The following is an article I got published in the Broadside earlier this year. It is not my preference to put a secular work of mine on this website, but circumstances abounding permit such behavior. Although the printed version came out just fine, the online version of this article is actually missing the second half of the article. For the sake of having an online record of the article that is complete below is the article in full, followed by its official citation. This article was publish August AD 2007, so given current events it is already dated in some of its content:

I once saw a political cartoon in the funny papers that best showcased what the leader of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, must be going through. It depicted a tug-of-war between two distinct individuals. The figure on the left represented radical Islamism, as seen in Pakistani territory that borders Afghanistan, namely Waziristan. On the right was a figure representing the West. As the two opponents pulled on the rope, in the middle was a tiny man in a military uniform precariously walking the tightened rope between these two vastly different sides. That tiny figure is trying, apparently, to move towards the western individual, but one false move could involve his downfall; a downfall that could ruin his country. It is in the best interests of the nation of Pakistan and especially its current ruler to let the democratic process work, even if it means the removal of Musharraf from power.

Despite boasting the title “President”, Pervez Musharraf was not elected. Rather, in 1999 he seized power in a bloodless coup, removing what was up until that year an effectively operating democratic-republic. With a strong military kept strong thanks to tensions with neighboring India, General Musharraf proceeded to consolidate his power via the removal of key political opponents, namely Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani leader who heads the political party the Pakistan Muslim League. A general by rank, Musharraf has made sure the military has a firm grip on daily life, appointing many retired and active-duty officers to government posts.

Yet unlike so many dictators, Musharraf has yet to truly turn his country into a totalitarian entity. For one, although military figures have intruded upon much of civic life, massive processions rarely take place and martial law has never been declared. Although the occasional crackdown on media has occurred, the newspapers and television stations remain free of direct government control. Large scale massacres of suspected internal enemies have been unheard of, which is what made the decision on the part of Musharraf to suspend Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, Pakistan’s chief justice, both a surprising and unpopular move. Since March 2007, contempt for Musharraf, his expansion of the military’s role in civil society, his intimidation of dissenting parties and opposition figures, and his disruption of the once healthy political process has become increasingly vocal.

However sedate the tyranny of Musharraf may be, it is still a tyranny and that makes reformers side against him. The former prime minister Sharif, who was exiled years ago by Musharraf, has filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Pakistan to return home, and Benazir Bhutto, another former prime minister who also leads the largest opposition party in the country, is stepping up her demands for a more modern and more liberal Pakistan. The decision to suspend Chaudhry that led to Musharraf’s problems has been made worse in July of this year, as the Supreme Court of Pakistan reinstated the chief justice. With these events duly noted, a recent poll showed that two-thirds of Pakistan feels that Musharraf should step down.

It is not only the reformers and the high court of Pakistan that side against Musharraf, as the reactionary Islamist elements of the country also stand as enemies to his regime. An ally of the United States, Musharraf has pledged to do all he can to crack down on extremists in Pakistan. This has been chiefly noted in the often vicious battles that take place in North Waziristan, where many tribal inhabitants have taken the side of ousted Taliban leaders who crossed the border after their regime was toppled in Afghanistan. Despite the best efforts of the military to at the very least contain the reactionaries, recent incidents in the cities of Pakistan have shown the extent of which their opposition can be mounted against Musharraf.

During the summer, as more people began to openly denounce Musharraf for his attempted ousting of Chaudhry, the Red Mosque, the capital Islamabad’s oldest mosque, became the setting for a siege between pro-Taliban theocrats and the modern military. Its resolution mirrored that of Waco, with government soldiers storming the mosque-turned-compound, resulting in scores of dead. As Musharraf restated his pledge to fight these reactionaries suicide bombings, once rare in Pakistan, have started to come in waves beginning in July, killing armed and unarmed in cities like Peshawar, itself once distant from the violence in Waziristan. More troops are being used to storm madrassas and are being sent to North Waziristan.

With rural territories in violent opposition to the Musharraf government and reformers, the high court, and urbanites in political opposition to the Musharraf government, it is unlikely he shall remain in power for long. The real issue is how will he be removed from power, through a violent uprising caused by reactionary Islamists or through the democratic process by political opponents such as Bhutto and Sharif? It really all depends on whether or not Musharraf allows nationwide elections to take place in 2008. To his credit, Musharraf has refused to call a state of emergency to Pakistan, which would give him the power to delay elections. The allure of delaying elections goes without speaking, but it would be dangerous.

Popular dissent in general tends to be less violent in societies where it is more tolerated. The more venues allotted for protesting the powers that be the less likely violence shall ensue. If Musharraf changes his mind and decides to delay elections, he shall remove the best venue for dissent against his government, thereby making many feel that the only means of ensuring change is through violence. This could lead to even more power being given to the reactionaries. If Pakistan could have one coup supported by armed forces it can have another, making Musharraf even less likely to keep power once he’s stolen it again. There is no other way to put it: Musharraf must bend to the wishes of reformers in order to make sure that Pakistan does not become another Taliban state, a fate even worse than his darkest years in power.

Gryboski, Michael, "General Musharraf on a String" Broadside, Wednesday August 22nd, AD 2007, Vol.80, Issue 6, p.18

Older announcements:

Diamonds of War

The Enemy We Don't Know

Richmond Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation

So Others May Learn

We Are Ellis Island