Soldiers storm Red Mosque

[Ramo]

Ah here's the thread I was looking for...

They dominate the prov assembly of the NWFP [...] AFAICT that was true under Bhutto and Sharif as well

IIRC, they lost their majority in the provincial elections in 2005 and they didn't have a majority before 2002.

And Hamid Gul remains, IIUC, a popular figure.

By what metric?

The Islamist, AFAICT, are not weak, even if MMA doesnt threaten to get a parliamentary majority.

Some of the strongest backers of Islamism in Pakistan are the military and intelligence services. The key to reducing their influence is removing power in Pakistan from these institutions, and subjecting them to elected civilians among whom Islamism is a fairly weak force. The point ultimately is that Musharraf holding onto power indefinitely is not going to make the situation any better.

"Hinting at how the mosque standoff could alter the political calculus, Benazir Bhutto, the exiled leader of the country’s largest opposition party, also offered an unusual endorsement of the government’s action. "

I agree that it was a good thing to the confront the Lal Masjid. What I'm not happy about are the likely consequences. Musharraf was tottering on collapse, and this incident substantially helped him.

Incidentally, it looks like Bhutto may have thrown her weight behind Musharraf (in abstaining from the All Parties Democratic Movement - on the pretense that the MMA is part of that coalition), likely leading to the marginalization of the PPP. Probably a bad thing for both democracy and secularism.

The regime I meant was Iran, which has been held up by many as a democracy, due to its elections, despite having a far more restrictive approach to the press than Pakistan.

I don't know who calls Iran a democracy, but it is more democratic than most of our allies in the region. Certainly including Pakistan.

from all I can gather the parliament has had a major role to play in governance, and the govt has scrambled to keep a majority, so im not sure they are largely irrelevant.

Huh? Parliament, after the 2002 elections that Musharraf rigged, gave him dictatorial powers. The next elections are this year. I'm not really sure what you're talking about...

Not all dictatorships are the same, and I think thats relevant.

Not all dictators preside over viable, potentially democratic societies that are actively putting immense pressure on said dictator, and I think that's relevant. To say that Pakistan isn't Gaza is quite an understatement.

As for legitimizing, I dont know that it should be our role to either legitimize or delegitmize Pakistani govts. Quite frankly Im a tad burned on the business of judging the democratic quals of friendly govts in the muslim world. Esp after the Palestinian elections, which apparently Abbas opposed, and have left us, when we try to oppose a terrorist gang, having our own call for the elections thrust in our faces constantly.

And I thought that the democratically elected gov't should've been diplomatically engaged. Funny how all the neo-cons disagreed...

Now I know that Pakistan is not Gaza, in terms of electoral dynamics. But I think that we should make it clear we provide arms and aid to Pakistan while Musharaff is president BECAUSE Pakistan is fighting AQ. And that we would do exactly the same if Bhutto or Sharif were president. Whether Pakistan is to be governed by Musharaff with his clamp down over the Supreme court crisis, and accusations of electoral fraud, Sharif with his own electoral fraud issues and conflicts with the judiciary, or Bhutto with her corruption, and alleged extra-judicial killings, is not really our business.

Did you really just put Musharraf, Sharif, and Bhutto in the same category? Really now...

What does 'stick with' mean operationally? Should we stop financial aid to Pakistan? Stop selling them weapons? Stop working with them on counter terror? I dont think that supporting them on those things has to mean supporting the current regime as against its adversaries. The opposition may want us to do their work for them, but I dont know that we have to.

We could stop giving him billions of dollars, to begin with. It's fine if you want to take some cynical real-politik stance, but don't pretend that we have no leverage over him.

[Chemical Ollie]

Pakistan is a great country to invade.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

By what metric?

People ive read who discuss politics in Pakistan say so. I dont have poll numbers handy, sorry.

Some of the strongest backers of Islamism in Pakistan are the military and intelligence services. The key to reducing their influence is removing power in Pakistan from these institutions, and subjecting them to elected civilians among whom Islamism is a fairly weak force. The point ultimately is that Musharraf holding onto power indefinitely is not going to make the situation any better.

Yet the military and ISI supported the Islamists under civilian PMs, and their power grew under said civilian PMs. Musharaf would argue that its his role as head of the military that enables him to control the ISI and military, and that removing him would NOT reduce their influence. I dont know thats true, but I dont know that your assertion is true either, and Im not prepared to wager a lot on a guess either way.

I agree that it was a good thing to the confront the Lal Masjid. What I'm not happy about are the likely consequences. Musharraf was tottering on collapse, and this incident substantially helped him.

The lawyers are still protesting, and Im not sure that this helped him that much to stay in power (which he may well have done anyway) OTOH it has created more distance between him and the Islamists.

Incidentally, it looks like Bhutto may have thrown her weight behind Musharraf (in abstaining from the All Parties Democratic Movement - on the pretense that the MMA is part of that coalition), likely leading to the marginalization of the PPP. Probably a bad thing for both democracy and secularism.

So youve decided that you understand Pakistani politics better than Bhutto? A Bhutto-Musharaff alliance could well strengthen secularism, and maybe in the long run, democracy. It would reduce the likelihood of Musharaf stepping down anytime soon, but as I said, Im not convinced Musharaff is the main obstacle to democracy in Pakistan.

I don't know who calls Iran a democracy, but it is more democratic than most of our allies in the region. Certainly including Pakistan.

It certainly doesnt have as vibrant a press as Pakistan.

Not all dictators preside over viable, potentially democratic societies that are actively putting immense pressure on said dictator, and I think that's relevant. To say that Pakistan isn't Gaza is quite an understatement.

There is pressure, but that doesnt prove that Pakistan is particularly a viable potentially democratic society. The history of civilian regimes in Pakistan, either in terms of their ability to prevent military coups, or in terms of their actually being democratic in a real sense, is not all that inspiring. Maybe it will be better now in 2007.

And I thought that the democratically elected gov't should've been diplomatically engaged. Funny how all the neo-cons disagreed...

The only question for diplomatic engagement was whether it would accept the Oslo accords. It refused. That its refusal made other diplomatic engagement impossible was a position held not only be neocons (which I am not, BTW) but by a wide range of US opinion, and by most of the European states as well. The point is, that giving that we werent going to accept Hamas' position, pushing for elections, against the advice of both Palestinians and Israelis, blew up in our face.

Did you really just put Musharraf, Sharif, and Bhutto in the same category? Really now...

Yes, I did. All have their flaws as democratic leaders, Im not convinced any of them hasnt attempted to manipulate elections and do other illegal acts, and I dont know that its our business to select among them.

We could stop giving him billions of dollars, to begin with. It's fine if you want to take some cynical real-politik stance, but don't pretend that we have no leverage over him.

With the same marvelous results as we obtained in Uzbekistan? If we do that he could peacefully hand over power to civilians and all would be well. Or he could tell us to go to hell, and shift back to his pre-2001 alliance with Gul et al. Or he could shift power to civilians who would in turn be overthrown by Gul et al. In either of the latter two cases, the result in Afghanistan wont be pretty. Nor will it help in our struggle against Al Qaeeda.

Now maybe you think all those nice secularist lawyers in Lahore and Islamabad would be able to stop that, with the enthusiastic support of millions of villagers, landholders, small merchants etc in Punjab and Sind. Myself, Im skeptical.

[Straybow]

Which kinda gets back to the Muslims-aren't-ready-for-democracy line of thought.

[Ramo]

People ive read who discuss politics in Pakistan say so. I dont have poll numbers handy, sorry.

Like whom?

So youve decided that you understand Pakistani politics better than Bhutto? A Bhutto-Musharaff alliance could well strengthen secularism, and maybe in the long run, democracy. It would reduce the likelihood of Musharaf stepping down anytime soon, but as I said, Im not convinced Musharaff is the main obstacle to democracy in Pakistan.

You're really going to call people on being armchair political strategists? The entire rationale behind the Poly OT would disappear...

And how, exactly, is Perv not the main obstacle to democracy? What do you mean by that? Do you really believe that he's fixing whatever structural flaws that you think prevent a viable Pakistani democracy?

There is pressure, but that doesnt prove that Pakistan is particularly a viable potentially democratic society. The history of civilian regimes in Pakistan, either in terms of their ability to prevent military coups, or in terms of their actually being democratic in a real sense, is not all that inspiring. Maybe it will be better now in 2007.

So your solution is for inegalitarian third world societies to be ruled by opportunistic right wing strongmen who funnel large parts of the economy (on the order of a quarter of it) to the military, until a large middle class magically develops?

It certainly doesnt have as vibrant a press as Pakistan.

Since when has free press (which Pakistan certainly doesn't have) been completely equated with democracy?

The point is, that giving that we werent going to accept Hamas' position, pushing for elections, against the advice of both Palestinians and Israelis, blew up in our face.

That (having a contradictory foreign policy isn't the best idea) is obvious, and I've been saying as much in the Israel/Pal threads. I still don't see how this is supposed to apply to Pakistan.

Yes, I did. All have their flaws as democratic leaders, Im not convinced any of them hasnt attempted to manipulate elections and do other illegal acts, and I dont know that its our business to select among them.

Yes, dictatorship is just a tiny little flaw with democracy...

With the same marvelous results as we obtained in Uzbekistan? If we do that he could peacefully hand over power to civilians and all would be well. Or he could tell us to go to hell, and shift back to his pre-2001 alliance with Gul et al. Or he could shift power to civilians who would in turn be overthrown by Gul et al. In either of the latter two cases, the result in Afghanistan wont be pretty. Nor will it help in our struggle against Al Qaeeda.

Now maybe you think all those nice secularist lawyers in Lahore and Islamabad would be able to stop that, with the enthusiastic support of millions of villagers, landholders, small merchants etc in Punjab and Sind. Myself, Im skeptical.

Again, this comparison with Uzbekistan is totally off base. Musharraf is, certainly at this point (i.e. with the reinstatement of Chaudhry, who's now going to continue investigating "disappearances" by that wonderful democrat's security services) a pretty crappy bet.

Anyways, the middle class has pretty decisively turned against Perv over the past several months. This hasn't done much wrt radicalizing the lower class, but they've never had very much influence in Pakistani politics.

[Ramo]

Which kinda gets back to the Muslims-aren't-ready-for-democracy line of thought.

Exactly, if you take that one ridiculously ignorant path...

[Ramo]

BTW, the Guardian has a really good piece on Bhutto and Musharraf.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2130089,00.html