I’ve heard all kinds of things, some of it no doubt true, about how Pakistan has been ruled for 1/2 it’s existence by military dictatorships, how no elected govt. has ever finished its term in office. Just wondering, what’s the deal with Pakistan that makes it so democracy-unfriendly. Hell, this question probably applies for most of the Developing/Third/Whatever-the-hell-you-wanna-call-it World, but Pakistan is the one on my mind at the moment.
Well, true democracy exists in very few countries as it is. There are many sham democracies, where the government claims to be democratic but in reality is a tyranny.
In Pakistan, the people, like most people, don’t trust politicians. Unfortunately, they don’t trust them because living under “democratic” rule brought nothing but pain, heartache, and utter disappointment. Not to mention that most politicians were either mobsters or feudal lords. Votes were (and are) a sham - people vote for him or her who gives them a reason to vote (money, intimidation, etc.) for him or her. And it has nothing to do with political ideologies or left or right.
No one was surprised when General Pervaiz Musharraf - may God extend his rule - won around 90% of the popular election or plebescite that keeps him in power. Some joked, saying they were shocked he didn’t get 99%. The General’s local allies may have used various means to get people to vote for him, but what might may surprise outsiders is that many Pakistanis prefer living under a military government. There’s more security and stability, less corruption, and fewer hassles.
Democracies need time to develop so as to benefit a country. But the people of Pakistan don’t have the patience.
I remember reading about the world’s utter shock, dismay, and anger when General Musharraf overthrew the government. The people of Pakistan rejoiced, sighed, and went about their business. It was about time the military went in, from the local Pakistani’s perspective. “How could a people be happy the government took over” seemed to be on the world’s mind. Newsflash: democracy did nothing for Pakistan. Even General Zia-ul-Haq’s reign was full of stability and growth (notwithstanding the fact that he was an Islamist).
Now, for Americans, General Musharraf is good. There would be no way a popularly elected Prime Minister and/or President would have been able to permit Pakistan’s cooperation with America in its war on terror. The public sentiment was heavily against Musharraf in those days, but what was one going to do? The army is in power, they have the guns. All one could do is quiet mutter to oneself. So the government survived, and the Taliban-and-al-Qaeda-ruled Afghanistan fell. If there was a Prime Minister, he would have vacillated until it was too late, and then fled the country to avoid what was to come - America overthrowing the government if he did not cooperate, or the people overthrowing the government if he did. Having a strong man like Musharraf keeps Pakistan somewhat stable.
What always makes me laugh is the result of the elections in Pakistan. Nations and authorities all over the world made a huge noise for Pakistan to restore democracy. So, elections were held. And the result? A sweeping victory for the religious coalition. If Musharraf were not there, this would have been like Germany voting the Nazis into power - the end of democracy, stability, peace, any prosperity, regional security. It would have been the end of Pakistan. Iran and India would have been on high alert, and the US would have to have taken some action to prevent Pakistan becoming a second Taliban-run Afghanistan. Religious leaders command a lot of popularity and authority, despite most of them being corrupt idiots or terrorists.
Personally, we should let Pakistan remain a military state. I think it’s funny that Nazaw Sharif, a civilian, was more likely to nuke India than General Musharraf, an army man. As long as Pakistan has a strong man with guns to back him up, Pakistan will not stir up too much trouble. Let that go, and God only knows what will happen. (Remember that during the nuclear tests a large number of Pakistanis were demanding Pakistan to nuke India. And remember that Musharraf purged the military of Islamist elements. And that the politicians raped the country and its people, running it like their personal empire, and now are living in luxury, albeit in exile, in Europe or the United Arab Emirates. Only the military has the guts to impose its will on the people (for Pakistan and her people’s greater good, of course) and the discipline not to become like a corrupt landowner.)
WRS - who lived in Pakistan for eight year and whose ancestry is South Asian.
By the way, arab_liar, welcome to the SDMB.
Enjoy your stay here, and hope your questions get answered. Great place this is, indeed.
WRS
Later on, you say that if elections were held, the Islamists would come to power… so what is it? Will the people prefer Islamists to Musharraf?
I don’t think this is a reasonable assessment. Pakistan’s wars with India have all been fought when Generals were Presidents and these Generals sure were strong men with guns to back them up. Even the 1999 war under Nawaz Sharif had Gen. Musharraf’s hand all over it and if you recall, the top military brass were greatly upset at Nawaz Sharif for seeking a diplomatic solution.
I look at it this way: Military rule might do good for internal corruption but it doesn’t work for peace and stability, especially in the region. Military rulers have a tendency to maintain their control by fomenting war/disturbance and benefitting from the resultant hysteria. In a democratic setting, there is no way people of any country would continue to vote for presidents who desire to seek war.
(I admit Musharraf has become an anamoly. He has significantly changed his stance since becoming President in a post-9/11 world — how much of this is political expediency and how much of this is real, we will only know with time)
If the people had a choice, they would prefer the Islamists. Kind of why the Iranis before the Revolution supported the Ayatollah - the clerics promise them paradise, salvation, and a true Islamic government. The people haven’t realized yet that these promises, whether by religious clerics or communist agitators, cannot be fulfilled.
After all, the people’s reasoning is this: “This is a man of God, he cannot lie. Pakistan will become religious, and God will favor us, and we will have success and prosperity.” Unfortunately, this did not work for Iran or Saudi Arabia, so I doubt it will work for Pakistan. If anything, having Islamists in power will tear the country apart. (None of the religious parties can agree on anything, except that America, Israel, India, and Musharraf are bad.)
You are right that having a general may increase the chances of war - I take my point back.
I don’t understand Musharraf. From what I have been told, he was behind the whole Kargil incident, which the civilian government was not in favor of. (Musharraf’s failure therein is what caused his ouster, which, in turn, caused him to return to Pakistan and overthrow the government.) And now he’s president and pursuing peace with India. What changed and why?
One thing is for sure regarding Kashmir - neither India nor Pakistan will let a solution emerge. Having Kashmir remain a problem is too politically and militarily advantageous.
WRS - the South Asian drama is a soap opera.
:eek: The US-Israel-India (Christian-Jew-Hindu) conspiracy theories are amazing, aren’t they? I am not very sure if the majority of Pakistanis fall for it…
As I said before, it is too early to tell if Musharraf is sincere. All of this could be just political expediency (for both Musharraf and the Indian govt.)
Getting back to the OP, comparing India and Pakistan would be an interesting case study. Why was India able to continue its democratic tradition? I think the towering presence of a principled Nehru (first prime minister) for a good 15 years after indepenence helped make India’s transition to democracy “complete”. OTOH, Jinnah died immediately after Pakistani independence. Could that have started the instability? Very early on, the Pak. prime minister was assassinated, and as early as 1958, martial law was ordered by the then-leader. I also think creating Pakistan as an Islamic Republic played a factor in the death of democracy but I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on it.
You’d be surprised how many Pakistanis fall for conspiracy theories. I once asked an uncle of mine, who was a VP of a high-profile financial institution in Pakistan, what the reason for Pakistan’s lack of success was, and he dumbfounded me by telling me it was because America and Israel didn’t want Pakistan to succeed.
In many Muslim countries, American and Israel are seen behind every bad/abnormal thing. My father jokes that if the weather’s bad, they blame it on the Americans and Zionists.
(The fact I’m a Zionist makes me giggle. I’m part of the cause of the bad weather! Woohoo! What power!)
Musharraf is a mystery. But I am biased - my cousin’s cousin is married to Musharraf’s daughter, so I have a tendency to see him as a nice man.
However, the current relations between India and Pakistan are not too much of a surprise, on second thought. Pakistan and India go through regular cycles of good will, rising tensions, close to war, thawing, good will, rising tensions, close to war, thawing, etc.
WRS
I would be interested to know what the religious make-up of Pakistan is, especially the layout of the spectrum of Muslim moderates to fundamentalists.
I would expect that in truth there is no such thing as a generic fundamental Muslim cleric but it is certainly the view that is portrayed in the UK.
I would expect that Pakistan is far more religiuosly homogenised than India.
India has large religious minorities, I’d doubt that one strictly religious grouping could effectively run the country because of those differing perspectives, Indian politics are extremely violent as it is, especially at the city and district level.
This makes secular politics a necessity for continued Indian survival pretty much.
One estimate is that Pakistan consists of:
Sunni Muslims - ~50% Barelvi, ~20% Deobandi, ~4% Ahle Hadith/Wahabi
Shi’a Muslims - ~18% Imami, ~2% Isma’ili
Ahmadiyya Muslims - ~2%
Christian - ~2%
Hindu - ~2%
The above numbers being rather rough. The Deobandi ( very similar, but not identical to Wahabism, with a different jurisprudential background and some limited connection to Sufi tradition ), Ahle Hadith ( basically just Wahabism, including Hanbali jurisprudence ), and somewhat oppositionally parts of the Imami Shi’a, form the fundamentalist bedrock. The Barelvi, the Ahmadiyya, some other section of the Imami Shi’a, and the Isma’ili Shi’a generally, are more moderate. As you can see moderate influences still outnumber fundamentalists, but the fundamentalists have been gaining ground fast in the last decade or so.
- Tamerlane
Don’t forget the Kalasha people. I love the kalasha.
There’s only 3000 of them but they are a non-muslim community living in the midst of Pakistan. They have a sing-song language, wear multi-coloured clothes, love music and make their own wine.
Here’s a picture of some kalasha kids.
Their most important festival is the solstice festival. It lasts for 10 days and involves feasting and night dancing. At least one town during this festival is closed to muslims but open to non-muslim tourists.
You gotta admire them.