Like former British prime minister Tony Blair and former Australian prime minister John Howard before him, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is the latest buddy of US President George W. Bush to be blindsided by a backlash from voters.
But his participation in the current US conflicts and Bush-like uber-confidence and swagger were not really why Musharraf, a recently retired Army general, suffered a humiliating rebuke when his ruling party was trounced in Pakistan's parliamentary elections on Monday.
Instead of saving the tough tactics for Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in the country's lawless tribal areas, who have killed more than 1,000 people in the past 13 months, Musharraf chose to oppress his own law-abiding citizens, emasculate state institutions and trample upon Pakistan's nascent democracy during more than eight years as a military ruler.
It finally came back to haunt him as the opposition parties of former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated on Dec. 27, and Nawaz Sharif finished one-two in national and provincial elections, according to unofficial results released on Tuesday.
While Musharraf himself was not standing for office, the polls were seen as a referendum on his rule, and his Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, choked on the opposition's dust while finishing a distant third.
"His loss was a combination of his heavy-handedness in firing Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Supreme Court justice, in March of last year, and the state of emergency he imposed in November," said one Western political analyst in Islamabad.
attacks
"Then he attacked the media, attacked the lawyers, attacked the political parties," he said. "It's been a huge battle that democrats in this country have fought and seemed to have won. Yesterday was the culmination of a very long battle."
It was also the beginning of a political shift back to a civilian-dominated parliament and government, and the coming months will be uncertain. Pakistan faces myriad problems ranging from the growing Islamic militancy, to rising food and fuel prices, to the military's future in the emerging political paradigm.
But first, Musharraf's future must be determined. Some foreign and Pakistani analysts and Western diplomats predict he'll be gone in a matter of weeks, either impeached by a hostile incoming parliament or shown the exit by his former subordinate Army officers.
Not so, says presidential spokesman Rashid Qureshi, who said Musharraf was in good spirits and "happy the Pakistani people have participated in the cleanest, neatest, safest elections in the history of Pakistan."
"We hope to see a stable, progressive and forward-moving Pakistan after this," Qureshi said.
GREATER POWERS
Some wonder whether that's possible if Musharraf, who still controls Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, attempts to exercise greater powers than the incoming prime minister. But one policy likely to change is Pakistan's relationship with the Bush administration.
While the majority of Pakistanis feel Islamic militancy is a major problem at home, they also do not support the US war in the region. There has been widespread criticism that the Bush administration nurtured its relationship with Musharraf with billions of dollars for the Pakistani military to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban while ignoring his assault on democratic forces.
The Muttahida Majlis-e-Ammal, an alliance of six Muslim parties that made huge gains in the 2002 elections on a sympathy wave for religious elements after the US invasion of Afghanistan, was trounced this time around. The coalition was viewed as a front for extremist groups.
The results showed that Pakistani voters are no longer tolerant of their homegrown Muslim extremists but also do no support military solutions dictated from Washington.
"What has to change, first of all, is these actions we've carried out in the last four, five, six years in our own areas, against our own people, which will have to stop," said Asad Durrani, a retired Army general and military analyst. "The management must now be non-military, non-political, through negotiations."
BUSH ADMINISTRATION
The Bush administration will likely cringe at this thought, but in reality it has little leverage considering Musharraf's weakened position.
The coming days will see a flurry of activity as Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party moves to form a government, possibly with Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, or a small regional party that could give it a simple majority in parliament.
"It's completely up to the political parties to decide that," Qureshi said. "The president doesn't come into that."
Musharraf had better get used to being on the sidelines.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS