One thing I hope we can do in the blogosphere is continue to follow events and places which drop off our media radar - and they very often do if there’s no news which is spectacular or relatable to the domestic scene in some way. Even elections overseas get varied coverage in the Australian media - perhaps not surprising, but definitely linked to the application of particular criteria - Andrew Bartlett looks at a number which occured in the last week. Taiwan’s poll has received more coverage than might otherwise have been the case because of the salience of the Tibetan outrages in the campaign itself.
One which did make a splash in the Australian media was the Pakistani election, discussed at this blog in a number of posts, and as it becomes clear that Yousaf Raza Gilani will be the next PM, it’s worth revisiting.
Now, I freely admit to not having a deep knowledge of Pakistani politics, but that’s what the intertubes are for. So herewith a link to an article in the New York Review of Books by William Dalrymple, a British author, historian and journalist, who’s one of the writers on the subcontinent’s affairs and history I’ve most enjoyed. What’s significant, I think, from Dalrymple’s take is the real importance of the courage of voters in rejecting the feudal constraints which previously prevented a real political choice in elections. That’s surely a sign of hope, though Dalrymple is careful to note, and describe, the continued poverty of most Pakistanis and the lack of responsiveness of their elites to their plight.
Another article worth a look is this one from Irfan Husein in Open Democracy, which addresses Musharaf’s legacy as the new Parliament is sworn in.
A further area of comment has been the relationship between the US and the new Pakistani government. Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar at the American Middle East Institute, notes that the Pakistanis will likely be seeking to enter into a dialogue with militants, and that the Bush administration will just have to “live with it”. That’s freedom and democracy, folks.
Mark says:
“Whats significant” is the ludicrous fatuity and utter futility of chanting liberal nostrums in the face of an alien socio-biological system in the throes of crisis. Mark and his beloved New York culturatis being stock-standard examples of such.
It is not poverty that disables liberal democracy in Pakistan. India was at least as poor, if not poorer, than Pakistan. And more “feudally constrained” for that matter (caste system!). India fortunately had a much more cohesive national social structure and liberal political super-structure, the last largely thanks to the British Raj.
But lauding the merits of Hindu nationalism and Anglo imperialism are Big No-Nos so lets not go there.
Tribal-based ethnic sectarianism is the acid that corrodes the founding of a civilised nation state in the Badlands and Boondocks of Pakistan. As it does throughout Southern Eurasia. And it aint going down any time soon since it is based on socio-biological building blocks, kinship rather than citizenship being the way they run their personal into the political.
Musharaf suspended Pakistan’s constitutional liberties and legalities on the grounds of possible civil disturbances surrounding the challenge to his rule and militant political campaigning by his rivals would send the country into civil chaos.
This naturally set world liberal opinion against him. After all, he is a military dictator, a buddy of Bush and a somewhat effective battler in the war against tribal ethnic-based sectarian terrorism.
Now he is against democracy, well that does it! What kind of South Eurasian leader is anti-democratic? Hussein, Shah of Iran and such monsters like that. We must be rid of them.
Musharraf lifted the suspension of constitutional liberties and legalities late in 2007, after announcing that new elections would be held. THis was after the fourth (or was it fifth?) assassination attempt on his life.
In my opinion he was charitable to a fault. But even a military dictator has to bow to the chorus of liberal opinion.
The election campaign started, Bhutto was assassinated and sure enough the country quickly descended into civil chaos.
You would think that such a stunning and complete vindication of Musharraf’s forebodings would improve his political credibility. But you would be wrong as you would be grossly underestimating the ability of crusading liberals to ignore reality, even when its firing back at point-blank range.
Pakistan isn’t also a product of the British Raj?
And the caste system isn’t quite the same thing as feudalism. Except in the broad brush strokes of the Strocchiverse with its preconceived conclusions. Hindus good, Muslims bad, is the conclusion we’re meant to draw? Props to you, though, Jack, for your honest and open support of military dictatorship.
The World Historical Construct Formerly Known as Mark Bahnisch doesn’t get it. Again.
Musharraf is an upstanding and stalwart opponent of radical Islam and it’s extremist jihadi foot-soldiers (except when he used them as cats paws to attack India between 1999-2001). The whole coup and repeated crackdowns, censorship and the stacking-of-the-courts business is a pathetic sideshow for bien-pensant Cultural Leftists to wring their hands about.
History strides ahead, wide-eyed and dauntless, it’s name: Pervez Musharraf
Jack your socio-biological assertions are in my opinion a tad premature. The field of genetics et al is simply not advanced enough to come to the conclusions you are advocating. You are using science to underpin ideology. This is a dangerous thing to do. Please restrain yourself.
Well, it’s also surely undermined by the silly assertions about India as compared to Pakistan.
It would be nice, though, if we could have a thread that isn’t all about Strocchism.
I thought it was about neo-Strocchism
2 Mark Mar 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Obviously it was a mis-fit, for the socio-biological reasons I have indicated elsewhere. And proved by the remarkable co-incidence of its secession with the sub-continents decolonisation.
Afghanistan is socio-biologically similar to Pakistan and likewise been a pain in the arse to Great Gamers. None of these “-stans” seem to qualify as nations ready for state-hood. They are too tribalised. This breeds a culture of sectarianism.
Nationalism dissolves tribalism, and changes the political focus from tribal lore to national law. Of course nationalism brings some of its own problems in train. But at least it tends to give women a fairer go.
mark says:
Caste system is obviously a form of social stratification compelling bonded-labour in rural-based economies and legitimated by religious-based polities. This is analagous to “feudal constraint”, for anyone capable of generalisation above the kindergarten Marxist level.
THe “broad brush strokes of the Strocchiverse” tend to sweep away some of the Bahnischverse’s mindless nit-picking and myopic cant-see-the-forrest-for-the-trees.
Mark says:
No. Nationalism good-ish. Tribalism bad-ish.
I have been at pains to point out that Muslims who have achieved political civilization through national unification and away from tribal sectariarianism are on the right track. States such as Turkey and Malaya, who not coincidentally, have had the benefit of secular authoritarian nationalist leaders.
Try to follow the bouncing ball old boy.
Mark says:
No props to you for your dishonest and covert support of military dictatorship in Iraq, implied by opposition to the US’s regime change of the Baathist junta.
Or should I be holding my breath for your back-flip on opposition to the Iraq war, which certainly unseated a “military dictatorship” if nothing else?
It is disingenuous to bucket democratic revolutions when Bush supports them (Iraq) and boquet democratic revolutions when Bush is ambivalent (Pakistan). That never stopped a ritualistic liberal from scrabbling to get to the high-moral ground, I suppose.
In the real world of strategic choice Hussein’s Baathists was obviously the only guy capable of preventing politically interested Iraqis from tearing each others throats out and maybe keeping militant Islamists at bay - if handled with care. Obviously too big an ask for Bush and his supporters. Ditto Musharraf in Pakistan.
How you manage to convince yourself (presumably) of even the coherence of your socio-biological “position” baffles me Jack. Genetic mixing is strength, except muslims coming here? Military dictatorships and nationalism are “good-ish” except for Saddam?
FFS man, a forest ought at least to have some trees.
How much is an off-peak return ticket between the Strocchiverse and the Banischverse?
Sorry Adrien, the Strocchiverse won’t hand out a visa to just anyone, so the question of cost is moot. Also, there is no return.
What no tourism industry! Denied! Tell me there’s a gift shop at least.
5 Mark Mar 25th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
On the subject of “silly assertions about…Pakistan”: I award the prize for this class of comment to Mark Bahnisch who can glean a “sure…sign of hope” for liberal democracy out of the maelstrom of ethnic divisions and sectarian feuds that compromise [sic] the Pakistan state.
A proto-civil war broke out the moment Musharraf lifted the authoritarian national emergency decree. The guy should be given a medal for sticking to the deadly job in the line of fire instead of contantly being held up as a bogey man to elicit squeals of horror amongst the audience in the liberal morality play.
How many abortive coups, assasination attempts, sectarian nut-jobs, terrorist harbours, tribal in-breds and and barely quelled insurgencies in provincial badlands does it take before the liberal scales are lifted and the “corporal” penny drops? Obviously too many is not enough. An unavoidable but astounding conclusion in the light of the tragic experience trying to democraticly make-over Iraq.
THis kind of undashable hope is common enough amongst post-modern liberals with their touching faith in the conjugation of pre-modern multicultural diversities and post-modern sub-cultural perversities. A triumph over experience.
What was that you were saying about tragedy and Iraq Jack?
>
I used to live in Pakistan to be sure there’s tribalism and feudalism and certainly this culture is an impediment to the development of a modern state as we understand it. But the interplay between corrupt military dictatorships and corrupt pseudo-democratic governments that have played out in Pakistan’s short history is not the story of the conservative good guys vs the liberal bad guys. What Pakistani elites tell the West and what happens internally are two different things entirely. Pervez Musharraf is not a hero. The military owns the economy there. If it didn’t, if Musharaff’s army didn’t use the enture country as their own private loot box, there would be no extremism. The Jihadist movement has risen as a direct result of corrupt police states causing misery and the West helping them do it.
>
To be sure the Bhutto faction is not much of an opposition. Everyone with access to the corridors of power is a member somehow of a feudal elite and it is not only in their interests its arguablly essential for their very survival that they keep things as they are.
>
Your critique of the Roussaeuian tendencies amongst the Left are apt in their place. But it does not supplant the iniquities of conservatives nor does it explain away the legacy of Western Imperialism. The West is over-used as a bogeyman for the World’s ills by some certainly. But it is totally neglected by the other side. To take Iraq as an example. Iraq the entity and Iraq the current mess are both direct results of the chauvanism of conservatives.
13 Adrien Mar 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Militant extremism throughout Southern Eurasian seems to have both internal conditions and external catalysts.
The internal condition is South Eurasian tribal diversity, somewhat celebrated by our Cultural Left. The external catalyst is North Eurasian/American political intrusivity, somewhat promoted by our Martial Right.
Take home lesson: Dont invade the World, Dont invite the World. We should not go there and try to make them like us. And they should not come here and expect us to make like them.
Adrien says:
I dont doubt that South Eurasian domestic commercial and military elites exploit their nations resources and oppress their nations peoples. Sometimes with, sometimes without North Eurasian/American support. But ’twas ever thus.
“Corrupt police states” are incidental to this process - they are all over the place in Southern Africa and Southern Americas but these states do not seem to spawn domestic theocracies or foreign terrorists.
Sectarian extremism has its own dynamic, mostly a form of culture shock as pre-modern tribal confederacies react violently to the incursion of modern nationalism and post-modern globalism. The Iranian irruption seemed to be in response to the US-backed Shah’s modernization program. Ditto the Afghani irruption, responding to the USSR-backed secular regime’s modernization drive. Now look at Iraq, with its regression to small sects.
“Now look at Iraq, with its regression to small sects.”
But don’t look too closely, or you’ll see that this regression was brought about by US invasion and bumbling, and was what’s more entirely predictable.
If you want to read something different and less aggressively written about Pakistan, you could try this. Of interest I thought, Peter Lloyd, the ABC’s correspondent in the area told Mark Colvin that the Americans position was “that the judges should not be reinstated and that the Government should come to an accommodation with Pervez Musharraf.”
It seems that the Army is lurking and its head is having private meetings with diplomats in case it has to move in the interests of national security.
Of course security issues are never hard to find.
Thanks, Brian.
I was serious about not wanting this thread to be all about Jack’s theories. He really should get his own blog. I’m sure it would enjoy a wide readership.
Since the thread has turned out as it has, and since a comments thread that descends into a debate about one commenter’s idiosyncratic views rather than the broader issues is not what we want to encourage, I’m closing it.
If anyone wants to comment on Pakistani politics, please email me at
mbahnisch at gmail dot com
and I’ll reopen the thread.
But I’d prefer Jack to host his own forum for discussion of his theses. I don’t really want to.