Is the removal of Musharraf good for Pakistan and the rest of the world?

Great Debates
1

This question was discussed briefly in this thread but for some reason the discussion did not continue. I therefore present the same subject again with me taking a position.

Musharraf has lost the election. He gave up his rank in the military last year and will most likely be impeached if the parties that form the government can get the support of the independents and decide to do that.

The question is whether all that has happened in Pakistan will help reduce terrorism. We all know the links Pakistan has had with terrorism. Both the chiefs of the two major parties, Sharif and Zardari, have dubious and deficient past records.

At the common person’s level, IMO Pakistan is more inclined towards Islamic fundamentalism, and evidence of the growth of the latter is observable from the events of the last few years. The general mood of the population of Pakistan is apparently anti-west (especially anti-US) and pro Taliban. IMO, while maybe not successfully, it has be granted that Musharraf was at least trying to keep terrorism in check as could be seen from his support for the US led war on Afghanistan, the actions in the Red Mosque affair etc.

IMO, terrorists and terrorism, at least in the near term, can be countered effectively only by the use of arms. The terrorists are armed with the intention to kill and the only way to stop them is to eliminate them (either arrest or kill) before they can carry out their intentions. Terrorists need the support of the local population to breed and survive. If Pakistan is producing terrorists, and it is well known that is true, it implies that a reasonable amount of support exists for them within the general public.

I am not sure how a democratically elected government can effectively deal with terrorists and their activities, especially when the society at the basic level wishes to be sympathetic to terrorism.

I do not support dictatorship, but it seems to me that in this particular case of Pakistan and its relevence to the current situation in the world, a military control over the country would’ve been better in the larger context.

2

Oddly enough (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) I think they should have left the old man in his office. He would have had some authority, but he clearly was never going to get to the absolute top again. He was pretty bright and willing enough to step down and that speaks volumes about his character. Pakistan could use a man like that and he could really help them roll up the crazies.

Pakistan is a weird place. Those who favor democracy are or have followed deeply corrupt losers. Benazir Bhutto was a crook and a swindler, for instance, and her competition is far worse. Musharraf was pretty honest in his government - he’d never had taken over so much power in the first place if he hadn’t been trusted, mroe or less. but there’s a lot of hate between the factions. C’est la vie.

3

That is what I think too. Taking everything into account, especially the post 9/11 environment, he seemed to be the best bet.
It was only the absolute authority of a dictator that could have managed to keep the fundamentalists under control. What scares me is that the fundies will now find a more conducive environment to flourish, which in itself is not a good thing.

4

The Islamic fundamentalists took a beating in this election.

5

The parties with religious fundamentalism as an agenda did not win. That does not necessarily imply that the fundamentalists have been eliminated.

The point I am trying to make is that while it may be true that the religious parties did not win, but the lack of authoritarian control will give them a more conducive environment to develop and breed terrorists. The people may not have voted for governance by religious zealots but the public sentiment does not seem to be indicate lack of support for terrorism either.

6

If Musharraf had actually wanted the crazies rolled up, they’d have been rolled up already. Obviously, he wanted something else. (The explanation that makes the most sense is that he wanted them as a weapon to use against democratic reformers and foreign pressure to recognize same.)

7

He’s still in office.