The Folly Of The 'Democrats'
He may not be much, but Musharraf is the best we’ve got.
That’s the message that must come from today’s saddening events in Pakistan, where Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by an Al-Qaeda fanatic who shot her several times and then blew himself up. Her supporters, Pakistan’s theoretical democrats, are reportedly following the typically Liberal line of perversely blaming Musharraf for not providing her with proper security rather than, say, blaming the Islamic extremists who have been threatening her and have claimed responsibility for actually murdering her. I guess the more ‘moderate’ and Liberal you get, the less inclined you get to directly blame Islamists for anything - no matter where you come from.
People are already concocting elaborate JFK-style conspiracy theories that because she was shot as well as blown up, there must have been a grassy knoll involved somewhere. And, with weary predictability and wonderful political acumen, the opposition are already talking about 'Civil War'.
From JWF's more in-depth update:
“Riaz Malik, of the opposition Pakistan Movement for Justice party (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), warned: "The impact will be that Pakistan is in more turmoil - it will be the start of civil war in Pakistan.
"There is a very real danger of civil war in Pakistan. "
Charming. There’s no one quite like a politician for trying to get a short-term bit of power at the expense of long-term benefit to their country. If the ‘Civil War’ being talked about were to actually erupt, who would win if both anti-Islamist groups were fighting each other? Anyone?
This is precisely the reaction that Al-Qaeda is banking on – the reaction it calculates it will always get every single time it manages to succeed in yet another atrocity, commit another murder. Their opposition always manages to be so weak, so determined not to blame those who have committed the atrocities and the ideology of conquest and chaos which drives them, that they can always gain from their actions. Always.
In a sane world, this murder (and that of a score of innocent civilians doing nothing more than attending a political rally) would have united Pakistan against the evil which has infested it, from the ‘fighters’ in the border zones to the Islamist-controlled judiciary which has spent the past few years doing everything it can to undermine the daily workings of the Musharraf regime in what has turned out to be a very successful attempt to destabilise it (just as it continues to do in Afghanistan). But wherever the great democrats of the West stick our noses in to try and arrogantly turn wholly different cultures into carbon copies of our own regardless of the consequences, the weakness of excuses, of trying to blame murder and mayhem on everyone and everything but those responsible for it, creeps in and takes hold. Those who once would have simply campaigned for freedom now perversely try to abuse a democratic system they see only as something to be used as a path to their own personal power.
Musharraf is a dictator. There’s no denying it. But I’d rather have an honest dictatorship, led by a man who holds his people together by the skin of his teeth against an implacable foe like Al-Qaeda, than a bunch of ‘democrats’ so obsessed with winning the illusion of short-term power that they are prepared to see their country perish to do it.

Reader Comments (22)
People are already concocting elaborate JFK-style conspiracy theories
Including the former British High Commissioner to Pakistan, who used thinly veiled language about such a possibility, on Channel 4 news. He pointed out that Rawalpindi is a garrison town and the home of the army and finds it hard to rule out state involvement.
Unfortunately Pakistan is a complex bed of intrigue, with a military political structure, a disparate yet large democratic movement, a very dubious intelligence apparatus (ISI), and considerable amounts radical islamism, which all to often is linked to the very same ISI.
A very good article on after Bhutto
DT
Rawlpindi has already been the scene of several attacks by islamist terrorists. They have spread out from the so-called tribal areas on the north-west frontier and are now in many areas of Pakistan.
No doubt Bin-Laden and his sidekick Al Zawarhiri are rejoicing tonight. I think the reaction they will want will be an all-out military onslaught on the tribal areas. That could well amount to a civil war. But it might just liquidate these vermin in the process.
What is it about former British Middle East diplomats? Are they all nutters? Trust the British media to be the first to get quotes from someone who was thousands of miles away, hasnt been there for years, but has a *really juicy conspiracy theory* about dark forces behind the scenes.
DT seriously, even Bhutto's own security chief says it was open and shut - one man who first shot at her then exploded himself. Classic Al-qaeda stuff. What outside influence can there have been to 'facilitate' that? Does the ISI have 'suicide agents' now?!?
Does the ISI have 'suicide agents' now?!?
why not? they are often quoted as being the "taliban in business suits". they may not have the beards or tribal garb, but they are every bit as ferverent.
i also never suggested musharrafs involvement. and neither did the former high commissioner. state actors dont necessarily mean government actors. as i said, pakistan is complex.
Jeez DT, you're sentences are making my eyes hurt - capitalize and punctuate properly please. Hard to read despite good points.
Jeez DT, you're sentences are making my eyes hurt - capitalize and punctuate properly please. Hard to read despite good points.
i never claimed to be a great writer. id much rather get my PoV across than win points with the literanista.
DT - not literanista nor point monitors, (who cares?) just regular joe readers like me, dearheart.
who cares?
you. enough to comment.
Squared DT. I'll go back to thinking you're an overall ass.
be my guest.
thankyou
Tripper shes having a go at HA on the other thread. They say power corrupts...well until DV gets back:-)
Pakistan is a muslim country and is not democratisable any more than Iraq. The best that can be hoped for is a dictatorship which is more or less peaceful towards the wider world. Saddam's Iraq was not peaceful - he could have been left alone to do his mass-murdering within his borders as nobody (neither left nor right) really cared.
DSD - I would agree from selfish and practical reasons that I'd rather have a situation in which we had stability, even if it ment a dictator, than a dangerous attempt at democracy. But I would would want the dictatorship to be temporary and transitional to an eventual democracy. The problem is that dictators tend to enjoy their power and pay lip service to refeorm. And the population grows more radicalized. It isn't an easy choice either way.
>>I would agree from selfish and practical reasons that I'd rather have a situation in which we had stability, even if it ment a dictator, than a dangerous attempt at democracy.<<
You mean you want the Presidential Election in November 2008 cancelled?
yeah Noel and her Highness Queen Hidabeast the first can be free to recreat america into a proper society unfettered by the contraints of law
I don't agree with the argument that Musharraf is a stabilising influence, if anything the fact that his rule has removed any method for Pakistanis to change their government in a constitutional manner has encouraged the islamists.
I recognise that some countries are so unstable that occasional military coups are a necessary evil, but if they are done they should do what the Turkish army does- overthrow the government but call free elections a few months later.
Noel: No, although sometimes with the lengthy primary season I wish they'd cancel the campaigning. I think we've demonstrated an ability to hold fair elections and a propensity for understanding here in the US that Pakistan's various elements have not.
free to recreat america into a proper society unfettered by the contraints of law
huh! where have you been for the last 7 years? if she did that she would be picking up where the last lot left off.
I think we've demonstrated an ability to hold fair elections
and your fair share of dubious ones too.
"I don't agree with the argument that Musharraf is a stabilising influence, if anything the fact that his rule has removed any method for Pakistanis to change their government in a constitutional manner has encouraged the islamists"
Musharraf has pushed through more civilised and democratic reforms than you obviously realise. Removal of Sharia Law from sexual assault cases for example. Millions of these supposed potential democrats demonstrated against that one.
I don't follow your logic in the slightest - for example, Musharraf's temporary suspension of election for a year was actually written into the Constitution agreed by the Pakistani Parliament, such as it is, because a situation such as this one was envisaged with what turned out to be great prescience. It is the Islamist-controlled judiciary which has been attempting to sabotage the smooth transition toward democracy by throwing a myriad obstacles in the way of the general administration and reform of Pakistan.
Do you really think that the Islamists would have stood by and allowed free and fair elections to take place anyway? They just murdered one of the three main political figures in Pakistan, a woman called Benazir Bhutto. Maybe you read something about it?
Sorry to be so sarcastic. But I just can't follow the logic of those who suggest that suppressing the activities of those who hate democracy is harmful to democracy.
This one is quite funny but there wasn't a thread open which related directly to it. The theme is an Iranian demo demanding access to nuclear weapons and one of the zombies has a banner in Farsi script to that effect. Peoplescube photoshopped it to read Iran loves Jews. The Iranian authorities then assumed that it was genuine so......
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1657&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=43b5258a03ebd26fc604dc1d05338ca8