Democracy in Pakistan, Despite Bush Policies
If it was ever truly sincere about promoting democracy, the Bush administration has clearly abandoned that policy at this point. In Iraq, the administration has backed an incompetent, quasi-democratic regime that was imposed at gunpoint. In the Palestinian elections, it didn't like the results, and has joined Israel in refusing to even speak to Hamas. In Lebanon, the presence of elected members of the Hezbollah party in the government was used by Bush policymakers to justify giving the green light to Israel's use of U.S.-supplied weaponry to dismantle large parts of the country's infrastructure and inflict large-scale civilian casualties. Not exactly "democracy promotion."
And in Pakistan, where opposition parties have overwhelmed the ruling party of Pervez Musharraf in this week's elections, this step forward for democracy came despite Bush policies, not because of them. When Musharraf imposed emergency rule and jailed opposition figures ranging from the head of the Supreme Court to leading players in the parties of Benazir Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif, the Bush administration made critical noises, but took no action. Calls to suspend military aid were ignored, and State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher described Musharraf as "indispensable" to U.S. interests in the region, as reiterated in an article in today's New York Times.
Now that Musharraf is for all practical purposes about to be dispensed with, the Bush administration needs to take a new approach.
A good start would be to adopt Sen. Joseph Biden's proposal to triple U.S. economic aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion per year. A second step should be to acknowledge that flooding military aid into the country -- to the tune of $10 billion since the beginning of the Bush presidency -- has done more harm than good. In this administration -- if possible -- and certainly in the next, the United States needs to shift from "democracy promotion" to "democracy support." Instead of trying to impose pro-U.S. regimes by force, U.S. policy should involve supporting indigenous democratic forces with non-military assistance, taking its cues from the needs of these movements rather than trying to manipulate the results.
Going forward, the Bush administration should be pressed to support the new elected government; Sen. Joseph Biden's call for a tripling of U.S. economic aid to $1.5 billion a year is a good place to start. In addition, there should be an acknowledgment that the flood of U.S. military aid into the country -- as much as $10 billion since the Bush administration took office -- has done more harm than good. If the threat from Islamic extremism in Pakistan is to be effectively neutralized, much more will be accomplished by providing accountable governance that delivers basic services and, as a result, helps dry up any reservoirs of support for Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives. A shift in approach in Pakistan could usher in a new era of "democracy support," in which U.S. policy helps bolster indigenous democratic forces rather than attempting to manipulate the internal dynamics of other countries in an effort to install or prop up pro-U.S. regimes.
Comments (18)
One need only look at the USA under Bush to see how Bush/Cheney define "Democracy."
February 19, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I want to see is Democracy Coming to the USA! That won't happen with Bush in charge, and is highly unlikely to happen no matter who is in charge. It would require some major amendments to the US Constitution, and those need 38 states to ratify them, so 13 states have veto power over such changes. That power will always be exercised.
I am always amazed that the world credits this country as the father of democracy, but fails to note that we have never had a democracy. When we "help" another country to set up a democratic government, we never push them towards setting up a clone of our system. Either we push them towards a totally phony "democracy" or we push them to set up a parliamentary form of government. Clearly we are not impressed with our form of government.
February 19, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it bears mentioning that the Constitution does not establish a democracy, nor does it claim to do any such thing. The United States is by form and practice a Republic. We have quasi-democratic elections but that's about it and then not even for the Presidency but for only local, county, and statewide offices.
As pointed out above, the constitutional ratification process is not democratic, neither is the U.S. Senate. The founders were clear in their intentions when they established this country and form of government.
February 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
raincntry, you are correct that the US was established as a republic, but the House and the presidency were left to a decision of the people. Democracy, in a word. In time, we changed the Constitution to allow direct election of senators as well. The trend is towards more democracy, not less, and if not for the wording of the Constitution, that might not have been possible.
The election of 2000 was not the first where the leading vote-getter did not win the office of the presidency (though it was the first where the Supreme Court determined the winner). There is widespread dissatisfaction with the electoral college, and that may be the next wall to fall before democracy. Especially if we have another close election in the next decade or so.
I hope I never read the phrase "quasi-democratic" again. "Representative democracy" I can live with, but not "quasi-democracy". The people are the ultimate arbiters over their leaders, be he Saddam Hussein or Gordon Brown. Or Pervez Musharraf. Democracy is the tool we have to keep from changing leaders through things like foreign invasion or Nights of the Long Knives. We vote or we fight.
Which tool would you rather use?
February 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I would prefer a totally democratic system. My point was that we do not have one. We don't have a democratic election for President, we don't have a democratic process in the Senate, we don't even have democratic representation in the Senate. Our government allows for people who are a clear minority to govern.
Look at our current President. Short of impeaching him we have to sit on our hands and wait for his term to end, even though he is not supported by anywhere near 1/2 of the population or even voters. He won his first term by losing the general election and being installed by the Supreme Court.
Is that democratic?
Is it democratic to require 60 votes in the Senate? Is it democratic that the Senate gives equal representation to the people in Alaska as it does California (and I'm from Alaska)?
No, it's not.
A truly democratic system would require the backing of a majority of the population. A truly democratic system would marginalize a leader when his approval rating is in the low 20%.
Look at how Parliamentary systems work. A vote of no confidence and the entire group of elected officials is up for office again. Multiple political parties more accurately represent the public's views and require true coalitions to govern, not this psudo "gang of 14" crap we got on judicial appointments.
We claim we are democratic when we are not truly so. We have a decent form of government but let's not dress it up as perfect and sell it to the world.
February 20, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the first step to any constructive plan, is to look at what Biden will propose, and then set it aside as ignorant, superficial and wrongheaded.
1.5 billion dollars in economic aid sounds very nice, but frankly, the devil is in the details and it may actually make things worse. Has Haiti benefitted from American 'aid' which has helped to destroy its economy and destabilize its society? Don't answer that. The Pakistani's may not want certain kinds of help.
Absent from Hartung's little rumination is any curiousity as to what happens now with Pakistan. Is Mushareff really out, or will he continue being a dictator... or become even more dictatorial?
In terms of the new elections, who is in, who is out, and what do they want?
February 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On some level, the "good start" really has to be decoupling in Americans' minds "democracy" from "US-style capitalism."
Long before Chavez had done much of anything to antagonize the United States except suggest that there may be a greater role for socialist ideas in Latin America than U.S. policy would like, the U.S. was already trying to get rid of this democratically elected leader -- whether actively or through href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wovene244053424nov24,0,4856696.story" title="malicious neglect".
That was 2002. Until Americans understand that letting people vote means respecting their choices -- especially when they aren't the ones you would have picked -- the U.S. isn't really promoting democracy. It's just promoting American empire.
February 19, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think that the first step to any constructive plan, is to look at what Biden will propose, and then set it aside as ignorant, superficial and wrongheaded.
...
Posted by Valdron"
It's thinking like Valdron's that's gotten us into one jam after another for more than half a century.
February 19, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe so, but I'd argue that its as often the 'benign' impulses of Biden-style exceptionalism that wreak havok, as much as Bush-league predation.
Biden's got a long history of deciding what's good for the people of other countries. Countries which he little understands, and which the people of those countries disagree.
A case in point is his "Iraq Partition Plan", a plan which had no support among Iraqi's, would have been imposed on them against their will, which would have required considerable violence and ethnic cleansing to implement, and which would have resulted in three unstable fractious states and recipe for further wars and permanent occupation.
Now me, my attitude is that I don't know better than the people who live in a place how they should be living or how their country should run. My thinking is that decisions like that ought to be left up to them, because at the end of the day, they're the ones who will have to bear the costs of those decisions.
I'm a bit suspicious of guys like Biden who talk a golden streak, know better than the people living there how they should be governed, are extraordinarily generous (as long as everyone is doing what they want) and how amazingly the best thing for someone else always turns out to be good for America and Joe Biden.
Call me cynical.
February 19, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the election of the U.S. president is so transparently undemocratic, combined with the ability of an aggressive president (e.g., Cheney) to ruin the much-vaunted balance of powers set up by the founders, shows how inadequate this structure is to support "democracy".
We might ask ourselves why voter turnout for elections has been so low in the last few decades.
Unless one lives in a "battleground" status there is not a huge incentive to vote for president. And there are a lot of forces at work who like it the way it is.
February 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absent from Hartung's little rumination is any curiousity as to what happens now with Pakistan. Is Mushareff really out, or will he continue being a dictator... or become even more dictatorial?
In terms of the new elections, who is in, who is out, and what do they want?
I don't now, but I know that it's in our best interests to work with whoever won the elections, not the wildly unpopular Musharraf. Otherwise we repeat those "jams" mentioned by cal1942 - Iran, Chile, half of central America, Vietnam, etc, all the way back to the Philippines. The mistakes we are repeating in Afghanistan and Iraq - the idea that there is a military solution to these problems. The idea that if we just kill enough people, we win.
February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
When all you've got is an army, then the solution to every problem is a bloodbath.
Did you know that the US military has more marching band musicians than the State Department has diplomats?
February 19, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good column, but built on a shaky foundation. While most people think of a form of elected representation when you use the word "democracy", when a politician on either side of the isle uses the word, they mean "capitalism".
While the Bush regime hasn't introduced free markets to the middle east, (they've been thriving there for eons)the steps they have taken have all had the goal of protecting markets in the Americas, Europe and Asia.
February 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read a description of a plan to build a pipeline to send natural gas from Iran to India, so India would get many million tons of hydrocarbons with the price of ca. 50% of that of oil, and Pakistan would get its cut in the form of transit fees etc. Pakistan would get, according to my estimate, 2 billions per year, which could double if Turkmen natural gas would follow the same route.
Needless to say, we use our aid to get influence, and we use our influence to torpedo this scheme. You see, it would give influence to Iran. So, even with triple economic aid Pakistan is a looser. Not that we care.
From this point of view, military aid is the way to go. We bribe directly the folks in the position to set the policy, while economic aid would partially go to people who would actually want to spend it rationally rather than accepting as a bribe. Although economic aid could be structuted to maximize its bribing potential, a real danger exists that do-gooders would get too much to say.
February 19, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Piotr,
Your point is well made. The money spent so far has stopped a new energy bloc from funneling the pipelines to Indian and Pakistani ports.
Actually, I shouldn't say stop, nor should you. The steps toward that alliance are still being made, bribes or no bribes.
The policy you describe is about slowing things down that can't be stopped altogether.
February 19, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
nima:
the House and the presidency were left to a decision of the people.
Correct re: the House, but you're wrong about the presidency. We do not vote for the president, we vote for electors in the Electoral College. And even the electors we have no constitutional right to vote for. The US Constitution reserves the privilege of choosing electors for ... the state legislatures. Yes, that is right, go look it up: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2. The state legislatures have the right to choose the electors to the EC, or can choose the method selecting them.
As it turns out, the states have deigned (usually) to allow us little people to vote for the electors, but they don't have to. And sometimes they don't. There are instances of state legislatures sending their own slate of electors to the EC regardless of the will of the people.
February 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My first observation is that an election, even a free election, is not necessarily it for Dictators. Mushareff's power is not derived from civil society, from Pakistan's parliament, nor from its legal or political institutions.
Indeed, as we've seen recently, Mushareff while generally tolerant of civil institutions, doesn't have any reservations about going head to head. He overthrew the civilian government of Benazir Bhutto, and just recently, he trashed the nations Supreme Court and Judicial/legal institutions.
Hartung's notion is that just because a guy like that's political party did poorly in an election means that he's on his way out. I'm not necessarily persuaded. Guys like that are very good at hanging onto power, through monopolisation and extravagant use of violence, and through quid pro quo arrangements with power centers within his society. He doesn't need the will of the people, if he can simply eliminate or neutralize certain constituencies, command the loyalty of a powerful faction, and ally with others.
At best, Mushareff's position is volatile, which may mean he's on his way out. Or it may mean that he's going to really be closing the fist. It might make for a bloodbath. Or wild political turns of unanticipated nature. Without more information, information we in the west simply don't have, its difficult for us to predict. Its difficult for Pakistani's to predict.
At best, the situation bears watching.
As to making friends with whoever seems to be ascendant... capital idea! But shouldn't we have some idea who they are, what they want, what their ideals, their goals, their aspirations and their worldview is? Or even if they collectively represent a worldview... or perhaps a series of worldviews.
While it would be nice to be their friends, its not at all clear that they would necessarily want to be friends with us. The United States has backed Mushareff to the hilt. Carries out bombing raids inside Pakistan and kills and abducts Pakistani civilians. It maintains an unpopular war against Muslims in Afghanistan. An even more unpopular war against Muslims Iraq. What would be an unpopular war if noticed against Muslims in Somalia. And its a big backer and supporter of Israel, in its wars on Lebanon and oppression of the Palestinians. On top of that, it's an economic bully. What real democratic grassroots movement would want to be friends with that?
On the other side of the coin... do we want to be friends? If its Radical Islamists supporting Al Quaeda and the Taliban, probably not. If its rabid nationalists provoking a war with India, not a good idea. If its 'great gamesters' allying with Russia, nope. Or radical communists forging an axis with China?
You want my advice: The best approach would be to cultivate some distance from Mushareff, try and stay friendly with all sides in Pakistan, stop abducting and killing their citizens, stop secretly bombing their country, stop using them as a pawn in 'great gamesmanship', and encourage them to take rational steps to get their house in order... even if these steps... a rapprochement with India or Iran aren't necessarily in our best interests.
The country is inherently unstable and volatile, and our continued meddling - Biden style or Bush style or otherwise, only makes the place worse.
Leave Pakistan to the Pakistani's. It's their country.
February 19, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deoll, yep, you caught me on presidential elections. I caught myself, but only after it was too late. Pulled it out of my ass then realized my mistake. Hopefully, I'm right that it will change, but I can live with the current system. Beats what the Pakistanis are working with.
When all you've got is an army, then the solution to every problem is a bloodbath.
True enough, Valdron. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Since the Spanish-American War, the US military has mostly been used for economic conquest. Smedley Butler had that figured out long ago.
Did you know that the US military has more marching band musicians than the State Department has diplomats?
Nope, but I'm not surprised. And GWB's administration will cut State's budget again this year.
Leave Pakistan to the Pakistani's. It's their country.
Amen, my friend.
February 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink