Pakistan

[barking_iguana]

Here's my guess on what the underlying political situation in Pakistan is. I've read very little, most of my knowledge coming from NPR reports over the years. That combined with having read enough political history (not specific to Pakistan) to keep Amazon and Barnes and Noble in business is all I'm going on.

There's a three-way battle for control over the country. The players are

1. the army (including the intelligence services), who have been in charge for most of the country's existence
2. civil society, including the current elected government
3. the religious zealots

The zealots are like devotees Cotton Mather, but with head scarves. And they're about as popular in 21st Century Islamabad as witch hunts would be in 21st Century Boston. Even in the Tribal Areas province, where they've essentially been ceded sovereignty by the central government, they're about as popular as Mather would be in 21st Century Worcester.

But the zealots (including but not limited to the Taliban) are a major player in the short term because they're armed. And they're a major player in the medium-term and perhaps beyond because it's to others' advantage that they be armed and dangerous. Chief among those other is the Army.

The fundamental dynamic (if I'm right) is that the army is refusing to whole-heartedly defend the state unless it is the state. If the army staged a coup right now, civilian outrage might prompt a revolution* and destroy the traditional army altogether. But so long as the civil government is presented with a military threat to its existence, the army has great leverage. On the one hand, they can demand all sorts of things from the current government. On the other hand, if the insurgency becomes disruptive enough, the civil government may be discredited, allowing direct martial rule.

Of course while the army may think of the zealots as a cat's paw, such paws have been known to grow into independent tigers. If society becomes insecure for long enough, and if all other institutions become almost as unpopular as the zealots and are unable to keep order, then the public may acquiesce to religious rule, just as it did in Afghanistan, where the Taliban was also never popular except in comparison to abysmal alternatives. However Pakistan is much more urban than Afghanistan and I don't think we're anywhere near that outcome.

*Such a revolution is nuclear state is not something the world should be sanguine about, even if we think the long-term benefits to Pakistani society would out-weigh the short-term violence that a revolution would almost surely bring.

Comments

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

I suspect the religious zealots are significantly more popular than
you make them out to be, and have many sympathizers in both 1) and 2).
That said, they are still a rather small minority.

(No hard data, just my feeling)

[freeko.livejournal.com]

I transported the dog for the current Prime Minister of Pakistan. Bhutto's widower, he was living in exile in the states at the time. He seemed like a pleasant enough man but of course I find out that he was known as the Tony Soprano of Pakistan and his nickname was Mr. Ten Percent. Because I think he got Ten Percent of everything.

Pakistan on the edge

[pashtunpolitics.livejournal.com]

The latest developments in Swat Valley demonstrates the tenuous situation in Pakistan today-the fact remains that Islamabad knew they had to negotiate with tribal leaders in order to lower the level of violence. It's been stated before and remains true, violence is managed and rarely eliminated. The Pakistani military is the powers that be in the country and have been working against the government ever since President Zia. Though Pakistan can be considered more developed than Afghanistan Islam plays just as large of a role in society-something ignored by the international community.