Your conception on Pakistani politics lack any sense of nuance or pragmatism. The two “democratically” elected leaders you seem to come to the defense of so quickly would rank in the top five corrupt leaders in any country in the 90′s. Nawaz Sharif brought Pakistan to near economic collapse and failed-state status, while laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in a paper-mill scheme. Benazir Bhutto’s husband was commonly reffered to as Mr. ten percent, take a guess why? These people come from landlord families who institute a near serfdom on their people.

Your assertions about the media are completely false and i’m wondering if you just pulled that out of your ass. Under Musharraf the media has flourished, channels like GEO, ARY, and PTV, amongst others are openly criticizing the government. Compare that to the relations which Nawaz Sharif, who you’ve placed on a pedestal as a defenseless victim fighting for democracy, had with the media. Nawaz manipulated the system to assume almost autocratic rule, and even more dangerous, tried to impose a virtual caliphate driven by sharia law. Today, Pakistan’s GDP growth is among the highest in Asia. Visiting almost every year, i’ve never seen a such a marked progression in the cleanliness of the cities and the rapid development of infrastructure.

What alarms me about your view is that as a member of the South Asian diaspora, I thought you would inform yourself much deeper about the issues rather than regurgitate the same two-dimensional view of democracy that you see in the Western press. Why do you think we’re in this mess in Iraq? Because arrogance has made us believe that our institutions would ail the problems of others. Let’s hope the people of Pakistan don’t share your shallowness when Musharraf’s name is on the ballot.

So if Bush & co pushed for abolition of presidential term limits, inline with Chavez’s ploy, would that be fine with you ?

and he quotes something akin to a WSJ opinion piece as evidence…seriously i wonder if the columnist would have the same reactions to exit polls in india that predicted a landslide victory for the bjp (remember “india shining”?); look, among statisticians (and not political hacks who write opinion pieces and polling companies) there are some very good criticisms of exit polling; in fact there is a whole literature…and conditions and factors that explained the failure of such polling in india (and indeed in many other countries) also potentially explain its failure in venezuela. i’m no fan of chavez myself (but hey, the poor seem to like him; who am i to disagree?), but you’ve got to do better than that poorly written and argued piece. ideology cannot take the place of rigorous arguments (ideally the latter should form the basis of the former).

Right. Because he’s so sure he’s going to win every relection. Convenient. Perhaps you should read this. Exit polls in Venezuela

you posted a snarky little story which could refer to both Bush or Musharraf, sure to appeal to the liberal and suspicious of pakistani politician majorities that probably read this blog without addressing any serious substantive argument from what would be legitimate opposing views

This post was a thought experiment, designed to provoke. In earlier posts I’ve raised substantive issues regarding the current situation in Pakistan; you can go there if you want “substantive”. The fact that at least some people have seen other dictators or near-dictators (i.e., Putin) in my description of a “President” means that the idea might have worked.

inexplicably not explaining how the potential leader is still silencing his opponents despite the fact you and your vocal majorities have been very visibly protesting these leaders every step of the way and have somehow turned the tide and gained these vocal and democratic majorities

This may be true with the U.S. Congress, but it is not the case with Musharraf at all. The fact that people abroad are hostile to Musharraf doesn’t mean anything, as long as he’s silenced the opposition at home.

Moreover, as I said in an earlier comment, I do think that the Democrats have largely failed to assemble a stable anti-war point of view. The Democratic leaders are currently prepared to compromise on their plans to force troop withdrawal, giving the president exactly what he wants (i.e., no major withdrawal while he is still president). That’s why, in the post itself, I emphasized the President’s ability to get out of trouble.

not explaining how what could be seen as a callous preaching to the choir post only about a post above the 9/11 post is actually a victory for freedom because you are poking a hole through the oppressive solemnity of mourning for the 9/11 attacks

You are clearly reading a different blog than I am. Have you read the other comments on this thread? I am obviously not preaching to any choir. I know that there are people who see things differently here.

And don’t lecture me about mourning, 9/11, etc. I’m sick of being told to shut up because of 9/11. If anything, for me it’s become a day to voice dissent with the government.

And finally, not explaining that while you use such divisive ‘us vs them’ terms (the same ones you accuse these presidents of) as ‘your people’, claiming that ‘your friends and your judges’ are all mindless cronies,

I don’t think this is divisize language. In the U.S. context I was referring to specific cronies, not Republican party members in general. When I talk about judges (and I should have said lawyers) being replaced, I am thinking about Musharraf’s attempt to remove Iftikar Choudhry, and the Bush White House’s interference with the Justice Department. I’m also making a general point about separation of powers, and how the judiciary can, to a great extent, be ‘programmed’ by the executive.

Musharraf is not done with Choudhry or the rest of the Supreme Court — I wouldn’t be surprised if these guys were all under house arrest in the next few weeks.

was responsible for the death of over 600,000 American and over 1000000 casualties directly from the war he thrust the country into (not to mention the hundreds of thousands who died from ancillary effects of the war

appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade suspended the writ of habeas corpus spent money without congressional authorization imprisoned 18,000 suspected enemy soldiers without any trial had his political and judicial cronies declare all of the above constitutional

His administration took control of telegraph lines, temporarily shut down disloyal newspapers and denied them access to the mails (the primary means of communication in a world before phones, radio, TV, etc.), and arbitrarily arrested editors.

claimed with regards to his actions in the war “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.”

he was elected president with only 40% of the popular vote. he was called a ‘grotesque baboon’, a ‘third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union’, a ‘coarse, vulgar joker’, a dictator, an ape, a buffoon and the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an [American political] office by the press.

had newspapers like the star and world claim “There is no act of tyranny more odious than that which strikes at the liberty of the press—the freedom of thought and speech… for all time to come, history will point back to the reign of Abraham Lincoln, as having displayed a timidity most ludicrous, a terror most abject, a despotism most foul and hideous, a tyranny utterly regardless of all moral considerations, trampling under foot all the guarantees of a written Constitution, which he solemnly swore before God and the world, to maintain, revere, and support”

and that’s only the beginning.

Clearly, you were teasing us because this post was obviously about lincoln.