He Took It Off. So What?
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on November 29th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, War on Terror(1)
Somebody will have to explain to me why Pervez Musharraf shedding his uniform is such a significant step for democracy in Pakistan, because I really don’t get it.
Isn’t his hold on power just as illegitimate today as it was yesterday?
Mush has always been a dictator. He used to be a military dictator in a military uniform. Now he’s a military dictator in civvies. That advances the cause of democracy?
What Mush has consistently suffered from is an enormously pathetic need to dress up his dictatorship in the superficial trappings of democracy. Driven by that compulsion, he has gone to great lengths to stage elaborate elections, elections that nobody but the Bush regime regards as evidence that Pakistan is even remotely on the path to democracy. (The Bush regime, of course, regards it as proof incarnate that democracy in Pakistan is just around the corner. Or make that: “has regarded it as proof incarnate for years”.)
The immediate context for Mush shedding his uniform is the following:
• Pakistan’s Constitution apparently forbids members of the military from running for President.
• Mush ran anyway.
• When political opponents protested, and filed Supreme Court challenges, Mush declared that he would resign from his Army post once he was elected, and before taking office, and that this would make it all okay.
• Just as the Supreme Court was poised to rule on these lawsuits, Mush assumed emergency powers, dissolved the Constitution and fired half the Supreme Court.
• When the new, improved Supreme Court got around to ruling on the lawsuits, they shocked everyone by finding that Mush was all good to go.
• Now Mush has resigned from the Pakistan Army.
• Any day now he’ll take the oath of office.
• And democracy will continue to flourish in Pakistan (aided and abetted by you and I).
(2)
Condi thinks that if Mush ends the state of emergency soon, then Pakistan’s January “elections” will be free and fair elections.
Condi is a hoot, isn’t she?
More vintage laugh-riot Condi:
…it is extremely important that Pakistan get back on a road to democracy, a road that, by the way, President Musharraf himself has helped and aided with a freer press and with civil society.
Freer than what, Madame Secretary?
seamus wrote:
Sarabeth,
You’re correct that he’s the definition of a military dictator. But what’s the roadmap to restoring a civil society in Pakistan?
Mush is the leader now. You could ask him to step down immediately, but to be replaced with whom? The corrupt man he deposed? Bhutto?
They need elections, obviously, but a “free” Pakistan that elects an Islamist government may look less favorable to world security. See Gaza for an example.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 12:38 pm ¶
matt wrote:
another outcome bush and rice brought on. i’m not unaware of the problems this might cause, but bush and rice ought to just STFU. their hypocrisy and lies are just as counterproductive now as they were during the palestinian elections.
and by the way, still waiting for a reply over here
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 2:46 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Seamus, the implicit assumption in your comment seems to be that it is proper and fitting for us to meddle in the internal politics of every nation whose internal politics we may be affected by.
I don’t think we have any sort of divine right to do any such thing. And we certainly do not have the kind of track record to justify doing so, even if we had a divine right.
And I think we all need to make up our minds whether we do in fact believe that democracy is the best form of government (even if that only means “least worst”). For everyone, not just us.
So when you ask “But what’s the roadmap to restoring a civil society in Pakistan?”, my reponse is that’s none of our bloody business, is it?
As for
that does very much sound like: “therefore free elections are out of the question”.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 10:23 pm ¶