"Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence. But I guess that's better left unsaid."--Dylan
Democracy in Pakistan doesn't exist, any more than it does in Iraq. It hasn't existed in Pakistan since the 1999 coup by Musharraf. Yet, the Bush administration is calling for the 'democratic process' to be 'restored' in Pakistan after the killing of the leader of the most popular opposition to the U.S. supported dictator there -- much like their insistence that an end to their occupation of Iraq and restrictions on U.S. assistance to the installed and propped-up Maliki regime would threaten 'democracy' in the sovereign nation Bush invaded and overthrew.
For the Bush regime, democratic government is defined, more by an ability to seize and hold onto power, than by any recognized and accepted instigations of actual democracy. For Bush in Iraq, the 'elections' which brought the Maliki regime to power -- and, were held under an increased military occupation and widely boycotted by many of Iraq's population which wasn't aligned with the Shiite majority who voted in overwhelming numbers -- were enough to justify any and all actions by the U.S. enabled regime; including military assaults on rival communities before, during, and after the voting took place.
In Pakistan, the Bush administration sees the unelected dominance of Musharraf -- who came to power in a 'bloodless' coup, but maintained that assumed authority through the brutal, heavy-hand of the military he heads and controls -- as the ultimate representation of a working government, despite the widespread opposition to his rule from those who would cast a vote if a free and fair election were to occur.
It was the Bush administration who urged Benizar Bhutto to return to Pakistan in a 'power-sharing' deal with Musharraf which would allow the dictator to retain the office and position which he had stolen. Musharraf, however, chose, instead, to demonstrate his autocratic intentions for Bush with his anti-democratic crackdown -- canceling the scheduled election, arresting and jailing all of his political opposition, and dissolving and replacing the Pakistani Supreme Court to avoid a ruling against his presidential appointment -- including the arrest and detention of Bhutto and her supporters.
Those blatantly, anti-democratic actions by Musharraf, essentially disqualified him as a legitimate representative of any instigation of democracy; much less, a legitimate representative of the will of Pakistanis. Yet, the Bush administration's response to his tyranny was as tepid and enabling of Musharraf's autocratic rule as was the billions they had gifted the Pakistani dictator for his dubious promise to be a responsible steward of Pakistan's nukes and his promises to pursue and prosecute the original suspects in the 9-11 killings.
Where was the fight against 'extremism' and 'turmoil' in Pakistan, which Gen. Musharraf used to justify his 'emergency' decree, actually being waged? Other than a handful of assaults and mass killings by his military forces against communities he claimed were 'insurgent' and 'terrorist', the bulk of Musharraf's actions were clearly aimed at suppressing and intimidating his political opposition, even as he pressed forward with his own campaign for the presidency.
It's perfectly legitimate for Americans (and Pakistanis) to expect that the military dictator the administration has tolerated for so long -- with Musharraf's repeated promises to 'take off his uniform' and allow democratic elections -- would be required to, at least, adhere to basic democratic principles which would foster the 'free and fair' elections they say they want for Pakistan. But, the administration's tepid response to Musharraf's tyranny was a clear signal to the rogue dictator that they would regard the mere posturing and pretense of democracy that he was offering as a true representation of a legitimate democratic process -- as long as their dictator prevailed.
There has been no suggestion from the administration that they intend to tie the billions in taxpayer dollars that flow to Musharraf to his adherence to basic human rights for his own countrymen. Even Japan announced that they needed to "stop and think" about the large increase of aid they had planned to provide Musharraf after they received the news of Ms. Bhutto's initial detention.
Now, in the wake of the Bhutto assassination, the Bush administration seems more than satisfied with their anti-democratic autocrat to approve of and urge an immediate resumption of the Potemkin election he had planned. Bush disregarded Ms. Bhutto's very activism against Musharraf's pretense of democracy as he called for 'continuing' that corrupt process she sacrificed her life to oppose.
"We stand with the people of Pakistan in their struggle against the forces of terror and extremism," Bush said in a statement after her killing. "We urge them to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life," he said.
If that 'democratic process' includes Musharraf as a candidate, it will be nothing more than a sham of democracy; a prop, like in Iraq. As in Iraq, the 'people of Pakistan' are mere footstools to elevate and give an air of legitimacy to those who have already been enabled into their assumed authority behind the intimidation of military forces.
"There are not a lot of alternatives out there," an administration official was quoted in the AP. "We have an interest in seeing Pakistan be stable and seeing that the government there has a reasonable level of legitimacy and popular support," he said. According to the AP report, the officials quoted "did not see new restrictions on $300 million in assistance for Musharraf's government in 2008 beyond those Congress just imposed in an aid budget."
In other words, the administration will be satisfied when Pakistan's government settles back into a political posture which they can claim has the legitimacy of an election -- no matter how compromised or corrupted that election may be. As in his own Supreme Court-enabled ascent to office, Bush is ready to crown Musharraf a 'democratically' elected leader of Pakistan.
The Bush administration recognizes the opportunity they now have -- in the wake of the assassination of Musharraf's main political rival -- to muscle their dictator into 'elected' office; albeit, behind a contrived electoral process which would benefit from the anti-democratic actions by the dictatorial regime and by those outside of the process who would disrupt and manipulate it through violence and intimidation.
"We believe it's important that the political process, the process of developing Pakistan's democracy, continue," deputy administration spokesman Tom Casey was quoted.
Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
"I'm very, very concerned because I feel that the radicals are gaining in strength," she continued. "And I feel they are trying to take advantage of the dictatorship, to spread their extremism and militancy. Extremism feeds off dictatorship and dictatorship feeds off extremism. Dictatorship needs the extremists to tell the rest of the world, "We're the good guys; support us or the extremists will take over." And in the meantime, the extremists need the dictatorship, which neglects the rights of the people, the wants of the people, the needs of the people. And by exploiting that they advance."
Sounds an awful lot like what is happening right here in our own neck of the woods. Maybe we (Americans) need to put our own house in order and stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations.
by
August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 1:19:23 PM
Benazir Bhutto and Salvador Allende's shortened careers
Benazir Bhutto's possible election was a threat to dictator Pazir Musharriff's present goverment. She was alleged to have been killed by extremists on December 27, 2007.
Considering the present turmoil in Pakistan we may never get to know the facts surrounding her death.
Salvadore Allende had already been elected president in Chile in a democratic election. He was president from November 1970 until his death during a military coup d'etat on September 11, 1973.
Considering the turmoil in Chile surrounding the coup d'etat we probably will never get to know the facts surrounding his death.
Allende was replaced by dictator Augusto Pinochet who ruled Chile with an iron fist for the succeeding 17 years.
Both Salvadore Allende and Beanzir Bhutto were politicians who had served their respective countries for a long time prior to their untimely deaths.
Corporations are more consistent with dictators than democratically elected leaders because of their own anti-democratic internal organization.
Mr Bush was not elected in November 2000. He was selected by US Chief Supreme Court Justice, Anton Scalia.
You already know the rest of his story.
Are we now living in a world ruled by corporations?
by
beelza bubb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 3:09:37 AM
I found it interesting to note that of all the babbling by the presidential candidates in the U.S. media about the event, only Ron Paul came out point blank and stated that Musharraf is a military dictator who overthrew an elected government, and that we had rewarded him with 10 billion dollars. Not surprisingly, he was villified on Fox News for it (allthough the clip of him saying that was much more convincing than the offhand dismissal of his views).
Interesting also was the item about Bhutto claiming that Musharraf was trying to get her killed by denying adequate security.
Now, it would not surprise me to learn that people on the ground in Pakistan blame the U.S. for propping him up so that he could kill her or at least let her be killed by deliberately providing weak security. Consider this in the context of how she had been recently treated.
And the only analysis that gets any air in the U.S. is of the kind that contemplates the various ways in which we will get more involved and to what extent, and how we can control the situation. No question of whether it is wise to precipitate scenes like this, no question of whether control over the situation is even possible, and no question of whether or how much our involvement leading up to this event might enrage her followers.
I believe the party line is being advanced for the same unstated goals as the rest of our Middle East policy: end up with military bases in the area, and keep the entire area in constant turmoil with factions fighting each other so that no one country or group gains any appreciable power.
I personally disagree wholeheartedly with that policy.
by
John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 2:20:50 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
1 | 2
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
