Posted on 09/02/2008 6:38:20 PM PDT by Bosco
If there's a case to be made against democracy, few countries make it better than Pakistan.
On Saturday, Pakistani legislators will elect a new president to replace Pervez Musharraf, the general-turned-strongman who resigned the office last month.
In one corner there is Mushahid Hussain Sayed, a former journalist and one-time political prisoner of Mr. Musharraf who is nonetheless running as the candidate of the general's old party. Mr. Mushahid, probably the best of the bunch, stands next to no chance of winning.
In another corner there is Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, candidate of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's party. Mr. Sharif -- whose record includes bankrupting his country, presiding over a disastrous military campaign against India, and attempting to implement Sharia law while awarding himself near-dictatorial powers -- has made it clear he intends to gut the powers of the presidency should he return to office.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It was easy for people to dump on Musharraf but it seems like for a political cesspool like Pakistan he may have been the best they’re going to see for a long, long time.....
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
Maybe the election will spark a revolution that will enable the people of Iran to get rid of that crowd of stink-fingered mullahs.
In 1979, Iran had a westernized elite that opposed the fundamentalist Mullahas. Those of this elite who didn't escape to the West are now dead.
On the other hand, perhaps the violent British Muslims will move back to their homeland, helping the UK no end. Not too likely.
Hopefully, we can now get on with what we should have done on 9/12/2001 — nuke Pakistan. They’re the enemy. Always have been. Always will be. Better to destroy them now and send a message to Mr. Tiger Killer that he’s just a pretend power.
How will a new president in Pakistan spark a revolution in Iran?
You may be right. History has demonstrated many times that those who rule with an iron fist are in the most danger when the grip has been slightly relaxed, and then it suddenly tightens up again. Apparently, once given a small taste of freedom most people don’t easily put the yoke back on. I’m also watching to see what happens in China in the next few months. I have to believe that freedom got some exposure there during the Olympics, despite the red armies’ best efforts...
Another Condeleeza success story. I know she speaks Russian, plays piano, etc,, and is otherwise reputed to be a brilliant person. But *why* did she engineer sending that corrupt Bhutto woman back to certain death, and work day and night, to remove the closest thing to a friendly leader we will ever have in Pakistan? To the degree he could do so without sparking a full-on civil war, Mushariff (sp?)has cooperated with us.
The Taliban took over Afghanistan on her watch, not Mushariff’s. I’m not being sarcastic. Seriously soliciting opinions,, why do we feel it is so important to give a “democratic vote” to a nation where a stunning number of the people defend the concept of burying women when they make you mad, or acid to their face, honor killings, etc?
Sharanski wrote the book that is supposed to be Bush’s model. Its called “the case for democracy,,the power of freedom”.
It’s central concept was that you can’t have a meaningful vote, until the nation in question is a safe place to state your politics in public without a rational fear of violence, whether it’s governmental or societal. He points out that ALL despots, inclubing Saddam and Stalin regularly held democratic votes.
For example,,witness the “vote” in the palestinian zones that brought Hezbollah into power. (not to chase a rabbit,,,but Obama supporters,,, i just *had* to guys!)
Those votes did not advance freedom, they made a mockery of it.
Does anyone have a clue what we gained by doing this to a nation with nuclear weapons, a place that only the naive believe could somehow have a radical islamic government takeover, without them also gaining control of those nukes?Sorry this was a little long winded, but I have been mystified by this since last winter when Condeleeza started saying Mushariff MUST go. Ideas?
By angering the people through incompetence and indecision.
Aren’t Pakistan and Iran different countries?
I never understood the crowd on FR that hated Musharraf, wanted him gone, etc. It was obvious that a secular despot was the best possible bet we could get in that nuclear country, despite his inability to totally control his own government.
What is going to replace him is very possibly going to provoke an international event at some point.
I guess Freepers want free and fair elections in Egypt too :(
I fully agree with your sentiments. Our visible policy in Pakistan vis a vis musharraf is insanity with a nuclear warhead attached.
Believe it or not, the Maddy Albright's father had a big hand in forming Condi Rice's outlook. I believe he was he dissertation advisor. Both Albrights were steeped in the ideology of democracy at all costs.
I have always been mystified by the adulation some feel for Condi. We've had worse Sec's of State, but I've always thought she was always overated.
I’m sorry, I was thinking about Iran and that mess when I should have remembered it was Pakistan we were discussing. My mistake. The Pakistan mess will remain one for a long time, I’m afraid.
ping
Bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.