Bush: Pakistan is a Democracy

[KrazyHorse]

Hey, Imran, I like how you presume to tell us that you know what's good for Pakistan better than does the population of Pakistan.

Pesky thing, democracy. Doesn't always end up with what you want. Doesn't mean Bush isn't a total ****ing liar for calling Pakistan a democracy. And don't think his bald-faced hypocrisy is going unnoticed in the Muslim world.

He's redefining the English language at an unprecedented pace.

[KrazyHorse]

Things like this actually make me sick.

Iraq was an error in judgment. The goal of oustiong Saddam Hussein was a good one. It wasn't worth the price. Calling a dictatorship a democracy cheapens the word. Makes the work of those who are actually interested in helping real democracy spread that much harder.

**** Dubya.

[Alexander's Horse]

Even Bush knows Pakistan is a God fearing, Freedom loving Christian nation.

[Seeker]

But I thought.........

"I recall when it happened and just about no Pakistani I knew said it was a bad thing"....

I mean, surely these same Pakistanis dancing in the streets for military dictatorship would vote for the man you claim they support.....Are you trying to say that Musharraf is legitimate and supported by the Pakistani people only when he's a dictator?

I guess if he opened the door to the will of the people they would see that as weak or something....??

If he's not supported by the people, and he's not legimate, then what the heck is he doing in power?

And if he is supported by the people and is legitimate, why doesn't he have democratic elections?

What I love is Bush's idea of what a democracy is.

Everyone take note if you want Bush's idea of a democracy: The Government of General Pervez Musharaf.

[Ramo]

While many elements in Pakistani society favored the coup (i.e. Bhutto's Party, the PPP), that rapidly changed as Musharraf continued to maintain his grip on power despite his promises otherwise (for instance, he promised in January he would step down as army chief by the end of this year, doesn't look like it'll happen).

As for Islamism, keep in mind that Musharraf's dictatorship is giving tremendous strength to the ideology (especially since he's banned certain secular alternatives), with the Islamist parties gaining hugely in Parliament in the past years. Further, Musharraf is in a coalition with them against the secular anti-Musharraf parties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, Imran, I like how you presume to tell us that you know what's good for Pakistan better than does the population of Pakistan.

Anything > Fundy State

I mean, surely these same Pakistanis dancing in the streets for military dictatorship would vote for the man you claim they support.....Are you trying to say that Musharraf is legitimate and supported by the Pakistani people only when he's a dictator

Read the statement... Pakistani's "I know". Such as ones in first world countries who I trust to be more intelligent that the unwashed masses in the cities there.

And the Iraq War happened between then and now.

And if he is supported by the people and is legitimate, why doesn't he have democratic elections?

Legitimacy is having power over the country. It has nothing to do with democratic elections.

[Ramo]

Interesting report from the Pentagon:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

We call it a war on terrorism, but Muslims in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration. This is not simply a religious revival, however, but also a renewal of the Muslim World itself. And it has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents, of which radical fighters are only a small part. Moreover, these movements for restoration also represent, in their variant visions, the reality of multiple identities within Islam.

If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the "apostate" regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward -- and potentially dangerous -- situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive. Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific.

This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself

It's interesting that Turkey, Bangladesh, and Indonesia (to a lesser extent) aren't more important targets. I wonder why...

[Seeker]

"Legitimacy is having power over the country"

That's NOT what legitimacy is.

Legitimacy is when a majority of the people believe you RIGHTFULLY have power over the country.

Look over the the vast tapestry of political history; even the most powerful rulers need more than naked force. States constantly seek legitimacy. How many powerful dynasties and nations fell apart because of a lack of legitimacy?

Whether legitimacy is sought through religion, ideology, or ethnic loyalty, no leader can long survive purely on power without legitimacy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's NOT what legitimacy is.

No, that is what it is. Are you saying that before democracy there were no legitimate governments?

Legitimacy is when a majority of the people believe you RIGHTFULLY have power over the country.

And how do we decide that in Charlemagne's Europe? What about Napoleon's France?

Whether legitimacy is sought through religion, ideology, or ethnic loyalty, no leader can long survive purely on power without legitimacy.

Power is legitimacy. How do you exactly think people get power? Force alone to gain power isn't always going to work for a far flung empire. Whether you use religion or ideology, you have to power over the country in order to be the legitimate ruler.

[DinoDoc]

The definition of democracy is a fairly loose one. What's the problem?

[Ramo]

By ANY reasonable definition, Pakistan is not a democracy. Calling it a democracy is absolutely disgusting.

[DinoDoc]

What you mean to say is liberal democracy which is quite a different animal. Now that I've solved the semantic debate is there anything substantive here other than Bush not saying bad things about an important ally?

[Ramo]

No, I mean a democracy. Pakistan is a dictatorship. It has an unelected (again, by any reasonable definition of an election) general that controls the state, that took power in a coup.

[Ramo]

Now that you've made your customary vacuous comment, your purpose in this thread has been fulfilled

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What you mean to say is liberal democracy which is quite a different animal. Now that I've solved the semantic debate is there anything substantive here other than Bush not saying bad things about an important ally?

It would be crazy for the Bush administration to try to be consistent when Bush babbles on about spreading democracy in his press conferences, while lavishing praise on allies with questionable government rule.