Is a Dictator Building Democracy in Pakistan?

The Washington Dispatch ^ | Sep 12, 2002 | Steve Chapman

[Fzob]

Opinion
Is a Dictator Building Democracy in Pakistan?
Commentary by Steve Chapman



Sep 12, 2002

 

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf made a conscious decision to be in the United States this Sept. 11. His purpose was to show solidarity with America, and perhaps to induce a bit of amnesia. Last year's attacks, remember, were spawned by terrorists harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which was recognized by only three countries -- one being Pakistan.

Musharraf, a career officer in an army that had extensive ties to the Taliban, made a dramatic about-face after Sept. 11. That happened because the Bush administration forcefully demanded his support and help in the American war against al Qaeda and its sponsors. As one Pakistani commentator remarked, "Pakistan had to choose between going along with America or becoming another Iraq."

He was not the only one to undergo a sudden change of heart. Back in the 1980s, when the United States and Pakistan had a common interest in helping Afghans fight the Soviet occupation, the two were best buddies. After the Soviets left, affections cooled in Washington, which went so far as to impose economic sanctions to protest Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Musharraf's 1999 coup further antagonized the U.S. government.

All was forgiven, though, when he enlisted on our side in the new war in Afghanistan. Human rights and nuclear proliferation, which had been our priorities, had to take a back seat to the more urgent requirements of self-defense. Enjoying a respite from international criticism of his undemocratic rule, Musharraf has proceeded to centralize authority in his own person.

On a visit to Chicago Tuesday, Musharraf said his main goal is to lay the foundation for "real, sustainable democracy." Part of that process, in his view, is the election of a new parliament next month. Real power, he insisted, will lie not with him but with elected leaders.

That will come as news to Pakistanis, who saw the dictator promulgate a new constitution in 2000 -- and then dismiss six of 13 Supreme Court justices who refused to take oath to uphold it. Last spring, he won a five-year term in an election that was missing one thing: an opponent. Recently, acting all by his lonesome self, Musharraf attached 29 amendments to the constitution. Among these was one giving him the right to dissolve parliament anytime it does something to displease him.

But he says his role has been exaggerated. What matters, he declared, "is the authority to govern and legislate. Let me tell you, that authority will remain with the elected prime minister and parliament." The executive, in this system, is just "checking" the power of the national assembly. "We need checks on everyone," he declared.

In this case, elected legislators will be checked by someone who gained power through the barrel of a gun. The president checks the parliament, but no one checks him. When asked in August how the package of amendments became part of the constitution, he explained, "I am making it part of the constitution."

Confronted with demands for a return to democracy, Musharraf would be justified in replying: What has democracy ever done for Pakistan? The elected leaders who have been periodically evicted from power by the army were mostly dishonest, self-seeking, incompetent and not terribly respectful of human rights. When Musharraf overthrew Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, most Pakistanis seemed to welcome the change.

Musharraf's denunciation of corruption, which was widely blamed for the nation's economic misery, struck a chord with people weary of being governed by pirates. He's happy to note that Pakistan has improved in that respect. Two years ago, he said with a knowing smile, "we were ranked second from the bottom for the most corrupt nation in the world. Now we're 23rd from the bottom."

His promise to move quickly to end military rule has not fared so well. Musharraf said in 2000 that he would hand over power to an elected government within three years. The parliamentary elections are supposed to fulfill that pledge, but the only power the assembly will have is the power to get itself closed down if it dares to challenge his policies. Pakistan will have a parliament, just as England has a queen, but anyone looking for the person who runs the country will look elsewhere.

People in Pakistan and abroad hoped that Musharraf would use his opportunity to establish conditions under which authentic democracy might take root. In fact, his main achievement has been to expand and institutionalize an autocracy, which will be harder to dismantle than it was to create.

Maybe Musharraf has made progress against Pakistan's culture of corruption. But he's also proof that nothing corrupts like too much power.

---

Stephen Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-weekly column on national and international affairs appears in some 60 papers across the country.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[hosepipe]

And some are worried about voter fraud in the U.S.. There as in most places in the world.... who gets elected is supposed to get elected..

"I stood Among them, but not of them; in a shroud Of thoughts which were not their thoughts"
.....Lord Byron

[Eala]

People in Pakistan and abroad hoped that Musharraf would use his opportunity to establish conditions under which authentic democracy might take root. In fact, his main achievement has been to expand and institutionalize an autocracy, which will be harder to dismantle than it was to create.

\I've been wondering when I would about this from anybody! Nobody has seemed concerned about this, beyond some remarks on the WSJ op-ed page. No hint of even a reprimand (as if that would do anything) from the White House. Nothing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a new dictatorship in the offing, and we're doing nothing, during the most propitious time to do anything (when as a dictator he's weakest), because he happens to be friendly to us. Right now.

[andy_card]

Is a Dictator Building Democracy in Pakistan?

No.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by Blue Screen of Death

[Fzob]

but I see a new dictatorship in the offing,

Well it actually is an old dictatorship that seems to slowing (very) changing it's ways. I posted the article because it seems Musharraf is slowly cleaning house in what was one of the most corrupt nations on earth. This is a good thing and credit is due.

I don't know if a form of Democracy is even possible in Pakistan nor if it is the best political system for them, but it sure seems to me that the threat of becoming a waste land like Afghanistan moved things in the right direction.

[Aaron_A]

It is my opinion that most US media outlets have been 'told' to keep their hands off Musharraf - because as you mentioned there is next to no one trying to estimate the viability of our chief 'al-lie' in the war on terrorism.

[pkpjamestown]

"People in Pakistan and abroad hoped that Musharraf would use his opportunity to establish conditions under which authentic democracy might take root. In fact, his main achievement has been to expand and institutionalize an autocracy, which will be harder to dismantle than it was to create. Maybe Musharraf has made progress against Pakistan's culture of corruption. But he's also proof that nothing corrupts like too much power."

The above few lines, of your post, say it all. Musharraf was educated in Turkey, and his model is nobody else but “Modern” Turkey's creator, Ataturk.

He vision is to establish the Pakistani military as the behind the scene ruler, of corrupt and impotent elected governments, typical to what is going on in Turkey for decades now. The same system, that failed in Turkey, both in the international and in the domestic arena, he is trying to establish it in Pakistan.

Is he going to succeed? I don't think so. With the very volatile times we experience, in the international arena, the geopolitical interests shift all directions, from one day to the next. Musharraf's star is almost extinguished, and speeches at Harvard or Yale won't do any good soon. His own people, some other general, will step over his face soon. Are the Pakistanis going to see better days with someone else? Probably not. Are hostilities ever going to stop with India? Probably not. Is it possible that some fundamentalist Pakistanis get a hold of a nuke bomb, and blow themselves up in the middle of "Calcutta"? Yes. Should we get those nukes out of their hands now, that Musharraf is our "good ally"? Yes. Are we going to do anything about it? Probably not. Do we learn from history and our mistakes? CERTAINLY NOT!

[pkpjamestown]

"I don't know if a form of Democracy is even possible in Pakistan nor if it is the best political system for them"

This is a terrible thing to say, especially when it comes from an American! It is totally against all beliefs and ideals, on which our country was founded. It is also against our national interests. A peaceful prosperous world makes our lives more peaceful and prosperous too.

[Willie Green]

People in Pakistan and abroad hoped that Musharraf would use his opportunity to establish conditions under which authentic democracy might take root. In fact, his main achievement has been to expand and institutionalize an autocracy, which will be harder to dismantle than it was to create.

A telltale indicator would be to determine how many pairs of shoes were purchased by Imelda Musharraf during this visit to the U.S,

[Aaron_A]

When Musharraf visited earlier this year (or maybe last year?), there was a news report posted on FR that his wife had gone 'house shpopping' in the Washington DC area. I will try to find a link to the original story.

[Eala]

I posted the article because it seems Musharraf is slowly cleaning house in what was one of the most corrupt nations on earth. This is a good thing and credit is due.

Granted. But that move of his still bothers me...