Probability of Pakistan collapse

[chuck]

It appears Pervez Musharraf's hold on power is tenuous enough to motivate him to take drastic action to forestall it slipping further. Does his action strength or weaken the long term stability of secular Pakistani state?

[JWintjes]

Tricky question.

Actually, I don't see his actions to be that drastic - sure, there is emergency rule, but he hasn't ordered the troops to fire at protesters yet. They would probably not follow that order anyway.

Also, while "opposition leaders in house arrest" sounds outrageous here in the West and very similar to the Birma situation, it in fact is neither - house arrest Paki style means not being allowed out of a huge villa with all the amenities you can think of. House arrest Birma style means they cut your water and electricity and you're deeply grateful because the alternative is a labour camp.

Nevertheless - don't get me wrong, I don't endorse what Musharraf does, I'm only open to the suggestion that he may have motives going beyond simply staying at the helm and amassing personal power.

What really bothers me is that there is no alternative that can make me feel comfortable. The current "opposition leaders" are lamenting that rule of the law has been broken and the world by and large listens; that rule of the law should send almost all of them straight away to prison is something that gets often overlooked.

Ms Bhutto didn't go to exile because they were on their heels to drag her into a torture chamber; she largely went to evade legal charges. Also, her newly found role as a valiant opponent of fundamentalism would be a little bit more convincing were the Taliban's successes not to a large extent a result of her government's policies.

So, going back to your original question, I honestly don't know. Personally I think that Musharraf is the best bet as long as the military wants to go along with him; he will have to let either his top military job or his presidency go, most probably the former. He will also probably have to find some arrangement with Bhutto and the forces behind her.

If - and that's a bif if - he manages to do all this, then Pakistan will be on course again. I definitely don't envy the man for that job.

Jorit

[chuck]

He has not exhibited the ability to reduce opposition against himself. The ability to do this by whatever means is a key attribute of a survivable dictatorship. He seems to always be behind the curve in terms of doing what it takes to strengthen his own position not in terms of temporary, forceful protection via armed troops on the street, but in terms of reducing the size and vehemency of groups willing to go to great length to remove him.

He will buy himself a few weeks. But what stronger cards does he have than declaring a state of emergency?

As a consequence of a regime staying in power by force, it must become increasingly opaque to the outside lest the multiplying ranks of its enemy sees and exploits its inner workings. As Pakistan becomes more opaque and inscrutable, how long will the US and her neighbors continue to feel secure in letting so much depend on the continuance of the current regime when they have nothing to go on than faith that there is nothing afoot inside Pakistan to overthrow the regime tomorrow?

[chuck]

It is said that a dictatorship that starts by being gentle tend not to survive. Relatively gentle dictatorships tends to create the impression that the basic ules have not changed with the regime change, and this tends to promote opposition to itself at the beginning. Cracking down on these when these get out of hand creates the impression that things are getting worse, and the regime then slides down the deadly path of ever increasing and ever futile repression.

The survivable type of dictatorship starts out being quite brutal to the point of impressing upon the populous that the rules have fundamentally changed, that it's a new game. From then on the dictatorship actually has room to adopt more liberal, growth promoting policies, and everyone will think things are getting better, and the initial brutality was the necessary price to pay for the subsequent improvement.

[Werner]

I am almost completely ignorant of the political landscape there. I am aware that Musharraf came to power after a coup d'etat. Both he an Bhutto seem to represent secular politics, which makes me worried that the opposition may embrace radical Islamism to gain power.

I have heard reputable pundits like Charles Krauthammer refer to Pakistan as "potentially a failed state", or tottering on the brink of failure. Considering the proximity of the US military, Al Qaeda, and the nuclear weapons of Pakistan and India, it is clear that the situation is extraordinarily dangerous, and the possibility for a catastrophe is great.

I certainly hope that whatever happens there does not turn back the clock of secularism.

[JWintjes]

A word of caution - the political caste in Pakistan, be they military, PPP, PML or Muslim Alliance (keep forgetting how that is exactly called) are not bent on internal strife. Things are different in the North East, and fundamentalism has brought some additional acrimony into politics, but by and large they are all bent on remaining what they are - those in charge of running the country (so calling Pakistan a potentially failed state might not be outright wrong, but at least currently I'd say the possibility is rather small).

This is most probably also the reason why Musharraf hasn't established a dictatorship yet and will probably never do - in fact, the military won't let him anyway. Dictatorship are quite unsuitable for a country where individual members of the leading political caste each command huge clientships - radical measures establishing the dictator at the very top of the clientship-chain, so to speak, would be necessary, which essentially means killing a lot of people. Even if he was bent on doing so, Musharraf would not have the capability to do so.

It is interesting to note, by the way, that Western observers sometimes severly underestimate the Pakistani military - often shown as ill-trained and ill-equipped gun fodder sent into the Tribal areas to be cut down by the dozen, this rather skewed view fails to take into account that the officers' corps displays not only an immense pride, but also quite a fierce loyalty to Pakistan. Talking to Pakistani officers is an interesting experience - like in the case of Indians, it's a little bit like having a conversation with British officers with a funny accent.

One must not forget that Pakistan is not Iraq - Tribal areas and Cashmere aside the country was not cut out at a colonial powers' conference table, but is very much the result of a common set of beliefs. While there are certainly centrifugal forces at work in Pakistan, these are apparently confined to the border areas, keeping the danger for the society being torn apart as a whole rather small.

It is for that very reason, though, that Pakistan turning into a secular state, is a very difficult proposition. I can't see anything like a Turkey version of secularism in Pakistan for the simple reason that Islam is the reason d'etre for the country. I'd rather think of some kind of "Morocconization" of affairs, which in fact we already have now.

Jorit

[Guest]

It is interesting to note, by the way, that Western observers sometimes severly underestimate the Pakistani military - often shown as ill-trained and ill-equipped gun fodder sent into the Tribal areas to be cut down by the dozen, this rather skewed view fails to take into account that the officers' corps displays not only an immense pride, but also quite a fierce loyalty to Pakistan. Talking to Pakistani officers is an interesting experience - like in the case of Indians, it's a little bit like having a conversation with British officers with a funny accent.

Talking to a modern Pakistani officers is made even more like talking to WWII British officers by fact that their men would all carry Lee-Enfields.

Every now and then one even sees a super modern automatic weapon, like the Stan gun, I've even seen MG-42s on prominent display at Pakistani military parades.

[JWintjes]

Talking to a modern Pakistani officers is made even more like talking to WWII British officers by fact that their men would all carry Lee-Enfields.

Every now and then one even sees a super modern automatic weapon, like the Stan gun

Actually, they prefer "made in Germany", you know - H&K G3 in various versions.

I've even seen MG-42s on prominent display at Pakistani military parades.

Ehm, Chuck, these are Rheinmetall MG-3s, which while tracing their lineage back to the MG-42, are a late 1960s design that is still in production in Pakistan...

Jorit

[Guest]

Talking to a modern Pakistani officers is made even more like talking to WWII British officers by fact that their men would all carry Lee-Enfields.

Every now and then one even sees a super modern automatic weapon, like the Stan gun

Actually, they prefer "made in Germany", you know - H&K G3 in various versions.

I've even seen MG-42s on prominent display at Pakistani military parades.

Ehm, Chuck, these are Rheinmetall MG-3s, which while tracing their lineage back to the MG-42, are a late 1960s design that is still in production in Pakistan...

Jorit

Actually, I really do mean Lee-Enfield and Bren guns. There are many pictures on public domain showing Pakistani soldiers (and Indian Soldiers as well for that matter) on patrol carrying world war II vintage British bolt action rifles and light machine guns. That is not to say there are no troops in Pakistani army using G3s. There are also Pakistani soldiers using FN rifles as well.

Regarding the fact that those were MG-3s. No MG-3 is not a 1960 design. It was built using 1942 design. The fact that production was started again does not make it 20 years more modern.

I suppose if production were to restart on the Brown Bess musket, using modern manufacturing techniques, of course, then an army that chooses to equip itself with these weapons would be considered modern.





Okay, that's not entirely fair. Let's say Winchester repeaters.

[Werner]

I don't understand why a country would use WW.II rifles when the world is awash in a sea of Kalishnikovs. I'm sure there are more AK-47s loose in Pakistan than there are hands to hold them.

[Guest]

Standard Caliber perhaps? Institutional resistance against using Eastern block weapons?

[JWintjes]

I don't understand why a country would use WW.II rifles when the world is awash in a sea of Kalishnikovs. I'm sure there are more AK-47s loose in Pakistan than there are hands to hold them.

Perhaps because with the Lee-Enfield you can actually hit something beyond, say, 200m?



Seriously, though, they do use the AK as well.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

Actually, I really do mean Lee-Enfield and Bren guns. There are many pictures on public domain showing Pakistani soldiers (and Indian Soldiers as well for that matter) on patrol carrying world war II vintage British bolt action rifles and light machine guns. That is not to say there are no troops in Pakistani army using G3s. There are also Pakistani soldiers using FN rifles as well.

The predominant infantry weapon seems to be the G3, followed by AKs and FN-FALs (or derivatives). Second line troops get second line equipment, which is why you see these with Lee-Enfields on patrol, while the footage of Pakistani forces storming the Red Mosque shows folks armed with M 4 carbines...

Regarding the fact that those were MG-3s. No MG-3 is not a 1960 design. It was built using 1942 design. The fact that production was started again does not make it 20 years more modern.

Chuck, that's wrong. The MG-3 is based on the MG-42, but is a development of it. In any case the comparison with a Brown Bess is substantially less than brilliant, as even the MG-42 would be an acceptable weapon in a world where the Ma Deuce still rules...

Jorit

[Gone Asiatic]

Before anyone knocks Pakistan`s government process, one should consider the irony of a democratic process resulting in religious fundamentalists and religious radicals assuming power....and a control of a nuclear arsenal.

[Deckard]

I don't understand why a country would use WW.II rifles when the world is awash in a sea of Kalishnikovs. I'm sure there are more AK-47s loose in Pakistan than there are hands to hold them.

An important reason why the sub-continent still hangs onto SMLE's and BREN's is proud tradition. They're tangible connections to the valued and appreciated institutions that Britain 'gave' them (for want of a better word), ie; the civil service, cricket and in this instance, a structured and disciplined military.

Another is 'Tiffen', afternoon tea.

[Dave Wooley]

Pakistan is in a very precarious position given the fact that there is a wide educational division in Pakistan society and that gulf is widening. Education, the pillar of any society is also divided. On the one hand you have an educated elite, on the other a heavy reliance on the Madrassa system were the young from deprived back grounds receive an education, al be it centred on the Koran as the state system suffers from chronic under funding and has failed to deliver any meaningful education for all its peoples. The system was encouraged by previous military rulers and has almost taken on the responsibility for basic education of many in Pakistan. The consequences of such a development are now becoming clearer. Radicalisation of the majority, which will in the not to distant future, dominate politic life in Pakistan.
Dave Wooley

[Lesforan]

Gone,

When considering the present leadership of Pakistan as the dubious result of the democratic process, remember a miscarriage of this process also produced Hitler.

Deckard,

It strikes me as extremely ironic that a nation that was "spun off" a former British Colony would embrace such cultural ties to its former mother country. Does this sugest that in Pakistan, anti-Indian antipithy exceeds anti-Imperialist sentiment?

[Dave Wooley]

Gone,

When considering the present leadership of Pakistan as the dubious result of the democratic process, remember a miscarriage of this process also produced Hitler.

Deckard,

It strikes me as extremely ironic that a nation that was "spun off" a former British Colony would embrace such cultural ties to its former mother country. Does this sugest that in Pakistan, anti-Indian antipithy exceeds anti-Imperialist sentiment?

The present leadership in Pakistan is far from being a result of any democratic process, and Pakistan has very few ties to the colonial power other than some tenuous links with the Commonwealth. I doubt that democracy as defined by the west has ever taken root in that part of world as it's often been corrupt and been unable to really give the leadership Pakistan needs hence the present impasse.
Dave Wooley

[Guest]

An important reason why the sub-continent still hangs onto SMLE's and BREN's is proud tradition.

I absolutely do not believe they've hung onto these weapons for "tradition". We tend to be insanely self-deluded about other people's view of our "tutelage". They think a few nice things we left behind are a staggeringly meager price for the lost pride they've endured.

They might value things like Afternoon tea but only as one would value a few inadequate coins given in totally inadequate payment, rather than as a token to some fondly remembered happy old days.

[Deckard]

You can believe what you like, I've been there and the sub-continent is very happy with a good deal of the traditions inherited from the British Raj.

They were both probably glad to be rid of each other in '47 but the nexus was never broken. Britain was and I think still is, the first choice for Pakistani and Indian immigrants because of the familiarity, ie; it's a natural selection.

I got the impression that if they were to be exploited, at least they got the biggest and the best with Britain, and they were able to profit from it in many ways as well.