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 edpage@theeagleonline.com.
