakistan.

It would have to start with the party we want to support receiving funding for schools, hospitals, building homes, training programs, etc. Let the people know we are on their side and will do things that will help improve their lives.

A corrupt Bhutto won't really help build solid respect from the general populace. It may take time, but in the end it will be worth it.

 

The laws we passed are mostly products of horse trading (aka consensus building) as told by a friend of mine working in a state house. And also as a result of horse trading, we created a huge book of tax laws here which I think created huge inefficiency here.

Plus, we or India do have more deadlocks and indecisions compare to Singapore or China. In my opinion, your "time consuming consensus building and discussion" are just euphemism of "deadlocks and indecisions".

Also, under what reasons other than Bhutto's personality do you think she can't be as decisive as Bush? I think their system is supposedly similar to us such that their President also has very strong executive power at least on paper.

I am not saying you are one of the 24% deadenders. I am just saying most of people in that group thinks it is ok to sacrifice some democracy/freedom to reduce terrorism. I can understand their point but I don't think that's worth it. You can hold similar view but at the same time not supportive of Bush.

 

Well, it means something very different to me, and I was using my definition when I wrote those words.

Prime Minister has most of the power when not under a state of 'national emergency'. As far as why she can't rule effectively, I think I pretty much already stated that.

Just so we're clear, then, you are a big supporter of the invasion of Iraq to remove the evil dictator and give them freedom and democracy?

 

I think we have a different understandings of some terms that I don't think it is easy to reconcile, I think it is better to we just leave it at that.

I am of the view that there is a trade off between freedom/democracy and government efficiency. But since freedom/democracy promotes smooth power transition, I think it is a better system for now.

Do you mean that while she has support from people but she has no support from the Islamists and the military. That's why she is screwed? If that's the case, that means Pakistan is not ready for freedom/democracy.


[qoute]
Just so we're clear, then, you are a big supporter of the invasion of Iraq to remove the evil dictator and give them freedom and democracy?[/QUOTE]

Not really. I think freedom/democracy is just the sugar coat of our ulterior reasons. Since we only half-ass our effort on freedom/democracy there. That's why we created chaos there. But then chaos there is also good for us.

 

Yeah this world would be a whole lot better if those Swedish bastaads would start doing that!