I have been following the ongoing political crisis in Pakistan with great interest. In fact, if you read the IC blog at intellectualconservative.com you will see that I have written 21 posts on Pakistan over the last 100 days. However, I have not devoted a full column to what is arguably the most important story in global politics in the year 2007. That is until now.
Over the past several months, I have come to the conclusion that Pakistan would be best served if President Pervez Musharraf were to leave office. I have arrived at this conclusion for five reasons.
First, Pakistan's current domestic political turmoil was sparked when Musharraf removed Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry as Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Judicial Council back in March. Less than two years after being appointed by Musharraf, Chaudry had run afoul of the Pakistani dictator. Musharraf would accuse Chaudry of corruption. But Chaudry had ruled against the government on a number corruption cases especially concerning the privatization of Pakistan Steel Mills. The Council ruled against the privatization because of the way the sale took place and the fact it was sold to a close friend and former client of Shaukut Aziz, who until November 16th had served as Musharraf's Prime Minister. There was widespread anger and unrest at Musharraf's dismissal of Chaudry as the Pakistani constitution does not allow the President to remove a Justice without the advice of the other members of the Council. In July, Chaudry would be reinstated as Chief Justice by the Supreme Court. It represented a major political setback for Musharraf.
Second, there is Musharraf's ongoing lack of respect for the decisions of the Pakistan's Supreme Judicial Council. After Chaudry's reinstatement, the Council ruled that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could return to Pakistan from exile. Musharraf had overthrown Sharif in a bloodless coup in 1999. Musharraf gave the Council the middle finger by arresting and then deporting Sharif to Saudi Arabia when he attempted to return to Pakistan last September. If a high court cannot act independently of a President then he is effectively above the law.
Third, Musharraf has been ineffectual as an ally in the War on Terror. To be sure, Musharraf has had his moments as an ally of the United States in our war against Islamic fundamentalism since turning back his previous support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. The arrest of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence in March 2003 certainly comes to mind. No doubt Pakistan has had its own problems with terrorism because of its assistance to the United States. This was certainly the case during the siege at the Red Mosque in Islamabad this past July. The response of Pakistani security forces prompted Osama bin Laden to call for Musharraf's overthrow. Despite bin Laden's enmity for the Pakistani strongman what has Musharraf done for us lately? According to the National Intelligence Estimate, released this past July, al Qaeda and the Taliban have rebounded and are largely based in tribal areas situated in western Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan. Since 2004, Pakistan's security forces have done little to route out al-Qaeda and the Taliban from those areas despite repeated pleas by the Bush Administration to do so. Neighboring Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of sheltering al Qaeda and Taliban forces and there have been skirmishes between the two countries along said border. While things have calmed between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a result of a peace jirga (which Musharraf initially refused to attend until pressured by the Bush Administration) it is a fragile peace. Aside from some high profile arrests, Musharraf has delivered little when it comes to the War on Terror. While there is no doubt that Pakistan in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists is scarcely worth thinking about, this does not give Musharraf the right to act unlawfully and in bad faith. Short of capturing bin Laden dead or alive, there is little reason to believe Musharraf will vigorously pursue al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Fourth, there is Musharraf's treatment of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. For the past several months, Bhutto has been negotiating a power sharing agreement with Musharraf. However, it has become clear that Musharraf has negotiated in bad faith and has no intention of sharing power with Bhutto or anyone else. The sticking point between Musharraf and Bhutto was that Musharraf resign as head of the Pakistani military before seeking re-election. It appeared that a deal was close at hand in September. Close enough that Bhutto would announce it publicly only to be rebuffed by Musharraf. One could criticize Bhutto for a lack of propriety and prudence, but Bhutto must have genuinely believed that there was a deal in place. In October, Bhutto would return to Pakistan after eight years of exile only to face an assassination attempt, which claimed the lives of over 130 people. Bhutto publicly wondered aloud if elements in Musharraf's clique were responsible for the attempt on her life. Of course, Musharraf would be re-elected by the Pakistani parliament and has since convened a new Prime Minister and Cabinet. All of this while still wearing his military uniform. Since Musharraf declared the state of emergency on November 3rd (more on this in a moment), Bhutto has been placed under house arrest twice. After the second house arrest, Bhutto formally broke with Musharraf and has called on him to resign. She is also attempting to form an alliance with political rival and fellow former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and other opposition leaders in an effort to form a unified front against Musharraf. Whatever enmity Sharif has for Bhutto, she is counting on Sharif's enmity for Musharraf to be even greater. Musharraf's failure to reach an agreement demonstrates that he is neither amenable to reason nor a man of honor.
Finally, there is the state of emergency itself. While Musharraf ostensibly did this to combat Islamic extremism it has been largely secular and moderate figures who have felt his wrath. Bhutto, Chaudry and other Supreme Court justices and former cricketer turned politician Imran Khan have been placed under house arrest. In fact, Khan was turned in to the custody of Pakistani authorities by Islamic fundamentalist students sympathetic to the Jamaat-i-Islami Party. Musharraf has announced that elections will take place in Pakistan no later than January 9, 2008. Yet public gatherings have been banned under the state of emergency and Musharraf has given no indication the state of emergency will be lifted during the election campaign. How can one have a free and fair election if the state has imposed a decree against public assembly? How can one have a free and fair election if the state has shut down television stations? Consequently, the opposition has threatened to boycott any elections. Musharraf has been pressured by the Bush Administration to lift the state of emergency. On November 17th, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte met face to face with Musharraf to tell him he needed to end the state of emergency. Negroponte then contacted Bhutto by telephone. But Musharraf is in no hurry to acquiesce to them. After all, Musharraf does not want to be viewed as a puppet of the Bush Administration. Even in the midst of thinning patience, Musharraf knows the Bush Administration still counts on him even if he hasn't delivered. Musharraf is the devil they know.
So what happens if Musharraf does a 180 and abruptly resigns? Islamic fundamentalists would undoubtedly see a void and step up their attacks perceiving his successor to be weaker. However, this could be overcome if his successor were to act decisively against Islamic fundamentalists without being heavy handed. This would boost public confidence in Musharraf's successor. Of course, the successor would need the support of the military. The successor would need to keep ethnic tensions between Punjabis and Pushtans at bay. The successor would also need to steer clear of corruption. This is something that has plagued Musharraf, Bhutto and Sharif alike. The successor would also need to wherewithal to keep Islamic fundamentalism in check. Islamic fundamentalists do not give up easily. Governing Pakistan is no enviable task even at the best of times. Indeed, since becoming independent sixty years ago, Pakistan has spent more than half of that time under military rule. Democracy has not come easily to Pakistan. There have been several wars with India. Complicating matters is that Pakistan is a nuclear power. With this in mind, it is worth noting that no civilian government in Pakistan has lasted longer than 11 years before being disposed.
It is clear that democracy will not have a chance in Pakistan as long as Musharraf remains in power, military uniform or not. His lack of respect for non-violent opposition figures and institutions that check his power demonstrate his disdain for democratic rule. Whatever assistance Musharraf has provided the United States cannot justify harsh measures against those who do not represent a threat to Pakistan and have done nothing more than merely disagree with him. The state of emergency represents the final straw. For the good of Pakistan and for the good of the world, Musharraf must go.
Aaron Goldstein was a card carrying member of the socialist New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). Since 09/11, Aaron has reconsidered his ideological inclinations and has become a Republican. Aaron lives and works in Boston. 
