NEW FUTURE FOR PAKISTAN? THINK NOT.
by Maliha Masood, Matrix Contributor
It is commonly believed both within Pakistan and the world at large that Musharraf’s days are numbered. The results of Monday's parliamentary elections are a vote against the unpopular President. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of the late former PM, Benazir Bhutto, won most of the most seats, followed by the PML-N of another former PM, Nawaz Sharif. The two opposition parties are expected to begin talks on forming a coalition that could potentially control more than half the seats in parliament. Two thirds of the majority stipulates victory. If this happens, there will be a strong verdict against Pervez Musharraf. He will be forced to step down. What will this mean for the future of Pakistan? The Pakistani press thinks that a future without Musharraf will be good news.
According to the English language paper, The Nation, “the government's policies of lopsided development, its claim that it has created an economic bonanza for the general public and its decision to have recourse to the military option to eliminate the hydra-headed monster of terrorism" have all backfired. Urdu daily Jang echoes the sentiment. “We believe it is better for the leadership of both winning parties and the president to take decisions in the greater interests of the nation, as the challenges faced by the country these days can only be combated through unity." The prestigious Dawn claims, “The nation expects him to be a good loser... The voters have punished all those seen as being supportive of autocratic rule." The News says the president and his supporters in parliament have been beaten and "more or less humiliated".
As for opinions in the West, notably the United States government, a post-Musharraf Pakistan is a cause for celebration, in light of the fact that nothing has been done to root out the Taliban and the forces of evil lurking in the Tribal Areas. Despite a chummy alliance with the General, the Americans are getting tired of false promises. It’s time to put stock in new leadership with a democratic mandate. Has no one realized that democracy can be deceptive?
In the case of Pakistan, there is no such thing as effective leaders, democratic or not. Both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari, the so called heroes of Pakistan’s future, are old rivals with long standing grudges. Both men have looted the country for personal gains and have a zero track record of doing anything decent for the public welfare. For them to change their tactics toward good governance, one that puts a premium on accountability and trust, will be quite a stretch. But still, there is wide spread belief that anyone will be a better option than the authoritative Musharraf. What gives?
Let it be clear that defending dictators is not my thing. But still, but still, I want to ask, what real difference is there between Bush and Musharraf, between Musharraf and Vladimir Putin? All three leaders are obsessed with power. Their own turf is the only turf as far as they’re concerned. Maybe the Bush administration has subtler ploys in controlling the U.S. media that more or less toes the party line. Musharraf, on the other hand, is so much clumsier. The man doesn’t know the meaning of subtlety. He brandishes power like a little boy playing with all his toy soldiers and GI Joes and robots at once.
But let it be known to the American public that the Pakistani media has had a much freer reign compared to Russia in terms of freedom of speech. While GEO TV was airing a talk show featuring a transvestite taking cheap shots at Mr. Musharraf, Mr. Putin disallowed virtually any criticism on the airwaves. Russian opposition parties have engaged with riot police and several members, including intellectuals, have been arrested for challenging the Putin’s presidential hegemony. Is this any different from the lawyers hunted down and put under house arrest during Musharraf’s recent crackdown? I think not.
Why is it then that Musharraf, and only Musharraf the bad guy? Putin is bringing forth the new face of Russia and Bush is containing the war against terror. Poor Mr. Musharraf is causing nothing but trouble. Pakistanis are sick and tired of the General. And they’re placing their bets elsewhere. But let’s just pause for a moment and think about the implications. If Pakistanis truly believe that self-governance, a weak power center and a curb on religious extremism will be the case in the new Pakistan, the one without Musharraf, then they are seriously deluded. Nothing is going to change. To find proof, all you need to do is consult the history books. The period between 1970-1988 will provide the bulk of the evidence.
Old wine in new bottles. That will be the likely scenario for Pakistan. It has happened before. And it will happen again. I’m not arguing in favor of Musharraf or the military. Because of all their shortcomings, Pakistan has suffered a great deal. But this country cannot possibly hope for a better outcome as long as the rulers don’t change their ways. Every politician in the world is motivated by self interest. Musharraf is no angel. Neither is Bush. Nor is Putin. Ditto for Zardari and Sharif. Regardless of free and fair elections, it is ultimately human beings who govern nations and no human being is perfect. In fact, many human beings are flawed and irrational and that especially applies to the champions of Pakistani leadership. Let that be remembered in discussions about the brave new future.
Maliha Masood has worked as a policy consultant at the International Crisis Group, a think tank in Islamabad. She teaches international relations at Edmonds Community College based in Seattle, WA.
Crisis in Gaza? Not for Obama or Clinton
by John Nichols, The Nation
“Israeli aircraft and troops attacked Palestinian positions in northern Gaza on Saturday, killing at least 46 people and wounding more than 100 in the deadliest day of fighting in more than a year.”
“Hamas says Israel bombs Gaza Interior Ministry”
“Gaza residents are told to boil drinking water as purifying chlorine runs out”
“Escalating fighting renews threats of an Israeli invasion of Gaza”
“Rice heads to Israel”
That’s the news of the day.
The next president will have to deal with the reality of a humanitarian, political and military crisis in the Middle East that grows worse with each passing year because of the internationally recognized reality that the United States — while profoundly influential in the region — fails to operate as an honest or effective player.
So what is the response from the Barack Obama campaign on this desperate day?
“Barack makes a surprise stop at the Sombrero Festival in Brownsville, Texas,” announces his website.
And what of the Hillary Clinton campaign?
“Our campaign announced that we’ve raised approximately $35 million in contributions for the month of February,” declares her website.
Search as one might at mid-day, but you won’t find a statement on the exploding crisis in the Middle East.
Of course these candidates are locked in a serious competition that may be heading for some sort of conclusion with Tuesday’s Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries. But couldn’t they at least bother to appear interested in the challenges that one of them might face as president?
None of us should be unrealistic. It would be ridiculous at this point to expect Obama or Clinton to display the concern for the plight of innocent Palestinians evidenced by Jimmy Carter… or even by the recently-engaged George Bush.
But failing to even discuss the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East sends a signal that should trouble people on all sides of the debate.
Carter told me a few months ago that the only way for a president to make progress toward peace in the region is to begin working on Middle East issues even before taking the oath of office.
If knowledge, concern and evidence of determination are not on display from the start, said the president who forged functional relations between Israel and Egypt, it will be impossible to advance the arduous process of peacemaking.
That Obama and Clinton are not inclined to look up from their campaigning for long enough to address an international crisis is probably to be expected. But that doesn’t make it any less unsettling. And if their current disengagement foreshadows things to come, then the talk of “change” that has so energized the 2008 presidential race will almost certainly turn out to have been just that: talk.
by Maliha Masood, Matrix Contributor
It is commonly believed both within Pakistan and the world at large that Musharraf’s days are numbered. The results of Monday's parliamentary elections are a vote against the unpopular President. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of the late former PM, Benazir Bhutto, won most of the most seats, followed by the PML-N of another former PM, Nawaz Sharif. The two opposition parties are expected to begin talks on forming a coalition that could potentially control more than half the seats in parliament. Two thirds of the majority stipulates victory. If this happens, there will be a strong verdict against Pervez Musharraf. He will be forced to step down. What will this mean for the future of Pakistan? The Pakistani press thinks that a future without Musharraf will be good news.
According to the English language paper, The Nation, “the government's policies of lopsided development, its claim that it has created an economic bonanza for the general public and its decision to have recourse to the military option to eliminate the hydra-headed monster of terrorism" have all backfired. Urdu daily Jang echoes the sentiment. “We believe it is better for the leadership of both winning parties and the president to take decisions in the greater interests of the nation, as the challenges faced by the country these days can only be combated through unity." The prestigious Dawn claims, “The nation expects him to be a good loser... The voters have punished all those seen as being supportive of autocratic rule." The News says the president and his supporters in parliament have been beaten and "more or less humiliated".
As for opinions in the West, notably the United States government, a post-Musharraf Pakistan is a cause for celebration, in light of the fact that nothing has been done to root out the Taliban and the forces of evil lurking in the Tribal Areas. Despite a chummy alliance with the General, the Americans are getting tired of false promises. It’s time to put stock in new leadership with a democratic mandate. Has no one realized that democracy can be deceptive?
In the case of Pakistan, there is no such thing as effective leaders, democratic or not. Both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari, the so called heroes of Pakistan’s future, are old rivals with long standing grudges. Both men have looted the country for personal gains and have a zero track record of doing anything decent for the public welfare. For them to change their tactics toward good governance, one that puts a premium on accountability and trust, will be quite a stretch. But still, there is wide spread belief that anyone will be a better option than the authoritative Musharraf. What gives?
Let it be clear that defending dictators is not my thing. But still, but still, I want to ask, what real difference is there between Bush and Musharraf, between Musharraf and Vladimir Putin? All three leaders are obsessed with power. Their own turf is the only turf as far as they’re concerned. Maybe the Bush administration has subtler ploys in controlling the U.S. media that more or less toes the party line. Musharraf, on the other hand, is so much clumsier. The man doesn’t know the meaning of subtlety. He brandishes power like a little boy playing with all his toy soldiers and GI Joes and robots at once.
But let it be known to the American public that the Pakistani media has had a much freer reign compared to Russia in terms of freedom of speech. While GEO TV was airing a talk show featuring a transvestite taking cheap shots at Mr. Musharraf, Mr. Putin disallowed virtually any criticism on the airwaves. Russian opposition parties have engaged with riot police and several members, including intellectuals, have been arrested for challenging the Putin’s presidential hegemony. Is this any different from the lawyers hunted down and put under house arrest during Musharraf’s recent crackdown? I think not.
Why is it then that Musharraf, and only Musharraf the bad guy? Putin is bringing forth the new face of Russia and Bush is containing the war against terror. Poor Mr. Musharraf is causing nothing but trouble. Pakistanis are sick and tired of the General. And they’re placing their bets elsewhere. But let’s just pause for a moment and think about the implications. If Pakistanis truly believe that self-governance, a weak power center and a curb on religious extremism will be the case in the new Pakistan, the one without Musharraf, then they are seriously deluded. Nothing is going to change. To find proof, all you need to do is consult the history books. The period between 1970-1988 will provide the bulk of the evidence.
Old wine in new bottles. That will be the likely scenario for Pakistan. It has happened before. And it will happen again. I’m not arguing in favor of Musharraf or the military. Because of all their shortcomings, Pakistan has suffered a great deal. But this country cannot possibly hope for a better outcome as long as the rulers don’t change their ways. Every politician in the world is motivated by self interest. Musharraf is no angel. Neither is Bush. Nor is Putin. Ditto for Zardari and Sharif. Regardless of free and fair elections, it is ultimately human beings who govern nations and no human being is perfect. In fact, many human beings are flawed and irrational and that especially applies to the champions of Pakistani leadership. Let that be remembered in discussions about the brave new future.
Maliha Masood has worked as a policy consultant at the International Crisis Group, a think tank in Islamabad. She teaches international relations at Edmonds Community College based in Seattle, WA.
Crisis in Gaza? Not for Obama or Clinton
by John Nichols, The Nation
“Israeli aircraft and troops attacked Palestinian positions in northern Gaza on Saturday, killing at least 46 people and wounding more than 100 in the deadliest day of fighting in more than a year.”
“Hamas says Israel bombs Gaza Interior Ministry”
“Gaza residents are told to boil drinking water as purifying chlorine runs out”
“Escalating fighting renews threats of an Israeli invasion of Gaza”
“Rice heads to Israel”
That’s the news of the day.
The next president will have to deal with the reality of a humanitarian, political and military crisis in the Middle East that grows worse with each passing year because of the internationally recognized reality that the United States — while profoundly influential in the region — fails to operate as an honest or effective player.
So what is the response from the Barack Obama campaign on this desperate day?
“Barack makes a surprise stop at the Sombrero Festival in Brownsville, Texas,” announces his website.
And what of the Hillary Clinton campaign?
“Our campaign announced that we’ve raised approximately $35 million in contributions for the month of February,” declares her website.
Search as one might at mid-day, but you won’t find a statement on the exploding crisis in the Middle East.
Of course these candidates are locked in a serious competition that may be heading for some sort of conclusion with Tuesday’s Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries. But couldn’t they at least bother to appear interested in the challenges that one of them might face as president?
None of us should be unrealistic. It would be ridiculous at this point to expect Obama or Clinton to display the concern for the plight of innocent Palestinians evidenced by Jimmy Carter… or even by the recently-engaged George Bush.
But failing to even discuss the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East sends a signal that should trouble people on all sides of the debate.
Carter told me a few months ago that the only way for a president to make progress toward peace in the region is to begin working on Middle East issues even before taking the oath of office.
If knowledge, concern and evidence of determination are not on display from the start, said the president who forged functional relations between Israel and Egypt, it will be impossible to advance the arduous process of peacemaking.
That Obama and Clinton are not inclined to look up from their campaigning for long enough to address an international crisis is probably to be expected. But that doesn’t make it any less unsettling. And if their current disengagement foreshadows things to come, then the talk of “change” that has so energized the 2008 presidential race will almost certainly turn out to have been just that: talk.
posted by Malik Isasis at
7:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home