Pakistani Democracy

The western world has a large stake in Pakistan and, subsequently, is paying great interest to what's going on in that country. For example, it has now become public knowledge that the primary reason General Musharraf decided to back down from imposing stronger restrictions on the country's media was because the United States pushed him to back down.

Given the recent events in Iraq and Palestine, the United States (and its allies) have come to realize that their definition of democracy is not easily transferable. Combined with the general's value in the war on terror, it is not surprising that the United States fears "that democracy could be a recipe for instability. " As the story in this weekend's New York Times notes, this attitude has left Pakistan's democracy activists surprised.

Students of history would not have been surprised by the U.S. reaction. The United States, like any other superpower, is interested in protecting its interests and, seeing who was elected in Palestine and fearing who might be elected in Pakistan, the U.S. has decided to publicly express support for the general. Of course, there has been dissension: "some members of Congress ... have called for a review of American policy toward Pakistan ... say[ing] that American aid should be conditioned on improved performance in the war on terror and an increase in Pakistan’s spending on development and education."

Note that this not mention Pakistani democracy nor that the general should turn in his uniform. Given the major threats sprouting against the United States around the world, it seems the U.S. has decided to back an ally, regardless of his record.

There is a problem though. The U.S. has followed similar policies in the past and they have not turned out so well, indeed the rise of Al-Qaeda in one sense could be attributed to the U.S.' support for the undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. So, the question needs to be asked: are we making the same mistake again?