Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOne former prime minister in exile has been given permission to return home. Another, also in exile, is doing a deal with the military ruler to return. Both politicians hope to contest the election scheduled for spring but which could come this fall.The ruler himself, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is on the ropes, abandoned by both the right and the left.
Surely, democracy is returning to Pakistan. Not quite.
Musharraf is not done yet, backed as he is by the U.S. And former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto are not the best of torchbearers for civilian rule.
Bhutto was elected twice and dismissed twice ('88-'90 and '93-'96) by civilian presidents for corruption.
Sharif's own two terms ('90-'93 and '97-'99) were marred by crony capitalism and authoritarianism. He was jailed on several charges, including tax evasion. In 2000, he signed a deal to exile himself to Saudi Arabia (once the home of Idi Amin of Uganda). On Thursday, the Pakistani supreme court ruled that that deal was not legally binding.
If Sharif does return, he may be led back to jail, a prospect he doesn't seem to mind; it could help transform him from convict to martyr.
Bhutto won't return until Musharraf drops the corruption charges still pending against her, a matter the two discussed at a not-so-secret meeting in Dubai July 27.
She and Sharif also want the rules changed to let a prime minister serve a third term.
Musharraf, too, has his wish list.
He was elected in 2002 by the National Assembly and the four provincial legislatures. His term ends in October, and theirs soon after. He wants them to re-elect him.
Not kosher, say his critics; he should wait and seek a mandate from freshly elected assemblies after the election.
But if he insists on a vote now, he'll be challenged in the supreme court. His nemesis, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, may nullify the vote.
To pre-empt that possibility, Musharraf summoned the judge to his house March 9. Four other senior generals were there. They said he should quit, for misuse of power - such as insisting on being driven around in a high-end Mercedes.
He refused to be intimidated, launched a media-savvy campaign addressing protest rallies, and appealed to his own court. It reinstated him July 20.
(The controversy at least proved that the judiciary is independent and the media, enjoying record profits under a strong economy, are free. In the current euphoria, people haven't got around to asking whether the court has crossed the line into politics and why Chaudhry isn't recusing himself in cases where he arguably has a conflict).
Meanwhile, the Islamists have been nipping at Musharraf's heels for being an American ally in the war on terrorism.
Ironically, the Bush administration is not happy with him either. Not for his violations of human rights, such as the disappearance of nearly 300 people, but for not killing Al Qaeda and Taliban faster than America is making them.
Besieged, Musharraf turned to Bhutto - with Washington playing matchmaker. It wants him but with a democratic gloss. In return for her becoming prime minister, her People's Party can help him stay on.
There's only the issue of his uniform to be sorted out. A legal compromise allowing him to hold the posts of both president and chief of staff runs out Dec. 31. Justice Chaudhry may have a view on that, too. So, Bhutto and Musharraf are working on how to get around that.
The exercise may yet backfire.
Sharif could conceivably win. That might prompt the general to declare martial law. Or, his deal with Bhutto might demoralize pro-democracy forces, making the Islamists even stronger.
Rather than the dawn of democracy, we are witnessing cynical ploys by several self-serving parties, with Washington right in the thick of it.
Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday in World and Sunday in the A-section. Email: hsiddiq@thestar.ca
© 2007 The Toronto Star
20 Comments so far
Show AllThey should wait for now. Mush's son who is a teenager will be of age in few years and then he can take over from his father.
"The muslim extremists, who are willing to pull the trigger at the drop of a caliph's hat, are driving the politics in the entire region. appease us, or else! "
Actually its the Pakistani Army and its twisted sister the ISI thats running Pakistan and they are singularly responsible for this situation. They use extremists to further their end. If clean elections were held today in Pakistan the Islamic parties wouldnt get more than 20% of the vote.
"The bombings yesterday in India are from the same cause"
I agree, but the extremists are/were supported to the fullest by the Pakistani Army and the ISI and this practice called 'proxy war' is a Pakistani state policy - targeting whats known as 'soft targets'. It disrupts normal life in the sub-continent. Which is all the more reason to dismantle the friggin Pakistani Army and the ISI and support full unfettered democracy in Pakistan. Here is the rub ...India has a muslim population that is as large as that of Pakistan and the bombings were carried out in a predominantly muslim city and the victims mostly muslim.
If anybody can make sense of this please let me know !
Islamaphobia as practiced by so many friggin ignorant nuts either here in the U.S. or Europe or elsewhere only serves to radicalize the already oppressed Islamic populations in the middle-east and south asia.
When the IRA was bombing London to pieces we didnt demonize ALL Catholics as terrorists did we ? There are countless such instances to point to. Sinhalese Buddhist extremism in Sri Lanka caused severe damage to relations between the Tamils and Sinhalese. So i suppose we could call all Buddhists terrorists as well. Its stupid and ignorant to make these innocuous 'we are superior' statements like 'When will they reign in 'their' extremists' or some such nonsense.
After the horrible events of the last 6 years (Iraq, Afghanistan) the Islamic populations are fully justified in feeling antagonistic towards us and if I was one of 'them' I would take up arms in a minute.
Winnetou if I take offense its because Zero posted worse on another thread calling those who follow religion no better than neocons. Saying Islam should regin in its extremists is being islamophobic plain and simple because you are painting things with a broad brush. For instance Bush is a Christian and launched two pre-emptive wars and called them crusades. I'm not about to label all Christians as extremist due to Bush and say the Christians need to reign in their extremists. This would be ridiculous. I know plenty of Christians who would like to stop Bush but can't and there are plentry of Muslims who would like to stop Osama and Al Qaeda but can't.
You are correct in Islam there is no one authority such as a pope. Islam is decentralized and not centralized like Catholicism. Therefore no one can say they are the one true authority on all things Islamic. Muslims are responsible for their own actions and not necessarily the actions of other Muslims.
As far as radicalism being a problem in Pakistan I agree completly with the author. I am married to an Afghan and Afghanistan has suffered enormously under the Taliban which has been backed by elements in the Pakistani gov't. The case of Daniel Perle was also a horrible thing and was due to extremist elements within Pakistan.
Hoho Dcbeltway and Zeropointfield. I think it all escalates a bit in your thread whereas I can really follow both of your reasoning and think you are making good points.
Dcbeltway: I think you are a bit too much defensive when you interpret Zeropoints comment about 'harnessing extremists' as 'spewing hatred'.
Zeropoint: A 'religion' is not a person nor a group of persons that can 'take responsibility'. I myself have become very cynical about Christianity because 'the religion' constantly fails to take a moral stance in those times when it really matters. The 'Christian church' condoned Hitler's killing of the Jews, it condoned the massacres in Rwanda and now it fails to say anything sensible about the invasion and oil grab in Iraq. Yet there are also many Christians who do very great things like the Quakers, or the Jesuit priests in Central America, or many other Christian Aid organizations. The Church, as an institution, may be at times hungry for power, but individual Christians can take a different stance. This would be the same for Muslims, yet since the religion is differently organized than the Christian church, we may not hear too many of the positive initiatives that are taken by Muslims in our own media. But as you can see from the TV Channel of Al-Jazeera: A debate is going on, it is really not as if all Muslims think the same way and there is this constant self-reflection. But this is exactly the reason why 'the extremists' cannot be brought 'under control'. Muslims are a diverse and heterogeneous group (being one of the biggest religions in the world), in which everybody tries to come to terms with the world around us that is sometimes indeed very difficult to understand. And each of them is looking for answers in different directions.
Really I also don't understand why America cannot bring its Christian fundamentalists 'under control'. I just think that in Europe (where I am from) people in general have just become more cynical about the 'Christian church'.
I am more worried about the christian extremeists in Washington that already have control of hundreds of thousands of nukes, than the muslim extremists in Pakistan geting their hands on a few dozen
The USA always creates it own enemies for the Military Indusrial complex to get rich fighting.
Zeropoint said: "That leads us back to the basic question - when will the religion of Islam harness their extremists? It is a pervasive, everyday issue, and can only be dealt in that way."
When will the Islamophobia end? When will people stop blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few extremists? Ordinary Muslims cannot stop extremists who act out of their own ideas just as oridinary Jews or Christians cannot stop the extremists in their midsts. All we can do is condemn extremism. When will people like Zeropoint stop spewing hate. Hopefully this lack of tolerance is an oddity for commondreams.
I was hoping that there would be no name calling on a blog of progressives who think matter through, and do not react or get defensive.
Isn't that for highschoolers and neo cons?
Hopefully the instance here is an oddity.
Of course the Islamists in Pakistan getting the bomb would be a big problem. They'd threaten India and Afghanistan and everyone else.
The Afghans are already sick of the Pakistani ISI's endorsement, funding, and backing of the radical Taliban movement and India is equally sick of Pakistans extremism in thw disputed Kashmiri territories and setting off bombs in India itself. China would also feel threatened in the end.
The situation in Pakistan is dangerous. The comments about the "democratic" former prime ministers are well taken. But we don't want Islamists taking over when Musharraf is overthrown.
Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weap;ons. I ofeten wonder why the USA, including Democrats as well as Republicans, worry so much about Iran which won't have the bomb for several morfe years. We talk about boming Iran, without considering that thatg could well tgrigger an Islamist takeover in Pakistan. Then we would be in trouble.
I'm also sick of the Islamophobic people like Zeropoint. There have been plenty of Muslims who have condemned extremism and are very angry that a small minority has hijacked their religion for evil purposes.
Muslims condemn the atrocity of 911
http://tinyurl.com/3aqqu
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
"Breaking the Silence" John Pilger's film exposing the war on Terrorism:
http://tinyurl.com/24l4l2
"when will the religion of Islam harness their extremists? It is a pervasive, everyday issue, and can only be dealt in that way."
This is like wondering why the World Council of Churches can't 'harness' the religious reich, or why fundamentalists can't learn from biblical scholars about the real development of the scriptures -- while we group them under the same name, these are really collections of cognate religious sects, not a single religion at all. It would require concerted response across a spectrum of many leaders, themselves with political & religious differences.
But the authorities are using a reactionary revolt to instill their own reactionary, pretend-"democratic" agenda: they deliberately & conitnually blur the distinction between progressive opposition to US imperialism with with regressive, theocratic opposition to the same.
Dcbeltway
Point well taken.
But there must be fertile ground where such a monstrous tree could grow.
democracy and rule of law is still better than dictatorship, especially for minorities, political opponents, and those traditionally exploited. That's something to keep in mind.
Lets not forget the PNAC/Clean Break folks: Perle, Feith, Wurmser, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Adelman etc who want war without end.
The writer of this article nails the point. It is the CHRISTIAN COUNTRY, THAT IS, THE US, which is fomenting violence and the cause of instability not only in Pakistan and Middle East, but also in Africa and Latin America. IT IS THE CHRISTIAN TERRORIST ORGANISATION, THE CIA, WHICH IS PROTECTING DICTATORS (eg. Saudi Kings, Musharaf), PROVIDING TRAINING, WEAPONS AND FUNDS TO CARRY OUT TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN SOVEREIGN AND DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES.
Isn't dismissing a Pakistani president for corruption kind of like replacing Bush with Guliani?
There is a deep seated corruption in the Pakistani system that is not about to eradicted by the replacement of the president.
Like politicians they are from the same cloth.
The muslim extremists, who are willing to pull the trigger at the drop of a caliph's hat, are driving the politics in the entire region. appease us, or else! (Reminds me of the USA).
The bombings yesterday in India are from the same cause. Carnage is nothing - they are hostage to the bloodthirsty creeps.
That is why Musharaf is running for his life, and Benazir's father got the noose.
The stranglehold of this tightrope has to be cut, and people put back on solid ground.
That leads us back to the basic question - when will the religion of Islam harness their extremists? It is a pervasive, everyday issue, and can only be dealt in that way.
Zeropoint you do realize that it was the American CIA working in conjunction with the Saudi Salafi/Wahhabi movement that encouraged relgious fanaticism in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviet Union. This monster in Pakistan is what we now call blowback. $40 billion dollars was pumped into this country to ferment extremism. USAID sent in textbooks in order to teach terrorism and the University of Nebraska was the contractor for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
These extremists do not represent mainstream Islam and the beliefs of mainstream Muslims.