Pursuing a perfect label for Pakistan’s political environment is an infuriating and futile ordeal. The nation’s political atmosphere is a toxic field of upheaval and uncertainty. These characteristics, taken alone, can be troubling signs for those seeking democracy. The repeated offenses of state emergencies, media censorship and jailing of political opponents run counter to democratic systems. Hope for a complete transition to democratic rule is muddled since there is no clear political force or ideology that could unify the country. Loyalties fall on mainly ethnic and religious lines. Shared social order and national interest become lesser priorities.
A more realistic and attainable route for Pakistan’s political system is not the purifying process of democratization but the liberalization of its authoritarian establishment. Liberalization occurs when an authoritarian regime loosens media restrictions, holds elections for offices with little influence and increases personal freedoms to political dissidents. These steps give the look of democratic progress without guaranteeing the electoral turnover of top autocrats and decision makers. Pakistan seems destined to go no further than the liberalization of their autocratic rule, since top officials are so allergic to democratic change and empowerment.
The severe conditions that plague the poor underclass are a monumental roadblock in Pakistan’s road to democracy. The wealthy upper class, consisting of prominent party leaders, Islamic clergy, businessmen and landowners has a desire to maintain the status quo. Pakistan’s military establishment cannot afford a rural economic boom that would challenge their rule.
Many statistical figures illustrate Pakistan’s remaining struggles with third world issues. With a population of about 164 million people, Pakistan has a median age of 21 and an astounding 40 percent of it people are 14-years-old or younger. Urban centers such as Islamabad and Karachi have benefited the most from new relations with global trading powers, as poverty rates have seen some improvement since 2001. Unfortunately, any progress in the economic sector towards private development has not yet reached the remote outer provinces where many of Pakistan’s security problems have originated.
Rejected by the federal government and alienated by political elites, the rural masses in Pakistan have fueled the rise of tribal warlords, radical Islamists and Al-Qaeda insurgents in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas that border Afghanistan. The problem is rooted in the fact that terrorism and other political violence is largely a result of the extreme poverty in much of the Islamic Middle East and Central Asia. Instead of taking concrete steps to open the lines of economic progress for social advancement and mobility, Pakistan has elected to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgency in a drawn-out bloodbath. This choice may highlight Pakistan’s logic that it must continue to show a strong and forceful push against extremism to prove to the United States that he is loyal in the fight against terrorism.
Pakistan now stands at an uncharted point on the road to democratization. One cannot conclude that Islam, in of itself, is incompatible with democracy when millions of Muslims actively participate in relative democratic regimes such as India, Kuwait and Turkey. As President Obama considers Afghanistan, you can be sure he will ponder Pakistan’s place in the policy equation.
Michael Stubel is a junior in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Communication and a moderate libertarian columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
6 Comments
The AU Free Market Society
Oct 5 at 1:18 AM
The author rightly identifies a handful of problems facing Pakistan currently, but I feel he has missed the largest component of creating a free society: trade.
While Mr. Stubel briefly mentions several times the notion of economic growth and development being critical, this is not the focus of his argument. I believe that he mistakenly focuses on “political liberalization” when the real emphasis should be on “economic liberalization.” The two are related, but not the same.
As dozens of nations have shown, democracy is not a sufficient condition for freedom. Even functioning democracies plagued by relatively few political problems (corruption, impotence, etc) are mired in poverty and show no signs of change. How can we recommend political liberalization as a cure-all for Pakistan, when it has yet to work elsewhere?
Mr. Stuebel does well to mention the actual solution, markets, but does so too briefly. History shows us quite clearly that capitalism is an absolutely necessary condition of freedom.
If our goal is for Pakistanis to enjoy the same freedoms we now take comfort in, we should do all within our power to extend the benefits of capitalism to them.
Trade makes everyone involved better off, especially the poor. The poor of Pakistan now are trapped in a system where they have no formal ownership of their property. Change this, allow the people to act in a market economy, and all the political change we deem good will follow.
Urging political reform before economic reform will only fill our newspapers with more stories of fixed elections and grinding poverty. Pakistan and the whole world are enriched by the free market.
Alex Knepper
Oct 5 at 3:26 AM
...Yeah, Pakistan’s real problem right now is the lack of free trade! What were we thinking, targeting civil unrest and Islamic terrorism?
Andrew D.
Oct 5 at 7:29 PM
What the author simultaneously ignores is the fact that there is no statistical correlation between economic disparities and the instance of terrorism (See Alan Kreuger: “What Makes a Terrorist”) and that democratization and liberalization processes often make political situations far more unstable than they were pre-democratization (See Sebastian Rosato: “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory”). While there may be a long-term benefit to democracy in Pakistan (and even this is debatable, especially within a context of increasing domestic or regional security), that is only true so long as Pakistan and the US have shared interests. Given US’s interest in India as a check on China’s military capabilities and a historical distrust of the US in Pakistani domestic politics, harmony of interests between the US and Pakistan is unlikely. US interests in the region lie in increased stability within Pakistan and the denial of a Taliban safe haven. Liberalization achieves neither of these goals. While perhaps ideal from their point of view in the long term, and certainly a laudable goal, the US has no vital interest in Pakistani democracy and should leave the system to play itself out.
Alex Knepper
Oct 5 at 7:52 PM
A hardcore belief in traditional Islam makes a terrorist. Period.
Thankfully, few people on Earth are actual hardcore believers in their religion, Islamic, Christian or otherwise.
Bobbo
Oct 5 at 8:43 PM
Mr. Knepper. You are wrong. I don’t even have to explain myself. Sit down in a nice comfortable chair and use that brain of yours for a solid hour.
Don't only lib'ruls hate religion?
Oct 7 at 8:41 PM
And a hardcore belief in Alex Knepper makes an idiot.
Thankfully, few people at AU care for anything Mr. Knepper has to say, online or otherwise.
Post a comment
Comments are reviewed: inappropriate, off-topic or offensive content may be deleted.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.