The Situation in Pakistan: What Now?

Pakistan is a nuclear nation of 164 million people. It shares borders with India, Afghanistan and Iran, making a stable Pakistan key to U.S. interests in the South Asia.

President Pervez Musharraf announced he would lift the state of emergency on Dec. 16. On Wednesday, he took off the uniform, relinquishing his position as the head of the army. He had been a part of the military for 46 years.

On Thursday, November 29, he was sworn in as president.

“No destabilization or hurdle will be allowed in this democratic process,” he said on state television and radio, reported by the New York Times. “Elections, God willing, will be held on Jan. 8 according to the Constitution and no one should create any hurdles.”

Musharraf's political moves have left some experts unconvinced.

“If you don't have an effective leadership, it doesn't matter if he's wearing a uniform or not,” said Professor Derrick Frazier, a political scientist specializing in third-party international action at Illinois.

“He's a military man,” he said. “He'll have his tentacles still firmly attached (to the military).”

The U.S. has had a Musharraf centered policy over the last five years, said Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Policy has shift over the past six to eight months, with the return of Benazir Bhutto, a liberal, pro-Western twice prime minister; and Nawaz Sharif, conservative, nativist twice prime minister; the former CIA analyst said.

These political developments have distracted Musharraf, she said. The handing of the bamboo rod (a symbol of military leadership) to General Ashfaq Kiyani should allow the civic and military spheres to focus on their respective goals. The military will be able to focus its attention in the tribal areas in northwest Pakistan, where many Taliban and Taliban-related groups inhabit, Curtis said.

Pakistan is divided outside of its major cities, Derrick Frazier said. Rural areas have a conservative, Sharif-sympathetic population. Appearance of American interaction – in the democratic process or in military action – will swing sympathy rightward, he said.

American operations in those outlying provinces would be problematic for pro-Western candidates, Frazier said.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda are entrenched and may have sympathy in areas like the Swat Valley, Curtis said. Cooperation between Pakistani and U.S. forces will be necessary.

“This is not something the Pakistanis want to advertise,” she said. Political blowback sometimes comes with counter-terrorism successes in Pakistan, she said.

“We have to assume that our military and political strategists are looking at how we can get at this terrorist safe haven. It's the number one counter-terrorism problem today,” Curtis said. “Pakistani forces have not had success on their own.”

Pakistan's recent history is complicated.

“The big change was going from elected government to army rule in 1999,” said Rajmohan Gandhi, a South Asia expert at Illinois. “Not that the democratic rule was good – it was corrupt.”

Musharraf, then army chief, deposed Nawaz Sharif. Sharif went into exile in Saudi Arabia and Britain. He has since returned to challenge Musharraf's rule, declaring that he will boycott elections.

Corruption festered in both cases, Gandhi said. Politicians enabled close relatives to make vast sums of money by giving land or certain licenses.

By 2003, military rule had lost its impulse. The economy improved and the media blossomed, but the government wasn't acting by the will of the people, one of the key causes of the current discord, Gandhi said.

When the politicians failed, the public favored the army in 1999. The army has now failed to serve the people, and Pakistanis are looking for civic leadership.

“In the end, everyone wants a say,” he said. “The voter wants a say in running the show, but the military was not able to make a transition. It was a failure of military rule, to not give back the government to the people.”

And with the change in leadership, be it in Bhutto, Sharif, or a de-uniformed Musharraf, U.S. interests are at play.

The Americans have not taught the Pakistanis smart responses to terrorism, he said. The bombing strategy may kill terrorists, but it certainly kills many non-terrorists. When people lose family members to their own government's bombing campaign, they are shocked, driving up terrorist sympathy.

Afghanis say the Taliban take shelter in Pakistan and Musharraf has seemed unable to do much about it, Gandhi said. America thinks Musharraf has not delivered, he added.

Bhutto has seized on the issue. She said she will be better at coping with terrorists than Musharraf. America bought the line, Gandhi said. U.S. diplomacy has triangulated, emphasizing Bhutto's possible role as a liberal leader.

“There was a rising democratic movement to want that change,” Gandhi said. “It is easy for America to be seen as responding to that wish. America can earn some plaudit for some effort to bring democracy back,” he said.

America has encouraged joint rule, with diminishing prospects. America should focus on the Pakistani people, not manipulating leaders, Gandhi said.

Musharraf has stated plans to move to democratic rule. He said he wants Pakistani democracy, not that in the form of Western diplomats, as reported by the Washington Post. This may be a prudent decision, Derrick Frazier said.

In the long run, democracies are most stable form of government, he said, but in the transitional phase, they are very vulnerable.

Frazier compared Pakistan with the case study of Russia, where democratic changes happened incrementally. Pakistani democracy may not be what America would want for itself, but it might be all that can be expected, he added.

U.S. interests will be served should open democracy take root, Gandhi said.
“It won't happen overnight, it won't be magical – Osama Bin Laden won't be immediately handed over to the U.S. with a democratically elected government – but prospects will improve.”