The mess that is Pakistan

Yes, I know this is old news, but I haven't had much time to seriously analyze the situation in Pakistan. Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know that Benazir Bhutto was brutally murdered during a PPP rally. Though this is tragic, it is somewhat fitting given how the rest of her family has died. It seems like no-one in the Bhutto family has died naturally. They've been poisoned, shot, or died in some violent manner. Was Musharraf involved? Probably not, though you never know.

Now I'm somewhat hesitant to give my two cents on Pakistan's volatile situation. I was born in the West, but you can never take the India out of an Indian. I have Hindu family roots in the Jammu-Kashmir region as well. That fact very much biases my opinion of Pakistan. Regardless, I think that Pakistan's stability is crucial for the welfare of the subcontinent. A destabilized nuclear nation with a strong terrorist network is no laughing matter.

That said, what does stability mean for a nation like Pakistan? Every time they've tried democracy, the same thing happens. Leader turns out to be ineffective and corrupt and then a strong-armed (and often military backed) guy comes in. The previous leader goes into exile or meets a violent death. Rinse, wash, repeat. The cycle has gone on since partition. Now enter the two supposed saviors of Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Both of them were no exception to the trend of democratically elected leaders in Pakistan: they were corrupt and ineffective. Sharif did the smart thing and stayed basically out of the current melee in Pakistan. Bhutto, however, came back from exile and, with Western backing, tried to initiate some power-sharing scheme with Musharraf.

Now Western media (by which i mean CNN) did a shitty job of explaining the situation. They treated Bhutto as this Joan of Arc of democracy. In reality, she was the lesser of two evils. She really wasn't going to bring democracy back to Pakistan. Just the appearance of a democracy. The western media neglected to mention how bad of a leader she was and why exactly she got driven into exile in the first place. What really would have happened if Bhutto worked with Musharraf is basically nothing. Just an even more fragile and fractious sham of a government for Pakistanis.

Which brings me to Musharraf. He really is Pakistan's best bet for the forseeable future, as bad as he is. Sure, he's basically flouting basic ideas of modern government, judging by his dealings with the Supreme Court. But he actually ensures some level of stability, believe it or not. Whether he was involved in Bhutto's death or not is immaterial, if he steps down now after that incident, what's the second most powerful entity in Pakistan right now? That would be the Islamic fundamentalists.

I suspect that the real reason Musharraf is still alive is because of negotiations and compromise with the terrorists (done in secret of course). Think about it. He should have been dead by now for his lip service alliance with America. If the terrorists could kill Bhutto, then they can kill Musharraf just as easily. But by negotiating with fundamentalists, he's playing with fire. If his power and authority is constantly being chipped away at, the fundamentalists have a perfect opportunity to seize power.

It's really not a crazy idea even if the majority of Pakistanis are moderate secularists. My mom lived in Iran under the Shah's rule for a few years. Girls wore short skirts, people went clubbing, and generally lived secularly. Did that stop the Ayatollah? Afghanistan was the same way too prior to the Taliban takeover. All that's needed is a perfect storm for a small, but strong, contingent to take over. It happened in Iran and Afghanistan, it can happen in Pakistan too.

So if Musharraf is option A and the fundamentalists are option B, then I pick Musharraf. He shouldn't step down at this juncture. Democracy is always the ideal we hope for, but right now it would weaken the country further and make Pakistan more vulnerable for jihadi takeover.

For example, what happened after Saddam was toppled? The perfect situation existed for terrorists to fill the void. Powerful dictators are antithetical to our personal notion of democracy as the end-all be-all. There are instances however, such as with Pakistan, that it would not be the best template to follow.

I'd like to re-emphasize, I REALLY hope the situation gets resolved. Pakistan should really swallow their pride and ask India for help. America right now doesn't have either a grasp of the situation or the international prestige to tell Pakistan what to do (thank Bush for pissing away all that). India, as a South Asian neighbor, probably has the most expertise to help them out.