Sama Adnan,

In addition to the arguments of Shim Jae Hoon above, I would like to point out the nuances among your position, that of Fareed Zakaria who is convinced that the priority for Muslim countries is stabilty first, democracy afterwards (and even then that democracy should be home grown rather than imposed from outside), and that of a columnis of SaudiDebate.com that the Muslim Brothers have , over time, been too accommodating of the authoritarianism of Muslim country rulers (what according to Spengler of Asia Times on Line Lenin called -sultanism-).
The Muslim brothers have, over the years built a strong synergy of enlightened Muslim practice among its memebership and, in the process, tried to get power and practice the Muslim value of anti-monarchism and ijtehaad-inspired democracy. The majority of the populations of Muslim countries have sided with their rulers and opted for stabilty -- call it sultanism if you will -- while the memebers of the Muslim brotherhood have suffered. Today, when instabilty engineered by Western countries in order more easily consolidate their influence in a strategic area with immense energy resources, is frightening, the same West gives lip service to the Muslim brotherhood alternative. In such a case, would not instability be exacerbated and would that not better serve the interest of the Western predator?
Yes, we have a dilemma -- we either underwrite sultanism for a while until a critical mass ready to make the sacrfices necessary for home-grown democracy is built up, or risk succumbing to being re-colonised.
In the case of Pakistan I opt for Musharraf staying in power because he has opted for several enlightened reforms -- economic incentives and reforms, modernisation of education, pursuit of regional peace, a cautious but dignified alignment with the US and the West to contain militancy run amok, etc. -- whilst civilians who had exercised power in the past have blown it. And nothing indicates that they have become wiser.

To Sama Adnan,

Pakistan has had opportunities to elect its own leaders (civilians) and parliaments. Under the past civilian governments, it has also allowed a varying degrees of civil liberties including the freedom of press and assembly. But it's also a tradition-bound nation where honour-killing and gang-rapes of women still occur. Pakistan is not an absolute monarchy nor is it, like Egypt, an absolute dictatorship where the national leaders are replaced by assassin's bullet, not ballot box. Certainly, democracy is a good thing for the Middle East, but it is something that come only with the consent of majority of its people. East Asia has achieved a measure of democracy not by sloganeering but through modernisation (secularisation) achieved on the basis of economic development. It's what has happened in Japan and Korea. This may soon happen in China and Vietnam. They all know the cost of repression and hunger. But when your immediate choice is between bread or suicide bomber, there's no question you should go for bread. Modernisation and elimination of poverty are essential ingredients for promoting a democracy that allows free choice of government and open society.

Allowing for dictatorships under the guise of stability and the fear of extremism is immoral as well as short-sighted. Nothing has fed the Islamist movements in the Middle East, from Morocco and Egypt to Jordan and Pakistan, as much as the lack of political freedom and the preponderance of repressive dictatorships. The United States and Europe and, now it seems Asia as well, have always supported dictators and absolute monarchs in the Middle East and North Africa to stave off instability during the cold war, to ensure Israel's security, and to ensure the governements of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will do their bidding. In the short term this has failed miserably and in the long term it is only making the local populations even more hostile to the west irrespective of what their governments advocate. Democracy must come to the Middle East and it must not be hampered by skittish outsiders who do not understand that the cost of repressed, stagnant, closed, and impoverished societies full of impotent and frustrated citizens is much, much higher.

To Mohamed Malleck,

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments on problems facing Musharraf. To respond to your points:

1) Given the serious challenges facing Pakistan (being in the frontline of battle against Taliban, al Qaida and homegrown extremists), I don't know if being a civilian president will help secure the kind of stability he needs. The rise of home-grown extremism further complicates his efforts to establish the domestic peace. He needs to keep his hand firmly on the military establishment not only to keep extremists and potential coupmakers at bay but also to maintain a strong control over the country's nuclear arsenal.

2) At the same time, by skilfully alternating between the stick and carrot, President Musharraf must develop his own political constituency or base that will help keep him in power to push through the kind of reform you mention -- modern education, economic development, secularisation, especially the creation of a new enterpreneurial class who will provide jobs and serve as role model for those moderates who depend on him to deliver on his promise of better life with political stability. But he must achieve these goals with a minimal use of brute force and a maximal degree of political flexibility.

3) Issues of human rights, democracy and rule of law are important, but focusing on them at the expense of modernisation as the broad agenda of development runs the risk of prolonging the kind of army-civilian conflicts that have torn Pakistan since its founding. To make Musharraf the last coup maker, Pakistanis and their friends abroad must give him enough time and space to create the basis for a broader-based government in the future. As you say, bringing back civilian leaders like Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif will not solve Pakistan's deep-seated and potentially dangerous problems.

the list is endless if we start talking about the dictators US supported in South America.
What happened to the Bush's grandiose plan of spreading Democracy in the middle east. it was just a justification to continue fighting in Iraq after failing to find WMD in Iraq. because US could never find the Chemical Biological Nuclear weapons which were used as pretext to attack Iraq. Rummy & Colin even had the satellite Images, i was just wondering how come they suddenly disappear did they go into the hands of terrorists who never existed before US invaded Iraq. i think most of the people don't know that Iraq was the only secular country in the middle east it was not democratic but still it was secular.

Of course, it is imperative that Musharraf reaches a compromise as early as possible and reinstates Chief Justice Chaudhri.

Beyond that, he also needs to give up his military powers and sticks to being a civilian president. He also needs the most vigorous, enlightened public relations team to work on his image.

In my opinion, Musharraf is currently the least bad Pakistani politician to lead his country for the next five years, precisely because of his rapport with the army (which he can and should continue to cultivate as an honest stright-speaking, CIVILIAN Head of State rather than as the duplicitous politician that not only he, but also Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have been in the past). Pakistanis are adult enough to support Musharraf's efforts at reviving the economy, at initiating a bold education reform programme, at refusing to let himself be discouraged in pursuing dignified peace with India, at encouraging the Organisation of Islamic Countries to be both flexible and assertive in dealing with the 'war on terror', the Palestine/Israel problem and Iran's right to continue enrichment at the same time as it gives acceptable reassurance to the international community.

A good PR campaign can still secure Musharraf re-election, provided that he understands that using strong-arm tactics is counter-productive, and respecting the independence of the heads of Pakistan constitutional bodies and trusting them to see the higher interests of the country is the least uncertain course to securing re-election.

Reminds me of the cold war days when the US used the term "Free World". It was actually the "Non-Communist" world. THis included a number of dictatorships that the US supported. This included not only Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Why is US turning a blind eye to the dictators in Pakistan & Saudi. May be after the elections in Palestine US has decided that dictator who accept US hegemony is better than a democratically elected government which opposes US Interests.
It is not an easy task for president Musharraf to kill this monster called Jihad, Taliban, al-qaeda. because the US has used Pakistan & Afghanistan as a bettle field to defeat soviets, it is an ideology which was used for years to brain wash so called "freedom fighters" to fight against Pro Soviet Secular government. the same people who are labeled as terrorists by the west today were called as freedom fighters when they were fighting Soviet, Chechnya, and India because west was not affected by jihad. Best of luck for the West in killing the monster which you created.

YO BO SAE OHE Mr. S.J. HOON et al:

I am a retired International Smuggler and my dealing in "PAKMAN" Country et al is very familiar to me. And It has changed very little since Presiden BHUTTO was set-up and executed via the Theocracy & Their Judcuiary by (Osama Bin Ladens best friend Mr. ZIA AL HAQ. NotE: I believe that Mr. MUSHARIFF;s and his guys had in turn killed Zia when his plain failed.

Most of the world do not know this, but It was Zia & His Tribal lordy Pal in The Afghan that established Al Qaeda via the Muhageen (When fighting the USSR in the High 80's.

I predict that Mr. Musharraf will be assasinated for sure this time by Al Quada or he will be executed by those "Judge Ships running the "SHARIA LAW" Or Quasi Sharia courts that are so damn backwards.

Poor Mr. BHUTTO. His dream to make Pakistan the "VANGUARD OF ISLAM" was due to Physicist Mr. Khan succes. So just because they have nuclear bomb does not make them Modern.

With Some people you can take them out of the jungle or Mountains, but you can't take the Mt. or jungle out of them , no matter where you place them. As a Religious Majority, these people are Plyaing the West & work hand & hand with Afghanistan, includin Iranians.

Honey, Heroin. Opium. & Hashish is BIG BUSINESS between these three Nations mentioned.

D.A.N.G.E.R. D.A.N.G.E.R. C/A/U/T/I/O/N/

Maybe our President Mr. Bush was right when he said these two thing that I find WISE.

1) "YOU Are Either With Us Or Against US." Similar.

2) On Pakmans reluctance to help US, "We can BOMB YOU Back To the Stone-Age.." Similar.

WE SHOULD NUKE IRAN-Afghanstan & Pakman ALL AT THE Same-Time and call it a day!

COMSA HAMI DA! SHOLOM! I Love PUSON! Yhea. :-)!

PEACE-LOVE-ROCKnROLL. Ya Ya.

Yes, Pakistan may well be revving up for another
military coup. And, that will cause a lot of hand wringing and finger pointing in a lot of places eh?

Among any other U.S. contributions to democracy there, It would seem that we give Pakistan the freedom to protect the right of terrorists to, er, peaceably assemble on the border with Afghanistan...

Only one question: does anyone know how the US, as self-proclaimed net exporter of democracy, has been and is currently advocating/supporting democracy in Pakistan?