Nuclear weapons are hardly safer in the hands of a military dictator like President Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf’s record shows that he is not a defender of liberty and justice, and yet the U.S. continues to support him both diplomatically and financially, trusting him to uphold some level of stability and to allow for the growth of a democratic government.
Unfortunately, America’s policies have shown few positive results so far. According to Time magazine, of the $21 billion the U.S. has given Pakistan since 1954, only $3.4 billion was given to elected governments. The rest was spent while Pakistan was under military dictatorship. In addition, most of the $10 billion given to Pakistan to combat terrorism since the September 11 attacks has not been used for that purpose—it has been used to fund defense programs against India, an American ally that also possesses nuclear capabilities.
These facts support the obvious. A military government cannot create democracy, especially when it has the power to disallow free, open elections whenever it wants to and the authority to declare a state of emergency that places the entire country under tight police control.
Democracy is the only way to bring stability to a nation like Pakistan in a way that would serve the interests of the U.S. and the fragile Middle East. Ultimately, these ends require open elections and an end to the Pakistani military’s corrupt seizure of power in times of crisis.
Musharraf has long been trying to convince the people of Pakistan that democracy and stability are opposing forces. For too long, America has allowed him to foster this idea because of a conception that a stable Pakistan had served American interests more than a free and democratic one. But now that the domestic unrest fueled by Islamist extremists operating within Pakistan is clearly becoming a threat to America, it has become apparent that military rule does not mean stability. The absence of open elections has fueled nearly as much unrest as have the al-Qaeda-linked terrorists operating in Pakistan’s Northwest corridor.
Promoting democracy would also require the U.S. to focus on improving conditions within Pakistan itself. The reason why the U.S. has been so willing to support and fund military dictatorships in Pakistan is that the U.S. is not trying to protect the interests of Pakistan. American policymakers have perceived their interests as lying within the scope of actions taken by the Pakistani government, whether against the current threat of al-Qaeda terrorists or the threat of Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
However, a modern and truly democratic government in Pakistan would do more to promote American interests than would any other policy. Under Musharraf’s military dictatorship, there has been no decrease in terrorist activity. In fact, the opposite is true. Bhutto’s assassination is a perfect example of this, as it thwarted the democratic process. An open and prosperous Pakistan would hurt the country’s Islamist parties, because they are not intrinsically popular. If the U.S. actively supports democracy and the interests of the Pakistani people, that country would take strides toward becoming a predominantly modern and secular Middle Eastern nation. Nothing would serve American interests better.
America must respond quickly and forcefully to help Pakistan. The first step is to make sure Musharraf steps down—recently he has tried to alter the constitution to extend his rule. America and its allies must also ensure that the Pakistani military cannot simply seize complete control at any moment. Most importantly, Pakistan must be forced to allow open elections. This is the first and most crucial step towards democracy and possible long-term stability. America and its allies must also be willing to support the new government that will be born out of open elections. The U.S. must acknowledge that American interests coincide with the will of the Pakistani people. If a fledgling democracy is to flourish in the nation amidst religious fundamentalism and terrorism, it will need help from stronger democracies.