I’ll be honest, this was often a dense read. The book was written in a classical nineteenth century Russian style prose, which made it, at times, a difficult slog to get through. Regardless, I did enjoy reading this book—although it took me several months to complete, as I read other things alongside it and I could never exclusively focus on this book—and I thought it had some interesting ideas and social commentaries. All in all, it was good story to read, albeit one that I had to patiently sift through to find the many gems it contained.
So basically the story is about the Karmazov family and their various escapades. In particular, the story is focused on the murder of the patriarch of the family, Fyodor Karmazov. Karmazov has four children—three legitimate, and one illegitimate, sons—that each represent a different ideological focus. Dimitri was the pleasure-seeking rabble-rouser who often over-indulged in the sweeter things of life, but always maintained a strict code of honor. Alyosha was the religious son, who was loved by all and was naïve as a baby and as patient as a turtle. Ivan was the atheistic intellectual, who had discovered the world of ideas, only to leave himself in perpetual doubt of anything, and his self-professed nihilism masked his innate desire for a simpler black-and-white life-style. Smerdyakov was the illegitimate son, spurned as an outsider and became a household servant; his outsider status allowed him to become wily. Smerdyakov was clever and studied similar things to Ivan, but lacked moral scruples because of his feeling of innate dejection from birth. These characters intermingled in a lively series of events tied to the murder mystery of Fyodor Karmazov and the allegation of parricide against Dimitri.
The one section of this book that I found particularly intriguing was the section on the Grand Inquisitor. This section is often listed as one of the most famous short stories in all of literature and, naturally, for good reason. The story was voiced through Ivan and told to the apprehensive and innocent Aloysha. The subject was the notion of God, good versus evil, and stability versus chaos. The story was set during the time of the Spanish Inquisition and was basically a dialogue between Jesus and the Grand Inquisitor, with the latter being the only one who really spoke. Jesus had come back to save the world so as to speak, but as soon as he began performing miracles, he upset the established order. The Catholic Church could not allow for people to defiantly believe in this Messiah, because they had already created their own Messiah, and the Church had become supreme authority over the land since they vicariously ruled in place of the messiah. For the real messiah to come and usurp the Churches established authority—although Jesus would not have wanted to do that—was both blasphemous and rebellious. So Jesus had to be imprisoned, to maintain order and the illusion of God, rather than see the bleakness in reality and understand the full meaning and responsibility entailed in human freedom. The Grand Inquisitor argued against allowing humans total freedom because what they really needed was just bread. The Grand Inquisitor was a hardcore Hobbesian and after his long diatribe against Jesus—in which he blamed him for believing that humans could have freedom and happiness if given the opportunity—he says that it easier for a select few to guide the ignorant masses and provide for their happiness and eternal salvation. It is the burden of the elite, the chosen few who have to carry the real cross, to guide the ignorant masses through their brutish life. The fact that the Grand Inquisitor was an atheist and knew this world was all that there ever will be caused him to lash out against Jesus and argue against the notion of freedom and religion in favor of bread and stability. And, of course, if there is no God, reasons Ivan, then “everything is lawful.” This entire section is a great discourse on the relationship between man and God and definitely worth reading, even if this only section of the book you read.
All in all, I found the book worth reading, though I would only recommend it to those who have the luxury of time in indulge in a classic piece of literature. I was highly recommended this book in eleventh grade by my Philosophy teacher, Mr. Lukacs, and I told him I would eventually get around to reading it. Six years and many experiences later, I see why he had recommended it to me and am thankfully that he did.
-Nausherwan Hafeez, 4-30-09
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Freedom of Speech
I’ll admit, I was a reluctant convert to the notion of complete freedom of speech. I had always believed that some things people said were so vile, so beyond the pale of respectability, that there had to be some boundaries or limitations to the concept of freedom of speech. In fact, once upon a time I did argue that some things were so extreme that they had to be censored. Over time, however, I have come to appreciate what complete freedom of speech entails and what the responsible exercise of this right means for a society.
The reason why freedom of speech is so important is that it directly leads to the broader, and I do believe more fundamentally important, concept of freedom of thought. What this means is that no higher authority indoctrinates those below with uniform notions and ideas; instead, people are free to choose from the marketplace of ideas and develop whatever belief they want based on the strength of evidence. Rational people can (theoretically) listen to the various opinions on some issue and walk away with a new viewpoint. A society grows and flourishes when people can think independently and critically about different viewpoints.
This, in a nutshell, is why freedom of speech is so important. This uniquely Western concept forged during the Enlightenment strengthened the diversity of thought and belief in the Western world. The concept of critical self-reflection became a hallmark of all liberal Western democracies. Freedom of speech has been used by the press to check government abuses. Locke’s Social Contract would have no defender without the freedom of speech. It is the muckraking journalists that expose abuses of power, the ivory-tower academics that document these abuses, and the politicians who have to deal with the fall out of these exposés. Without journalists exposing the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the world would never have know what it means to have America “justice” meted out to (largely innocent) Iraqis. Thus, freedom of speech is inextricably tied to regulating and exposing those in power, but also it allows people to formulate any independent ideas they so desire.
However, even within the domain of Western freedom of speech, sometimes there are ideas that are so offensive that they have become illegal. For example, across much of Europe holocaust denial is a criminal offence fully prosecutable under the law. In fact the historian David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for thirteen months for committing this offence. It was based on this concept that some ideas are so extreme that they must be outlawed, and I vehemently argued against (for more info see my post entitled "Cartoon Controversy") the publication of the cartoons initially published by Danish newspapers that not only depicted the alleged image of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) (In Islam this is blasphemous), but also portrayed him as a terrorist.
This is where the idea of responsible usage of the freedom of speech comes into play. I think that people should themselves realize the consequences of using this freedom and perhaps sometimes delicately discuss sensitive issues. With that being said and while I believe that it was utterly wrong for those images to be published, I now believe that it was within those people’s rights to publish that material. As morally repugnant as I believe those cartoons were, it becomes a very tricky issue to regulate what can and can’t be said. How far will we be willing to clamp down on freedom of speech to protect people’s sensibilities? Either everything can be said, or else too many limitations will be placed on the freedom of speech and, by extension, freedom of thought. This is unacceptable for a society that wants a vibrant debate of ideas and diversity of opinions.
More often than not, however, many Western nations practice self-censorship to provide either ideological cover for a particular agenda, or to prevent incensing some sub-group of people’s sensibilities. In terms of self-censorship, the way the mainstream corporate media portrayed the destruction of Gaza by the Israelis is an excellent example of how self-censorship works; the brutalization of a helpless people becomes not only justified—because of course Israel is, and always will be, the victim—but the right thing to do, since Israel is a frontline state in the War on Islam (often referred to as the War on Terror, but these two monikers could be interchangeable). This portrayal reinforces the ideological belief of the US government that Israel must be defended and supported, no matter the cost or reality of a situation. The fact that this reinforces established authority rather than questions its actions is a failure in the fight for freedom of speech.
The other type of self-censorship is how to deal with a sensitive issue for a particular sub-group in society. The example of the cartoon controversy can be revisited here. The publishing of these cartoons became a rallying tool used across the Middle East to protest Western ideological imperialism. The consequence of the publications of these cartoons (even though they were published months before) was riots in cities across the Middle East, the burning of embassies, and the deaths of dozens of people. In the West, it provided for an example of how sacrosanct the notion of freedom of speech is, no matter the cost. In the East, it provided the masses a distraction to focus on the external enemy (i.e. the brutal, tyrannical, imperialist West) and deflected focus on the terrible governments that rule over these people.
One important distinction to be made, however, is that I have purposely portrayed the Western concept of freedom of speech as more monolithic than it actually is; the reason I’ve done this is for simplicity sake and that for almost all of the major issues, Western freedom of speech is essentially uniform (i.e. anything can be said as long as isn’t a direct threat to a countries sovereignty—like saying, “I’m planning a revolution in so-and-so country, and this is how I’m going to do it.”) amongst liberal Western democracies. However, I must note that the US notion of freedom of speech is still, by far, the most liberal and complete of any Western democracy. There is very little that you can’t say in America. That being said, you should still watch what you say, since your words and ideas will have direct consequences for you, but that is of course patently obvious.
The concept of freedom of speech has still not penetrated Oriental cultures yet. I don’t want to sound like an Orientalist here (I swear Edward Said, I won’t sell out) but there are some generalizations that can be made of the Oriental mindset. One is that Oriental cultures tend to have more deference for authority, are less willing to forcefully speak out, and are circumspect, rather than direct, in their criticisms. While I do believe in cultural relativism as the only realistic way to deal with cultural differences, I feel like the inability of these peoples to freely speak their minds has prevented them from freely thinking. I mean think about it, Google could NEVER have been created in the intellectually stifling and painfully uniform culture of say China.
This independent thinking, the ability to innovate, has been something that Orientalists have criticized the Orient for. Orientalists argue that this inability to innovate prevented the Orient from evolving and challenging archaic, and possibly wrong, norms and values. For example, the Orientalist Bernard Lewis’ central thesis in What Went Wrong? was that Islamic civilization failed because they lacked the capability to create new ideas. Instead the Dar al-Islam was left to wither away and cheaply imitate Western development, but without absorbing the intrinsic meat of the ideas that allowed for the development of the West. I do believe this argument holds some merit, even though the source is obviously suspect.
The list of failures in Orient because of a lack of freedom of speech is long and damning. To use China as an example, Chinese repression of Tibet and East Turkestan (i.e. the Xingxiang province) is not well documented at all. There is only a small drip of news that reaches the West of the brutal repression of Buddhist monks and the destruction of Muslim villages and mosques. Juxtapose Chinese treatment of Uigher Muslims that they capture (those captured in revolt against China are usually never seen again) and the amount of press coverage the American gulag known as Guantánamo Bay has gotten. Yes Gitmo is a deep stain on America’s reputation and is an ongoing tragedy; but at least we are able to document the abuses that have occurred and perhaps one day fix—in however inadequate of a way—some of the mistakes we have made. Then, hopefully America won’t repeat this travesty. But look at China. It disappears people regularly but doesn’t suffer from media agitation against its brutal policies. Hence it never receives moral opprobrium or pressure to change its unjust actions. It, therefore, never has to learn a lesson and can continue to oppress those that deviate from the mandates of the state. I believe that this is not only wrong but that this will hinder China ideologically in the future, thus preventing it from becoming a benevolent world power. Instead, China is on a path of Soviet-like preeminence in the world, except that it has the economic capacity to maintain its (rapidly growing) informal empire and status in the globe while the Soviets didn’t.
Another Eastern example that has relevance to my current situation is Malaysia. People here are programmed to believe certain concepts from an early age and any deviance from those beliefs is seen as heretical. To be heretical in a collectivist society is to be cast out into the wilderness, without protection, and constantly being in fear of slipping up badly so that the vicious wolves can pounce. So to question inane government actions lands bloggers here in jail. To be opposed to the government line, you may be tarnished with sodomy charges. To hold a protest of more than five people, a permit is required (something like 99.9% of these requests are denied). Malaysia—and basically the rest of the developing world—needs to accept and tolerate different opinions other than the normative ones; if these societies do adopt this liberalism, they will flourish and succeed. If they don’t, they will remain intellectually castrated and unable to evolve to a higher degree of civilization.
So pick up the White Man’s Burden and proselytize the righteousness of freedom of speech. Okay so that’s perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek. But still, I believe that it is critical for Eastern societies to develop a healthy tolerance for the notion of freedom of speech. This will greatly benefit their societies and allow for innovative thinkers to create new technologies and improve on the stagnant status quo. Free thought allows for the gestation of new ideas. Ideas do matter and hold extreme relevance in an idea-driven world. Marx’s concept of communism—although bastardized by the Soviet Union—affected hundreds of millions of people worldwide; so too, a new idea, a new innovation, could revolutionize human society. Freedom of speech is a necessity that could allow for this. This provides for the flowering of the world of ideas and checks governmental abuses of power. To quote the famous American founding father Patrick Henry, “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death.”
The reason why freedom of speech is so important is that it directly leads to the broader, and I do believe more fundamentally important, concept of freedom of thought. What this means is that no higher authority indoctrinates those below with uniform notions and ideas; instead, people are free to choose from the marketplace of ideas and develop whatever belief they want based on the strength of evidence. Rational people can (theoretically) listen to the various opinions on some issue and walk away with a new viewpoint. A society grows and flourishes when people can think independently and critically about different viewpoints.
This, in a nutshell, is why freedom of speech is so important. This uniquely Western concept forged during the Enlightenment strengthened the diversity of thought and belief in the Western world. The concept of critical self-reflection became a hallmark of all liberal Western democracies. Freedom of speech has been used by the press to check government abuses. Locke’s Social Contract would have no defender without the freedom of speech. It is the muckraking journalists that expose abuses of power, the ivory-tower academics that document these abuses, and the politicians who have to deal with the fall out of these exposés. Without journalists exposing the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the world would never have know what it means to have America “justice” meted out to (largely innocent) Iraqis. Thus, freedom of speech is inextricably tied to regulating and exposing those in power, but also it allows people to formulate any independent ideas they so desire.
However, even within the domain of Western freedom of speech, sometimes there are ideas that are so offensive that they have become illegal. For example, across much of Europe holocaust denial is a criminal offence fully prosecutable under the law. In fact the historian David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for thirteen months for committing this offence. It was based on this concept that some ideas are so extreme that they must be outlawed, and I vehemently argued against (for more info see my post entitled "Cartoon Controversy") the publication of the cartoons initially published by Danish newspapers that not only depicted the alleged image of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) (In Islam this is blasphemous), but also portrayed him as a terrorist.
This is where the idea of responsible usage of the freedom of speech comes into play. I think that people should themselves realize the consequences of using this freedom and perhaps sometimes delicately discuss sensitive issues. With that being said and while I believe that it was utterly wrong for those images to be published, I now believe that it was within those people’s rights to publish that material. As morally repugnant as I believe those cartoons were, it becomes a very tricky issue to regulate what can and can’t be said. How far will we be willing to clamp down on freedom of speech to protect people’s sensibilities? Either everything can be said, or else too many limitations will be placed on the freedom of speech and, by extension, freedom of thought. This is unacceptable for a society that wants a vibrant debate of ideas and diversity of opinions.
More often than not, however, many Western nations practice self-censorship to provide either ideological cover for a particular agenda, or to prevent incensing some sub-group of people’s sensibilities. In terms of self-censorship, the way the mainstream corporate media portrayed the destruction of Gaza by the Israelis is an excellent example of how self-censorship works; the brutalization of a helpless people becomes not only justified—because of course Israel is, and always will be, the victim—but the right thing to do, since Israel is a frontline state in the War on Islam (often referred to as the War on Terror, but these two monikers could be interchangeable). This portrayal reinforces the ideological belief of the US government that Israel must be defended and supported, no matter the cost or reality of a situation. The fact that this reinforces established authority rather than questions its actions is a failure in the fight for freedom of speech.
The other type of self-censorship is how to deal with a sensitive issue for a particular sub-group in society. The example of the cartoon controversy can be revisited here. The publishing of these cartoons became a rallying tool used across the Middle East to protest Western ideological imperialism. The consequence of the publications of these cartoons (even though they were published months before) was riots in cities across the Middle East, the burning of embassies, and the deaths of dozens of people. In the West, it provided for an example of how sacrosanct the notion of freedom of speech is, no matter the cost. In the East, it provided the masses a distraction to focus on the external enemy (i.e. the brutal, tyrannical, imperialist West) and deflected focus on the terrible governments that rule over these people.
One important distinction to be made, however, is that I have purposely portrayed the Western concept of freedom of speech as more monolithic than it actually is; the reason I’ve done this is for simplicity sake and that for almost all of the major issues, Western freedom of speech is essentially uniform (i.e. anything can be said as long as isn’t a direct threat to a countries sovereignty—like saying, “I’m planning a revolution in so-and-so country, and this is how I’m going to do it.”) amongst liberal Western democracies. However, I must note that the US notion of freedom of speech is still, by far, the most liberal and complete of any Western democracy. There is very little that you can’t say in America. That being said, you should still watch what you say, since your words and ideas will have direct consequences for you, but that is of course patently obvious.
The concept of freedom of speech has still not penetrated Oriental cultures yet. I don’t want to sound like an Orientalist here (I swear Edward Said, I won’t sell out) but there are some generalizations that can be made of the Oriental mindset. One is that Oriental cultures tend to have more deference for authority, are less willing to forcefully speak out, and are circumspect, rather than direct, in their criticisms. While I do believe in cultural relativism as the only realistic way to deal with cultural differences, I feel like the inability of these peoples to freely speak their minds has prevented them from freely thinking. I mean think about it, Google could NEVER have been created in the intellectually stifling and painfully uniform culture of say China.
This independent thinking, the ability to innovate, has been something that Orientalists have criticized the Orient for. Orientalists argue that this inability to innovate prevented the Orient from evolving and challenging archaic, and possibly wrong, norms and values. For example, the Orientalist Bernard Lewis’ central thesis in What Went Wrong? was that Islamic civilization failed because they lacked the capability to create new ideas. Instead the Dar al-Islam was left to wither away and cheaply imitate Western development, but without absorbing the intrinsic meat of the ideas that allowed for the development of the West. I do believe this argument holds some merit, even though the source is obviously suspect.
The list of failures in Orient because of a lack of freedom of speech is long and damning. To use China as an example, Chinese repression of Tibet and East Turkestan (i.e. the Xingxiang province) is not well documented at all. There is only a small drip of news that reaches the West of the brutal repression of Buddhist monks and the destruction of Muslim villages and mosques. Juxtapose Chinese treatment of Uigher Muslims that they capture (those captured in revolt against China are usually never seen again) and the amount of press coverage the American gulag known as Guantánamo Bay has gotten. Yes Gitmo is a deep stain on America’s reputation and is an ongoing tragedy; but at least we are able to document the abuses that have occurred and perhaps one day fix—in however inadequate of a way—some of the mistakes we have made. Then, hopefully America won’t repeat this travesty. But look at China. It disappears people regularly but doesn’t suffer from media agitation against its brutal policies. Hence it never receives moral opprobrium or pressure to change its unjust actions. It, therefore, never has to learn a lesson and can continue to oppress those that deviate from the mandates of the state. I believe that this is not only wrong but that this will hinder China ideologically in the future, thus preventing it from becoming a benevolent world power. Instead, China is on a path of Soviet-like preeminence in the world, except that it has the economic capacity to maintain its (rapidly growing) informal empire and status in the globe while the Soviets didn’t.
Another Eastern example that has relevance to my current situation is Malaysia. People here are programmed to believe certain concepts from an early age and any deviance from those beliefs is seen as heretical. To be heretical in a collectivist society is to be cast out into the wilderness, without protection, and constantly being in fear of slipping up badly so that the vicious wolves can pounce. So to question inane government actions lands bloggers here in jail. To be opposed to the government line, you may be tarnished with sodomy charges. To hold a protest of more than five people, a permit is required (something like 99.9% of these requests are denied). Malaysia—and basically the rest of the developing world—needs to accept and tolerate different opinions other than the normative ones; if these societies do adopt this liberalism, they will flourish and succeed. If they don’t, they will remain intellectually castrated and unable to evolve to a higher degree of civilization.
So pick up the White Man’s Burden and proselytize the righteousness of freedom of speech. Okay so that’s perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek. But still, I believe that it is critical for Eastern societies to develop a healthy tolerance for the notion of freedom of speech. This will greatly benefit their societies and allow for innovative thinkers to create new technologies and improve on the stagnant status quo. Free thought allows for the gestation of new ideas. Ideas do matter and hold extreme relevance in an idea-driven world. Marx’s concept of communism—although bastardized by the Soviet Union—affected hundreds of millions of people worldwide; so too, a new idea, a new innovation, could revolutionize human society. Freedom of speech is a necessity that could allow for this. This provides for the flowering of the world of ideas and checks governmental abuses of power. To quote the famous American founding father Patrick Henry, “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death.”
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Pakistan Problem
Pakistan was a nation that was founded based on the radical notion that religion could create a new nation that had never previously existed. Pakistan was the flowering of the dream of a truly pan-Islamic identity. The creation of the country based on religion, as opposed to nationalism, was a truly monumental moment for Muslims internationally. A hope or dream of a country where Islam was the unifying theme, not race, language, or tribe. Alas, this dream has failed.
Pakistan has failed for a myriad of reasons. The country is hindered by extreme poverty, underdevelopment, and misallocation of resources. Add this to the already dominant problems of illiteracy, overpopulation, environmental degradation, internal insurgencies, external threats, terrible political leadership, a shattered economy, a growing domestic Taliban movement and a move towards a more puritanical interpretation of Islam in the public sphere, a selfish middle-class, a still feudal-esque class system and you have a country that is on the brink of disaster.
If one looks objectively at the Musharraf years versus Pakistan’s current situation, there is no doubt that times were better under Musharraf. That’s not to say I endorsed him or his many ridiculous actions—because I did not—but Pakistan was substantively better with him at the reigns than under Zardari. I mean it was under him that the Baluchistan separatist movement grew traction and was brutally suppressed, he took a heavy handed approach to domestic dissidents as was apparent with his sacking of the judiciary, there is the lingering issue of disappeared people from his cooperation with the US in the War on Terror, and a much longer list of failures. But the positives—like consistent economic growth of around 5%, minimal inflation, reducing economic debt, the construction of new highways and other infrastructure, preventing the US from too rapidly expanding the War on Terror into Pakistan—are all things that made Musharraf’s rule tolerable.
Pakistan has always faced cyclical waves of dictatorship followed by democracy. Civilian rule—outside of the first generation of leaders—has always been bad, if not severely unsettling in terms of the country’s best interests. The domestic Pakistani political system is corrupt to the core. The PPP is a feudal party where leadership is dynastic, not democratic. The PML-N ruled over the downward spiral of Pakistan in the late 1990s and Nawaz Sharif continues to unfortunately lead the party. Jamait-e-Islami is a reactionary political force. Imran Khan’s Justice Party has no real following and is still a bourgeois attempt to change the system from within. There is no decent political party that Pakistani’s can vote for; consequently, Pakistan will continue to be led off a cliff by terrible leadership.
On top of all of these problems, Pakistan is increasingly becoming the next theater in the never-ending War on Terror. Many people had hoped that President Obama would try to solve global problems through principled diplomacy; however, as his actions have proven thus far, he is committed to the use of force as a means of achieving peace. President Obama has tried to solve the issue of Pakistan through the use of force. President Bush tried to solve this issue through the ballot box. Bush failed; Obama will fail. President Obama’s actions build upon the failure of the Bush Administration policies and all of these factors taken together paint a bleak picture for Pakistan’s future.
Bush’s Failures
President Bush failed in his approach to dealing with Pakistan. He provided over $10 billion dollars of mostly military aid to Pakistan before having to deal with the ugly aftermath of political trouble that gripped Pakistan in 2008. The crisis in Pakistan during the end of last year exposed both the naivety and fallacy of Bush’s black and white worldview. Bush’s attempts to promote democracy abroad consistently failed and Pakistan was just another in a long-list of foreign policy blunders.
The central problem with Bush’s worldview was that he viewed the world in absolutes. Bush had been a stalwart proponent of exporting democracy; however, his focus had been on promoting procedural democracy where having a round of elections proves that a nation has become ‘democratic’. By promoting procedural over institutional democracy, Bush failed Pakistan and other countries in his grand plan to democratize the world.
In Pakistan, President Bush had pushed hard on former President Pervez Musharraf’s regime to hold free and fair elections. Musharraf, a military general turned statesman, had been forced to accept this Faustian deal last year after facing intense internal dissent over the sacking of judges (some have now been reinstated, including recently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry), heavy handed tactics in the tribal areas, disappearing people, attempts at privatization of state industries such as the Pakistan Steel Mills, and declaring a state of emergency. Bush’s default antidote for these ills was democracy.
The theory was that the Bush Administration would help engineer a new democratic government in Pakistan vis-à-vis a power-sharing agreement between the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf. After Bhutto was assassinated, her Pakistan Peoples Party was elected to rule the country along with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League. These two main parties and Musharraf reached a political impasse after several months of political haggling. Eventually Musharraf was run out of town and replaced by the kleptocrat Asif Ali Zardari, the infamously corrupt widower of Bhutto who is derisively known by the moniker Mr. 10%, to try and save Pakistan. However, comparatively speaking, looking at Musharraf’s reign and Zardari’s current position makes it seem that Bush bet (yet again) on the wrong horse.
Since Zardari has taken power, Pakistan has floundered and gone into a great deal of debt. Just to remain solvent, Pakistan has had to request billions of dollars of conditional loans from the IMF and World Bank. The Rupee is facing a strong inflationary trend, the economy is severely contracting, and Pakistan faces the risk of economic collapse. Add to this toxic mix a growing indigenous Taliban movement and constant clashes with Tribesmen in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Bush’s failure was that he didn’t understand how to deal with Pakistan. He tried to offer largesse to the Pakistani military for as long as it was politically possible and then he switched over to his tried and true method of supporting elections. Of course this is the same Bush who supported democratic elections in countries only to renege on supporting the results of those elections (The most obvious examples that come to mind are in Palestine and in Lebanon—Hamas was ostracized in the international community and Hezbollah was ignored.). The great irony in Bush’s actions is that his support for elections undermined his goals for Pakistan, just as it did in Palestine and Lebanon. His promotion of procedural democracy backfired and his solution for Pakistan failed.
Obama and the Way Forward
With Obama’s decision to expand unmanned aerial bombardment deeper into Pakistani territory, things can only get worse. By bombing Pakistan, Obama is making a huge mistake. Not only are his actions illegal according to international law they add to the violence in the region. By dropping bombs that kill mostly civilians, Obama is creating even greater animosity towards the US. If Obama—the supposed White Knight who is supposed to rescue America from being loathed internationally—continues and expands Bush era policies, America will permanently lose face in the eyes of millions of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Obama had the choice to withdraw peaceably from Iraq, gradually withdraw from Afghanistan, and deal with the Pakistan issue through the use of the carrot (i.e. giving development funds for education, for example, is a much more effective use of money than any bomb will ever be); however, he chose to continue the occupation in Iraq until at least the end of 2011, surge the war in Afghanistan, and escalate the War on Terror into Pakistan. Obama has chosen the path of perdition that will not only damn the countries that are on the receiving end of this occupation, but also consign America to lost prestige, power, resource, and efficacy in international affairs. These actions will not address Pakistan’s underlying problems and will fail just as Bush’s attempts at democracy promotion did.
The way forward out of yet another quagmire and possibly a fully failed state is through principled diplomacy and generous developmental funding. Pakistan desperately needs money for basic infrastructure like roads, schools, and hospitals. Pakistan does not need a further militarization of its society and that would be exactly what will happen if Obama continues to attack Pakistan. Pakistan needs stability to attract foreign investment and needs to deal with the crippling illiteracy and poverty that plague the nation. Pakistan received some level of respect in international relations when Musharraf was in power; he helped to improve Pakistan’s economy, built up $15billion dollars worth of cash reserves to insulate the economy (most of these funds have been wasted since he left office), he cooperated in the War on Terror, and did improve Pakistan’s standing in the world. Musharraf is now long gone and Obama has to deal with the kleptocrats that currently rule Pakistan. He needs to offer the carrot to a starving nation that is on the brink of collapse. If there is no radical change soon, Pakistan will fall further into the abyss and the dream of become the leading Islamic country in the world will never be achieved. But if Pakistan fails, the West will deserve some of the blame. Beware a country that has nothing left to lose and Obama must change his approach to Pakistan immediately or else…
Pakistan has failed for a myriad of reasons. The country is hindered by extreme poverty, underdevelopment, and misallocation of resources. Add this to the already dominant problems of illiteracy, overpopulation, environmental degradation, internal insurgencies, external threats, terrible political leadership, a shattered economy, a growing domestic Taliban movement and a move towards a more puritanical interpretation of Islam in the public sphere, a selfish middle-class, a still feudal-esque class system and you have a country that is on the brink of disaster.
If one looks objectively at the Musharraf years versus Pakistan’s current situation, there is no doubt that times were better under Musharraf. That’s not to say I endorsed him or his many ridiculous actions—because I did not—but Pakistan was substantively better with him at the reigns than under Zardari. I mean it was under him that the Baluchistan separatist movement grew traction and was brutally suppressed, he took a heavy handed approach to domestic dissidents as was apparent with his sacking of the judiciary, there is the lingering issue of disappeared people from his cooperation with the US in the War on Terror, and a much longer list of failures. But the positives—like consistent economic growth of around 5%, minimal inflation, reducing economic debt, the construction of new highways and other infrastructure, preventing the US from too rapidly expanding the War on Terror into Pakistan—are all things that made Musharraf’s rule tolerable.
Pakistan has always faced cyclical waves of dictatorship followed by democracy. Civilian rule—outside of the first generation of leaders—has always been bad, if not severely unsettling in terms of the country’s best interests. The domestic Pakistani political system is corrupt to the core. The PPP is a feudal party where leadership is dynastic, not democratic. The PML-N ruled over the downward spiral of Pakistan in the late 1990s and Nawaz Sharif continues to unfortunately lead the party. Jamait-e-Islami is a reactionary political force. Imran Khan’s Justice Party has no real following and is still a bourgeois attempt to change the system from within. There is no decent political party that Pakistani’s can vote for; consequently, Pakistan will continue to be led off a cliff by terrible leadership.
On top of all of these problems, Pakistan is increasingly becoming the next theater in the never-ending War on Terror. Many people had hoped that President Obama would try to solve global problems through principled diplomacy; however, as his actions have proven thus far, he is committed to the use of force as a means of achieving peace. President Obama has tried to solve the issue of Pakistan through the use of force. President Bush tried to solve this issue through the ballot box. Bush failed; Obama will fail. President Obama’s actions build upon the failure of the Bush Administration policies and all of these factors taken together paint a bleak picture for Pakistan’s future.
Bush’s Failures
President Bush failed in his approach to dealing with Pakistan. He provided over $10 billion dollars of mostly military aid to Pakistan before having to deal with the ugly aftermath of political trouble that gripped Pakistan in 2008. The crisis in Pakistan during the end of last year exposed both the naivety and fallacy of Bush’s black and white worldview. Bush’s attempts to promote democracy abroad consistently failed and Pakistan was just another in a long-list of foreign policy blunders.
The central problem with Bush’s worldview was that he viewed the world in absolutes. Bush had been a stalwart proponent of exporting democracy; however, his focus had been on promoting procedural democracy where having a round of elections proves that a nation has become ‘democratic’. By promoting procedural over institutional democracy, Bush failed Pakistan and other countries in his grand plan to democratize the world.
In Pakistan, President Bush had pushed hard on former President Pervez Musharraf’s regime to hold free and fair elections. Musharraf, a military general turned statesman, had been forced to accept this Faustian deal last year after facing intense internal dissent over the sacking of judges (some have now been reinstated, including recently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry), heavy handed tactics in the tribal areas, disappearing people, attempts at privatization of state industries such as the Pakistan Steel Mills, and declaring a state of emergency. Bush’s default antidote for these ills was democracy.
The theory was that the Bush Administration would help engineer a new democratic government in Pakistan vis-à-vis a power-sharing agreement between the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf. After Bhutto was assassinated, her Pakistan Peoples Party was elected to rule the country along with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League. These two main parties and Musharraf reached a political impasse after several months of political haggling. Eventually Musharraf was run out of town and replaced by the kleptocrat Asif Ali Zardari, the infamously corrupt widower of Bhutto who is derisively known by the moniker Mr. 10%, to try and save Pakistan. However, comparatively speaking, looking at Musharraf’s reign and Zardari’s current position makes it seem that Bush bet (yet again) on the wrong horse.
Since Zardari has taken power, Pakistan has floundered and gone into a great deal of debt. Just to remain solvent, Pakistan has had to request billions of dollars of conditional loans from the IMF and World Bank. The Rupee is facing a strong inflationary trend, the economy is severely contracting, and Pakistan faces the risk of economic collapse. Add to this toxic mix a growing indigenous Taliban movement and constant clashes with Tribesmen in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Bush’s failure was that he didn’t understand how to deal with Pakistan. He tried to offer largesse to the Pakistani military for as long as it was politically possible and then he switched over to his tried and true method of supporting elections. Of course this is the same Bush who supported democratic elections in countries only to renege on supporting the results of those elections (The most obvious examples that come to mind are in Palestine and in Lebanon—Hamas was ostracized in the international community and Hezbollah was ignored.). The great irony in Bush’s actions is that his support for elections undermined his goals for Pakistan, just as it did in Palestine and Lebanon. His promotion of procedural democracy backfired and his solution for Pakistan failed.
Obama and the Way Forward
With Obama’s decision to expand unmanned aerial bombardment deeper into Pakistani territory, things can only get worse. By bombing Pakistan, Obama is making a huge mistake. Not only are his actions illegal according to international law they add to the violence in the region. By dropping bombs that kill mostly civilians, Obama is creating even greater animosity towards the US. If Obama—the supposed White Knight who is supposed to rescue America from being loathed internationally—continues and expands Bush era policies, America will permanently lose face in the eyes of millions of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Obama had the choice to withdraw peaceably from Iraq, gradually withdraw from Afghanistan, and deal with the Pakistan issue through the use of the carrot (i.e. giving development funds for education, for example, is a much more effective use of money than any bomb will ever be); however, he chose to continue the occupation in Iraq until at least the end of 2011, surge the war in Afghanistan, and escalate the War on Terror into Pakistan. Obama has chosen the path of perdition that will not only damn the countries that are on the receiving end of this occupation, but also consign America to lost prestige, power, resource, and efficacy in international affairs. These actions will not address Pakistan’s underlying problems and will fail just as Bush’s attempts at democracy promotion did.
The way forward out of yet another quagmire and possibly a fully failed state is through principled diplomacy and generous developmental funding. Pakistan desperately needs money for basic infrastructure like roads, schools, and hospitals. Pakistan does not need a further militarization of its society and that would be exactly what will happen if Obama continues to attack Pakistan. Pakistan needs stability to attract foreign investment and needs to deal with the crippling illiteracy and poverty that plague the nation. Pakistan received some level of respect in international relations when Musharraf was in power; he helped to improve Pakistan’s economy, built up $15billion dollars worth of cash reserves to insulate the economy (most of these funds have been wasted since he left office), he cooperated in the War on Terror, and did improve Pakistan’s standing in the world. Musharraf is now long gone and Obama has to deal with the kleptocrats that currently rule Pakistan. He needs to offer the carrot to a starving nation that is on the brink of collapse. If there is no radical change soon, Pakistan will fall further into the abyss and the dream of become the leading Islamic country in the world will never be achieved. But if Pakistan fails, the West will deserve some of the blame. Beware a country that has nothing left to lose and Obama must change his approach to Pakistan immediately or else…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
