Pakistan Election

[Pangloss]

Pakistan has been by far the most politically interesting country to observe during the War on Terror, and this week's events were certainly no exception. It's very promising to see Pakistani moderates returned to power, as voters denied both the continuation of Musharraf's policies and the rise of Muslim extremism.

 

I thought Senator Biden had the most interesting comments today, saying (paraphrased) that our safety (as it relates to Pakistan's impact on the WoT) is based not on the continuance of a hated government, but on the willingness and determination of the moderate Pakistani citizen. He went on to say that America should be willing to continue to aid Pakistan as it forms a new government.

 

"The moderate majority has regained its voice," said Biden, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that if Pakistan's new leaders succeed in restoring press freedoms, an independent judiciary and a functioning parliament, "America should do much more to help."

 

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-0/1203446664164200.xml&storylist=international

 

I agree.

 

What do you all think? Is this a positive sign for Pakistan, and the larger issues regarding Pakistan's impact on the War on Terror? Or are we in for more-troubled times?

[CDarwin]

What I find really interesting about Pakistan is how it sort of messes with Western conceptions of government. We tend to associate "democracy" with everything good. Democrats must be better than everyone else. The thing is in Pakistan (and a lot of other places) is that that's not necessarily the case. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were both good democrats, but they ran lousy governments.

 

The fact is this is an election by a dedicated minority of the population, a population which feels generally dis-served and by politics generally. So, I'm skeptical as to how much it really means. Is it a step in the right direction to getting Pakistanis serious about the dangers their country faces? Certainly. Is it the whole marathon? I don't think so.

[Pangloss]

That's true they were lousy governments (or at least had serious problems), and I would say that we simplistically associate democracy with "good", so I agree with that part of what you're saying. I would differ at that point -- I think democracy IS better than anything else. Or more accurately put, it's the worst form of government except for all the others (as Churchill is so often quoted as saying). But that's an ideological point and you're welcome to disagree -- I can't honestly say that history has proven me unequivocally right and you unequivocally wrong.

 

I am curious, though, about this point you made:

 

The fact is this is an election by a dedicated minority of the population

 

Is it? How do we know this, and is the majority that's not voting represented by a specific group, or is it just that most people don't have enough confidence to vote?

[Severian]

I think democracy is only laudable if there are free and fair elections. Unfortunately I am not sure that this is the case in Pakistan.

 

On the other hand, I am not sure it is the case in the US either...

[iNow]

Lol... Severian.

 

What type of democracy is now in Pakistan? Is it representative, direct, faux?

[D H]

Musharraf was not voted out in the recent general election. The February 2008 election selected the members of the Pakistani Assembly, not the Presidency. The Assembly can replace the Prime Minister at any time. The national and provincial assemblies collectively elect the President at fixed intervals. Note well: The people of Pakistan do not get to vote directly for either the Prime Minister or the President. Musharraf was reelected as President in October, 2007. While that Presidential election was controversial (google it), it is over. The next Presidential election won't be until 2012.

[Pangloss]

I think democracy is only laudable if there are free and fair elections. Unfortunately I am not sure that this is the case in Pakistan.

 

On the other hand, I am not sure it is the case in the US either...

 

Elections are free and fair in the United States, and no credible evidence to the contrary exists, only partisan speculation. Something a scientist should not lend credence to (unless of course you want to join the 9/11 conspiracy theorists in Pseudoscience and Speculation).

 

And an ellipses is not an argument.

 

Musharraf was not voted out in the recent general election. The February 2008 election selected the members of the Pakistani Assembly, not the Presidency. The Assembly can replace the Prime Minister at any time. The national and provincial assemblies collectively elect the President at fixed intervals. Note well: The people of Pakistan do not get to vote directly for either the Prime Minister or the President. Musharraf was reelected as President in October, 2007. While that Presidential election was controversial (google it), it is over. The next Presidential election won't be until 2012.

 

I appreciate the correction. I'm afraid I really don't understand these parliamentary governments. (But of course I don't drop an ellipses and hint that they're not real democracies, as seems to be the trend around here lately.) I did note a news item yesterday saying that Musharraf doesn't plan to step down, and I guess this will go on for a while longer. I'll adjust the subject accordingly.

[Severian]

Elections are free and fair in the United States

 

They are certainly not free. It takes a lot of financial backing to stand a chance of getting elected to any position. So not just anyone can stand (in practice).

[Pangloss]

They are certainly not free. It takes a lot of financial backing to stand a chance of getting elected to any position. So not just anyone can stand (in practice).

 

(shrug) True enough. Different subject, though.