CE WSeek #3: “Pakistani election pivotal”
Trudy Rubin
The Philadelphia Inquirer
February 6, 2008
There’s another election happening this month that may be as important to Americans as Super Tuesday. I refer to parliamentary elections on Feb. 18 in Pakistan.
Pakistani elections will play a crucial role in that country’s ability to combat a growing threat from jihadis. Even as progress has been made in combating al-Qaida in Iraq, the organization has been sinking deeper roots in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghanistan border.
Thousands of Taliban, and other militants, are also based there and are setting off suicide bombs in Pakistan’s cities. Jihadis probably killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the civilian leader most committed to fighting them if her party won the elections. And unlike Iraq, Pakistan is a country with nukes.
The country has become further destabilized by the political machinations of President Pervez Musharraf. He’s been stumping Europe’s capitals and the Davos World Economic Forum trying to convince the world’s leaders he will permit free and fair elections. His message: Elections don’t really matter, because only he can secure Pakistan.
Don’t believe it. The elections do matter, and the White House had better be prepared for a post-Musharraf Pakistan.
I say that even though Musharraf put on a strong show at Davos, appearing on two panels and giving one very long and impassioned breakfast presentation. With his British accent and crisp military bearing, he made a strong impression on rooms packed with CEOs from America, Europe and Asia, especially because Pakistan’s economy has improved during his tenure.
Musharraf admitted no mistakes, not in permitting the jihadi insurgency to grow on his watch, nor in sacking his Supreme Court when it was about to rule his re-election unconstitutional. “There is a degree of misperception about Pakistan,” he insisted at the Davos breakfast. “We are the victims since 1979.”
He blamed the growth of the jihadi threat, with some justification, on U.S. and Saudi funding in the 1980s for Islamic militants in Afghanistan. The militants were fighting against Soviet occupation. After Soviet troops left, those militants morphed into al-Qaida; the chaos in Afghanistan also spawned the growth of the Taliban.
“After 1989, everyone left the scene,” Musharraf said, “including the United States. We were used and we were ditched.” He never mentioned that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies helped the Taliban and other radical groups, as a hedge against India.
Pakistan is now suffering the blowback from its own actions, as these militants align themselves with al-Qaida. Critics also charge that the jihadis still have sympathizers within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. Musharraf denied this.
“The deliberate nurturing of jihadism by the state,” says well-known Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, “has … produced extremism inside parts of the military and intelligence.” Hoodbhoy worries such penetration could compromise Pakistan’s protection for its nukes.
Musharraf also denied he had violated the constitution by sacking the judges. And he insisted that Pakistan’s elections would be free and fair. He was asked whether he might reinstate the judges to restore confidence in the electoral system (since any violations will be appealed to the courts). He retorted sharply: “Don’t impose Western human-rights considerations and standards on the whole world. Pakistan has a different environment.”
What Musharraf did not convey is the anger that the sacking of the court has aroused across Pakistan. This adds to the host of grievances, some contradictory, that a broad majority of the public now holds against him: that economic gains don’t benefit the poor, that he is too pro-American, that he may have conspired in Bhutto’s murder. (This is highly unlikely, but many of her supporters think it is so.)
So Pakistan’s elections have become a litmus test for an increasingly unpopular leader. No one will believe the elections aren’t rigged. If opposition parties don’t receive a majority, their followers are likely to go to the streets. Musharraf will try to carry on and divide the opposition. Political instability will make it harder to fight the jihadis. Some Pakistanis tell me the army, at some point, will have to tell Musharraf he must go. This is not something the United States can, or should, push for, but it seems likely.
So Americans should be watching the Pakistani elections, and the post-election, for signs of what will come after Musharraf. The central fight against al-Qaida will depend on the results.
The thing that I believe this most connects to is the surge theory of the Iraq War and also Presidential ideologies about foreign affairs. I agree with the author in saying that these elections are very important. Many people in the United States have/ had no clue who Bhutto was. This is why people need to pay attention. Bhutto was a person that many Pakistanis believed was a sort of savior to their country. They rallied around her and supported her even when Musharraf and the military didn’t. However with her untimely death there leaves a hole where she would have been. This pretty much leaves Musharraf to be the only one that will most likely get elected even though a majority of people in Pakistan do not support him. As the article stated this makes fighting extremists very hard when nobody is on the same page. This is probably one of the scariest things in the Middle East right now because we know for a fact that Pakistan has WMD’s and tons of them. Normally they are pointed at India but one or two could easily be pointed at New York City or Washington D.C. A very scary thought and hopefully the elections will turn out for the better of the world and Pakistan can secure itself and its nuclear armament.
I’m glad Nate cleared things up for me in that article. It is very frightening to think that Pakistan has so much havoc and they are secure with weapons of mass destruction. It sounds like Pakistan has no choice but to become ruled under Musharraf. With a message like this: “His message: Elections don’t really matter, because only he can secure Pakistan.” the future does not look bright for Pakistan. Pakistan sounds like it is going to be ruled under a dictatorship if Musharraf takes the lead again. And if I’m reading the article right that would mean bad news for both the U.S. and the citizens of Pakistan. “The central fight against al-Qaida will depend on the results.” (The results of the election in Pakistan that is). We can relate this to America’s two party systems and how Musharraf is trying to divide opposition in Pakistan so he can take control. With disagreement it makes the take over for Musharraf easier. I am not aware how much power Pervez could obtain, but if he is in charge of the military conditions, which it sounds like he is, then that could be bad news for America. The article did say however, that some who oppose Pervez think he is too pro-American. That would be strange because he is a threat to the United States.
Not only is Musharraf’s rule frightening because of his power and authoritarian policies, but neighboring countries have so far been hypnotized by his manipulation of the truth. This ability surely dampens the spirits of Pakistani people as they rally for his ousting. He has twisted the negatives of his reign to appear as a product of history and emphasized the economic successes that Pakistan has experienced as of late. Taking advantage of the executive liberty in the established governing structure, he set out to achieve these objectives without consideration of the rather important obstacles in his way (including human rights, a jury that represented the interests of the people, and an influential Bhutto that contested his reign). These factors could not stop his ascension to and expansion of power, however.
The founders of the United States’ Constitution, especially concerned with preventing such occurrences, did not award the President the authority to arbitrarily do away with the Supreme Court judges, nor can he make the laws. Building off the theories of John Locke and the belief in natural rights born of every human being, they made a point of protecting individual liberties. That Musharraf calls human rights a western imposed ideal should cause concern and warrant a serious examination of his character. Elections award the people, whether by majority or through a more representative structure such as the electoral college, the opportunity to choose their leader and influence politics. Musharraf’s manipulation of results and possible involvement in elimination of competition undermines Pakistani’s ability to present their opinions and achieve results. Thus the statement he makes that only he can control and change Pakistan seems an accurate reflection of the state at this time.
Whoa, this sounds like a military coup in the making. Musharraf , if he really cared about Pakistan would realize that he needed to step down for the country’s future. In this case the extreme political instability could be disastrous for more countries than just Pakistan. When our founding fathers recognized growing instability within the Articles of Confederation, they quickly tried to find a solution and realized that once a government fails it’s not an easy fix. What boggles me is Musharraf’s insistence that he’s what Pakistan needs- it seems that Pakistani’s disagree. While I am not sure about the US’s role in the fragile state of Pakistan, there’s no doubt Musharraf’s only contributing to the problem. When Musharraf said “Don’t impose Western human-rights considerations and standards on the whole world. Pakistan has a different environment”, I was actually confused me. This may sound idealistic, but shouldn’t human rights standards be the same around the globe?
Jeez who isn’t a threat to the United States in the Middle East? I think our government always gets a little edgy every time there is an election like this. And now that Bhutto’s gone, it can be a whole lot easier for some America hating extremist to take over and have a quite a bit of power on us. And if he does rig the election whose to stop him? Our country has at least a well set system of checks and balances that can stop this sort of thing but over there you might get a couple people to argue against him which is probably suicide. We have learned that in our country, so many things can get in the way of the President rigging something that it’s almost impossible to pull off.
And I think this issue goes hand in hand with the Iraq war. If something is not set up in Iraq’s government then we’re pretty much hosed there too. Now the question is what can we do to stop an extremist from taking office? I guess we will just have to hope for the best. An article like this makes me so thankful I live in the US because I at least know that when I go to the voting booths in November, there won’t be a gun to my head.
Response to Meagan
If Musharraf really cared about Pakistan he would just admit he is wrong, he will not be able to stabilize the country, and he should reinstate the Supreme Court of Pakistan (so his election can be ruled unconstitutional and he will have to step down). However, this is not likely thing to happen, its almost like when something’s not working correctly and everybody wants to fix it, but they will not give up once they have figured out they can’t correctly the mistake. They want to get the credit and be praised for fixing it. It also seems this would be why the opposition party is willing to go to the streets if they don’t win the election; everybody wants to be responsible for fixing Pakistan and no one wants to get blamed for letting it fail. I really don’t think there is a way right now to stabilize Pakistan; I think things would have to completely fail to a point where everybody just gives up and nothing happens. This is when someone would have to step up and rebuild the country; at this point hopefully they would not have an opposition; if they did have an opposition it would seem that some Pakistani people would not want to the country to unite. I do still think the elections that are happening are important though, these elections might be able to tell if the opposition is dying or if it is only increasing. Maybe from these elections people could tell if the country is uniting or just becoming more separated.
I completely agree with this article. We, as Americans, need to watch these elections. The results will have great repercussions. It is so frightening to think that in certain parts of the world basic human rights are still not respected. Musharraf is a product of that thinking. I mean whatever he says goes. How cruel is that? The people of Pakistan should not have to be afraid that their election will be rigged. If they were anything like us that would be nearly impossible. That’s what is so great about the checks and balances. One branch does not have more power than another. We are given the right to chose who we want in office, knowing that all parts of the government must work together.
When I was reading the other posts I found a few objections to Tiara’s. She stated “It sounds like Pakistan has no choice but to become ruled under Musharraf”. I disagree with that. While the people in Pakistan may face an unfair, or rigged election they can still do something. Revolting is so common in that area. I think if a majority of the people felt like Musharraf was elected unfairly, and if enough people disliked him (which it sounds like they do), then the people could basically overthrow him. Rubin even states “Some Pakistanis tell me the army, at some point, will have to tell Musharraf he must go.” So really if they don’t want him there he will be gone. The culture over there is a violent one, so revolting is not something that I would throw out.
Response to Megan:
Well Megan, you really think the Palestinian people can just throw up an arms and overthrow a militaristic dictatorship cause they don’t like the leader. Did you forget that he has the power of nuclear weapons and a mass amount of troops. You make it sound like Achmed and his buddies are going to pick up a BB gun and overthrow a government. Get realistic, if the people even attempted to take out a leader like Musharraf they would be wiped off the face of the earth. Yes, the Pakistan people disagree with his beliefs and how he got elected but is it really something that they want to go out on the streets and die for. If our head military general came in and took over the government would you be out on the streets willing to die, or you would be inside your comfortable house doing whatever you do? My money is on staying at home.