June 27, 2004
The Next Saddam?
By Karl-Thomas Musselman
I have a friend who lives in Pakistan, who in the past has been able to provide first hand accounts of events in the country and in Europe which take longer to get to the American Media, if at all. He sent me a short note the other day with the following thoughts attached. Just some food for thought...
Anyway...as the European constitution goes. I think by having a section on religion, Europe faces a difficult choice. Preserving history and culture which have made it so powerful...at the risk of upsetting and
promoting intolerance to its secular ideals which in the past century have made it possible for millions to migrate to Europe and help in its prosperity by
bringing in new ideas and beliefs which have helped it immensly.
The best plan of action ould probably be one which recognizes a connection to a higher being but at the same time allowing for enough room for the minorities
and growing immigrants to practise their religion freely without any fear of being legally termed "unpatriotic".
Pakistani prime minister resigned yesterday after months of speculation. Apparently he disagreed with the American supported Military dictator General
Musharraf about the armys continued involvement in the affairs of the government. I think Musharraf is going to be a future Saddam Hussain. He's already imprisoning and making opposition leaders and critics dissappear. It'll be a short time before he starts persecuting his own people.
Anyways, thats my update from Karachi, Pakistan.
Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at June 27, 2004 04:48 PM
| TrackBack
Pakiatan has been plagued by terrible and/or corrupt leaders ever since the premature death of its founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. And frankly, Pervez Musharraf is one of the better leaders.
Unlike neighboring India, serious land reform has never taken place. An almost feudal situation exists in the countryside. And the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan and in the north have never fully come under the control of the central government.
In the province of Sindh there is tension between the Mohajirs, Muslim refugees who fled India and their descendents, and the indiginous Sindhi.
Then there's resentment by non-Punjabis toward the Punjabi elite who control the government, the civil service, and the armed forces.
If all that weren't bad enough, fundamentalist Sunni militants, inspired by the old Taliban régime in Afghanistan, are conducting a terror campaign against Shi'ites and minority religions.
The civilian governments in the ten years before the takeover by Musharraf, were led alternately by Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. They took turns persecuting each other while plundering the country. And like all Pakistani leaders, they tried to maintain support for themselves by whipping the country into a militaristic frenzy over disputed Kashmir. A major portion of Pakistan's huge military budget went into the development of nuclear weapons.
Democracy cannot take root in such a polarized, corrupt, unstable, and fragmented atmosphere.
Voting and elections are just one aspect of democracy. And just how democratic is it when a wealthy landowner simply orders his peasants to vote one way or another.
Musharraf may not be Abraham Lincoln, but he is far from Saddam Hussein. If he can reach a settlement with India over Kashmir, enact meaningful land reform, abate ethnic and religious tensions, and gain control over the tribal areas, that will do more for democracy in the long term than conducting dubious elections designed to placate Western critics.
Kerry, Bush probably believes that Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc. are democracies! After all, they're on the "good" (read: Bush's) side, which means they have to have a "good" form of government, right?
Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush believes France, Germany, and Brazil are dictatorships!
