DUCKPOND

The Pakistan parliamentary election held under the cloud caused by the allegations of vote rigging may nevertheless have become a turning point. The result has been interpreted as a rejection of dictator Musharraf. Now, the BBC reports, that the two major parties have decided to form a “grand coalition” with the intention to reinstate the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Supreme Court, sacked and imprisoned by Musharraf.

The graph, via the BBC, shows the distribution of the new parliament by party:

The Pakistan Peoples Party will be asking the UN for help in investigating the murder of Benzir Bhutto.

It seems unlikely that Musharraf will resign any time soon, although the reinstatement of the Supreme Court and the Constitution is a direct threat to this continuation as president, and should that happen democracy will have toppled the dictator. The Senate is still dominated by Musharraf supporters.

The New York Times reports:

As the behind-the-scenes negotiations proceeded between Mr. Sharif and Mr. Zardari in the last two days, political circles here were awash with talk that Washington was interfering, trying to micromanage a process in which the Bush administration has much at stake.
The impression that the United States was meddling in what many here complain is none of its business was fortified Wednesday when Mr. Zardari was summoned to the American Embassy for a meeting with the ambassador, Anne W. Patterson.

Afterward, Mr. Zardari was portrayed as a creature of the Americans who wanted him to work with Mr. Musharraf, a negative perception for a politician in a country where recent polls show the United States has a favorable rating of just 16 percent.

Whereas Deutsche Wella, as well as mentioning the support for stability from Pakistan’s neighbours, India, Bangladesh and China, reports:

Germany appealed to the winners in Pakistan’s general election to form a government as quickly as possible. The EU hailed the election results as a victory for democracy.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Wednesday, Feb. 20, that a new government was needed to stabilize the country after Monday’s poll set a new step on the way to strengthening democracy in Pakistan.

 

The foreign minister said in a statement that an important step on the road to stability was “the rapid release” of lawyers and judges detained and placed under house arrest during the state of emergency imposed by President Pervez Musharraf.

 

“It is the responsibility of the future government to establish public trust by conducting a systematic process of democracy and halting the advance of extremists,” the statement said.

The involvement of European nations in Afghanistan gives them greater reason to be concerned about developments in Pakistan. The close interest of India and Bangladesh is clear, but that of China, although obviously a neighbour, is relevant to this changed situation where the US remains the major mover and shaker other powers are also actors.

Support for dictators may represent stability in the short term, but at the cost of repression and suffering for the subject people. American policy would be wiser if it was informed by leadership rather than unilateralism, and primary concern with human values rather than economic leverage and advantage. A fundamental driver, with multiple ramifications, it seems to me, that lies behind support for Israel and the occupation of Iraq is the competition for control over oil.

ELSEWHERE: 22 February 2008

John Quiggin discusses the pros and cons of supporting dictatorships. Sometimes it is necessary to enter into alliances with dictators, for example Stalin during the Second World War. Dictatorships can sometimes be better than the alternatives, such as chaos.

“Regarding moral judgments”, John Quiggin says:

. . . I’m pretty much an absolutist. Dictators may do some good, but on average less good than democracy, with all its faults. Unless there’s a strong reason to believe otherwise, I’m going to put better-than-average performances under dictatorship down to luck rather than dictatorial merit. And while it’s tempting to give a pass to a dictator who is willing to impose some policy program that seems good to you, but not to the inhabitants of the country concerned, none of us has the kind of infallibility required to justify this.

There is more to be said about the inherent merit and benefit of democracy, which may need to be qualified as liberal democracy. Democracies perform better than dictatorships because of, I infer, accountability and a sense of the public good, including such concepts as the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Manam Ahmed has a few quick thoughts on the election at Informed Comment: Global Affairs. In summary: it was a loss for Musharraf, the PPP is the only national party, and the Islamist parties were not supported.

ELSEWHERE: 23 February 2008.

Juan Cole identifies last Thursday as the day in which the world changed in three significant ways, including the results of the elections in Pakistan. The danger in the situation, he observes, is that the demands for Musharraf to resign may herald another political intervention by the Army.