But What About the Good News

One point I've heard time and again repeated by Pakistan analysts is that the popularity of Islamist movements in Pakistan is often wildly overestimated by casual western observers. In particular, people seem to be falling prey to an inability to appreciate scale. Pakistan has 161 million people, so the ability of Islamist parties to organize large demonstrations doesn't necessarily indicate that they've got a widely popular mass movement on the verge of taking control of the country. When election day comes, they're rarely gotten anything more than fringe levels of support.

That said, five years ago they did get their best result ever. But Jonathan Landay reports for McClatchy that much of that support has slipped away, and they're almost certain to do worse this time around. Fear of an radical takeover, in short, isn't a good reason to welcome lack of democracy in Pakistan.

Comments

And even when radicals (of any stripe) do take over a government, they always (well, almost always) have to start compromising with the real world, and becoming less radical, if they want to be politically effective and/or maintain power.

So, in terms of end results, there's really never a good reason for subverting democracy.

. . . And then there's that old crazy idealistic "due process" argument, which holds that subverting democratic due process is just plain wrong, becaues the ends can't justify the means.

. . . Of course, nobody cares about due process any more, except for a few crazy nutjobs who think it's the sine qua non of freedom and fairness.

Posted by Goober Pease | January 9, 2008 2:09 PM

I wouldn't believe a word Jonathan Landay writes - he's been as wrong as any MSM reporter. That said, even a blind pig etc. This article is probably right.

Posted by Al | January 9, 2008 2:11 PM

Nor is fear of airplanes again hurtling into skyscrapers a sufficient reason to abandon the 4th Amendment. But hey, whatever works........

Posted by steve duncan | January 9, 2008 2:13 PM

I think Landay was dead-on accurate in his "the Emperor has no clothes" reporting about the lack of empirical support for the administration's claims about WMD in Iraq. I'd give his stuff a look. In any event, I've read from other sources the same stuff about the Islamic parties not doing so well. It underlines again the fatuousness of Bush Co's monolithic approach to the "war on terra" and its inability to deal with each country on its own terms and in its own political and historical context. Sure would be nice if we ever had a Prez who could take advantage of the opportunities available if we actually paid attention to this stuff.

Posted by scott | January 9, 2008 2:25 PM

I can personally think of at least 3 governments today that are composed of radicals that do not compromise with the world, Iran being the most obvious of them.

If Pakistan didn't have nuclear weapons this isn't so much of an issue. But since there are nuclear weapons and IF radical Islamic forces take control and control the military then only a few weeks may be necessary for those weapons, or materials to be either used or removed. Removed is almost worse because they can reappear almost anyplace.

Giving excuses for why radical, violent Islamic extremist takeover is unlikely is nice - but what if your wrong? You need to hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Posted by Jim Janes | January 9, 2008 2:35 PM

The only reason the Islamist parties did as well as they did in 2002 is because voters opposed to Musharraf's regime had no other option - both the PPP and PMLN were not allowed to participate as parties. This worked very well for Musharraf's "apres moi le deluge" threat to the Bush Administration.
And, one of the reasons the Islamist parties who have gained control in NWFP and Baluchistan are losing popularity is because they have had to actually govern and make compromises. Those who voted for them because they actually liked their Islamist policies are disappointed that they haven't gone far enough in that direction, and those who voted for them to express opposition to Musharraf's government don't like what "Islamizing" measures (banning cinema, music, discrimination against women, etc.) they have taken.
And the military is not infested with Islamists, and is unlikely to become so in the near future.

Posted by Keith | January 9, 2008 3:07 PM

Tell it to the non-Obama candidates for President. They constantly raise the specter of the Islamist takeover of Pakistan. Thinking liberal favorite Chris Dodd, as Matt called him not long ago, was one of the worst offenders in the Democratic debates.

Posted by bob | January 9, 2008 3:42 PM

Ok, the radical Islamists only get a small percentage of the vote. So did the Bolsheviks a few short months before they took power in Russia.

Posted by Alan Thomas | January 9, 2008 4:18 PM

I would recommend "Next-Gen Taliban" in the NYT Mag from last week. It suggests that the Pakistani Taliban has decided to withdraw from parliamentary politics, and take up armed resistance. The polls may not reflect that terrible result. I'd rather have pissed off Islamist parties in parliament that outside parliament, all things being equal.

Posted by gfw | January 9, 2008 4:50 PM

A further issue is that radical Islam in Pakistan has not proved to be a uniting force. Each major group (Baluch, Pashtun, Sindi, Punjabi) has it's own set of militants and they don't cooperate well (although the Sindi/Punjabi block does sometimes).

That is to say, Islam is only overlaid over the ethnic tensions in Pakistan and so, for example, the largest militant group (Taliban sponsored Pashtuns) have little appeal to the rest of the country.

Posted by Meh | January 9, 2008 5:17 PM

Damn, pressed post too early:

That is to say, Islam is only overlaid over the ethnic tensions in Pakistan and so, for example, the largest militant group (Taliban sponsored Pashtuns) have little appeal to the rest of the country.

And thus would face large amounts of armed resistance. This could lead to civil war, which would be more prudent to worry about than just focusing on a "Taliban takeover."

Posted by Meh | January 9, 2008 5:19 PM

"Radical Islam" isn't the problem. The problem is that a democratic Pakistan would be unwilling to cooperate with America's economic and geopolitical goals in the region. See here.

Posted by Mick | January 9, 2008 10:43 PM

One problem is that people conflate the idea that Pakistan has radical elements with the opposite idea that we need to convert Pakistan to some sort of "secular" operation.

The reality is that a large percentage of the Pakistani population DO believe that Sharia law should be codified in the government. They DO support Islam as a social governor.

What this does NOT necessarily mean is that they support the most radical Islamists.

However, that said, the more you try to convert them to being secular, and the more you try to convert them to support what they know is a corrupt government, the more radical you will MAKE them.

It's a process - not a status quo.

Get five or ten percent of the Pakistani population on the side of the Islamic radicals because of YOUR actions - and you'll lose, no matter how weak the support is for those radicals among the rest of the population.

It's not an either/or thing. In the American Revolution, I've read that thirty percent of the American colonies supported it, thirty percent didn't and thirty percent didn't give a damn.

Britain still lost.

That's why the best approach for the US is to STAY OUT of the issue and deal with what happens at arms length based on what we can do to deal with any terrorist factions if and when they stick their noses out of the country. Trying to micromanage Pakistan will inevitably result in the opposite of what we want.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 10:57 PM