Naked Bankruptcy in Pakistan
The lead story in The New York Times today is that the Bush administration is pushing Pakistan's Gen. Musharraf to share power with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. A mistake six years in the making, the White House has failed to finesse Musharraf into cultivating concrete political alternatives to himself with whom he could live. The upshot: yet again, Pakistan is faced with a stark choice for leadership: A corrupt feudal, a corrupt businessman, the religious opposition, or a General.
The first paragraph of the NYT piece: The Bush administration, struggling to find a way to keep Gen. Pervez Musharraf in power amid a deepening political crisis in Pakistan, is quietly prodding him to share authority with a longtime rival as a way of broadening his base, according to American and Pakistani officials. Read rest of story
The synthesis of the proposed deal between Musharraf and Bhutto was reported three weeks ago by Zahid Hussain, my friend and the author of the first-rate Frontline Pakistan. According to Zahid, "under the agreement, the military leader would be granted another five-year term as president, while Ms Bhutto, twice prime minister of Pakistan, would be allowed to return in September to contest parliamentary elections, exonerated of corruption charges made against her. However, the talks appeared to have stalled over General Musharraf’s insistence that he should be allowed to retain his dual role as army chief and president." Read story
Steve's comment: Bhutto is famously a Harvard- and Oxford-trained political scientist and orator. Based on that background, in addition to the huge political following she inherited from her father, the West has had huge hopes for what she could bring the country. Yet in her two terms as prime minister during the late 1980s and the 1990s, she proved one thing -- an elite education is not guaranteed to take the arrogance out of a feudal.
In short, Bhutto has dictatorship and corruption in her DNA -- she is a beautiful speaker, and a terrible national leader. That Musharraf is trying to make a deal with her reflects his own political desperation, and his willingness to compromise his principles.
The leader whom Musharraf ousted -- industrialist Nawaz Sharif -- is a deceptively talented power accumulator who as prime minister proved himself to be a corrupt would-be dictator.
The sad thing is that Pakistan is absolutely replete with ultra-talented and brilliant economists, political scientists, lawyers and so on. That Washington is getting behind the power-sharing idea reflects utter bankruptcy. The United States should not be in the business of encouraging the perpetuation of the rule of Pakistan's landowning class.
Labels: afghanistan, bhutto, bush, Caspian, musharraf, pakistan, taliban
2 Comments:
With religion being the core of its identity, does the country have any prospects to ever become a democracy? (I'm omitting "secular" because that seems an inevitable prerequisite.)
Can Pakistan repeat Turkey's experience of moving from a religion-based state to a secular one? That movement was driven from within the society and not imposed from without.
An unrelated question: Being an American, obviously you didn't have to worry about complying with the ban on alcohol consumption when you lived in Pakistan. I'm just curious: do you know if visitors from nominally Muslim but secular states such as Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc are subject to the alcohol prohibition?
First the last question, Pakistan is a drinking society at the educated level. There is a black market, and the Pakistanis and foreigners of all types drink. Plus diplomats can get their own through the import channel. Some restaurants, for example in Islamabad, are offering wine to foreigners as well; one doesn't have to show a passport, so an Azeri presumably could drink.
Your democracy question is complex -- technically Pakistan has had democratically elected parliaments and by extension prime ministers. But it's the usual for the region at large -- lots of corruption and manipulation.
I do think that Pakistan has the raw material for what the West would recognize as a truly representative democracy. It doesn't look that way right now, because of the surge in fundamentalist Islam and Musharraf's hold on power, and perhaps it will be this way for awhile. But as I say I think the fundamentals are there.
Look at neighboring India -- it throws out the rascals at regular intervals. Though my Pakistani friends no doubt will cringe at this point, it may be that India is the more relevant model, and not the Islamic states for Pakistan's prospects.
I don't think there is any possibility of Pakistan becoming secular. It was formed as a Muslim state, after all. That said, I think the Pakistanis are inaccurately portrayed as a fundamentalist people. By and large, I find them to be pious but moderate.
Thanks, Eric
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home