“The United States must work to break this trade union of dictators being created at the international level,” said Asma Jahangir, sitting in a dimly lit conference room in her law office in Lahore. Jahangir, recently released from a period of house arrest that began when Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf introduced emergency law last month, described how leaders in different countries working to quell democratic dissent are learning lessons from each others experiences by closing down free media and attacking the independence of the judiciary. The chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a distinguished group that has been fighting to improve Pakistan’s human rights record for more than two decades, Jahangir spent the previous day leading a protest through the main street of this city in eastern Pakistan. She makes a passionate case for why the United States, now more than ever, needs to support a real transition to democratic rule in her country.

“Yes, there are dangerous lunatics working on the fringes of Pakistani society,” Jahangir said, referring to the international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda alleged to use the lawless border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a safe haven. “But we can’t kill them all – we have to get rid of them in other ways as well.” The other ways might include building a system based on rule of law and democracy that is capable of bringing terrorists to justice.

When President Musharraf imposed emergency rule last month, Pakistani security forces threw thousands of lawyers and human rights activists behind bars. These people weren’t the extremist forces or members of terrorist groups that have been fomenting unrest in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Nor were most of them tied to the traditional political elites who are set to vie for power in next month’s parliamentary elections. Instead, most of those who were arrested are people who have spent their careers fighting for the same things that President George W. Bush advocated in his second Inaugural address – freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. And many of them worry that the United States will not back up its rhetoric with policies that support these ideals.

The central demand of activists like Jahangir is the restoration of the independence of the judiciary, which was weakened when Musharraf sacked several prominent judges last month. “An independent judiciary is the most important thing in a democracy undergoing transition. It is the backbone of the system.” said Jahangir. An independent judiciary – and not elections – is the central message of hundreds of lawyers that have continued to protest in the streets, joined students and civil society groups. These protests are still relatively small in number, but their cause captures the attention of a growing number of people, including Pakistani opposition political figures like Imran Khan.

In a late night discussion at his home in the hills overlooking the capital of Islamabad, Khan made his case for why boycotting next month’s elections was the principled thing to do at this stage, centering his argument on a judiciary under attack. “The hope for Pakistan is in an independent judiciary… we cannot abandon the judges,” Khan said. Khan, the most famous cricket player in Pakistan’s history, entered politics more than ten years ago. Although Khan lacks the broad political support enjoyed by Pakistan’s traditional political parties, his celebrity status has garnered attention to the same cause being pushed by the lawyers and human rights activists like Jahangir. In Khan’s view, free and fair elections cannot be held without an independent judiciary, so there is no point in participating in next month’s elections.

Other figures in the political opposition agree with Khan in principle, but disagree with the strategy of boycotting the elections. The Pakistani Muslim League headed by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which also has the restoration of the judiciary as a core objective, joined in the protests on Monday. Rather than boycotting the elections, Sharif’s party calculated that it would be better to obtain some power in the system and work for change from the inside, rather than sit on the sidelines and risk having little or no influence. This divided approach among the advocates for an independent judiciary may actually weaken the ultimate impact of their cause.

In the coming days, President Musharraf is set to lift emergency rule, and most of the traditional political parties will move forward in their election campaigns. The media’s attention will focus on who wins or loses the elections, and how badly the elections were rigged. But as these processes move forward, it is important for the United States and other actors to not forget the concerns about Pakistan’s judiciary.

All too often in recent years the United States has looked to elections in other countries as the primary indication for success or failure in a country’s progress towards political reform. Democracy, narrowly defined as elections, would defeat the forces of terrorism and extremism, President Bush declared in his freedom agenda. Yet in many places around the world like Iraq and the Palestinian territories, this strategy backfired – and democracy narrowly defined as elections actually ended up empowering extremist forces.

To move beyond this ineffective approach, the United States needs to take a more comprehensive approach to reform – one that places as much importance on an independent judiciary and competence in the executive branches of government, as well as “free and fair” electoral processes. The coming weeks in Pakistan will present U.S. leaders with an opportunity to keep its eye on the big picture – and doing so in Pakistan means not forgetting the threats to judicial independence.