Over the weekend, President Pervez Musharraf declared Pakistan to be in a state of emergency. Interestingly, the commotion around this topic was not caused by the actual conflict. Rather the controversy stems from accusations about whether or not the declaration made by the President was warranted. The internal conflict within the country is not a new development, despite the recently reported Taliban’s violent activity. The former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto(pictured left with Musharraf), has even voiced her disapproval, saying that Musharraf has only declared the state of emergency to allow him to stay in power and have complete freedom to use military action, against the wishes of the public. One cannot help but notice the slight regression back to a form of dictatorship. To gain further insight into this issue, I searched the blogosphere to read and respond to what others thought of the recent controversy in Pakistan. In one blog entitled BZ Notes!, the author published a post, “Emergency in Pakistan: A Political Meltdown”, that offers insight on the issue and argues, similarly to myself, about the consequences the Pakistani President will inevitably face after such a decision. Contrary to this, Manan Ahmed, author of “Pakistan: The Emergency Plus Edition” lists arguments supporting the President’s decision. Each of these blogs makes excellent points, which I highlighted in my comments.“Emergency in Pakistan: A Political Meltdown”
Comment:
The arguments you make are very similar to my own. I agree that this kind of political crisis has been looming for quite some time, and I do not agree with the way that the President is handling things. He is acting as a military dictator desperate for control. I agreed with your statement “it is not more than a tactic to stay in power, oppress the freedom of speech, and to heavy handedly silence the opposing voices in the society.” While this is a very strong opinion, I agree that Musharraf declared the state of emergency as a political move to gain more power
and control over Pakistan. I also wanted to highlight your comment about how “he stands alone today, completely disconnected from the nation on whom he rules.”(shown in cartoon to the right) The fact that, along with the general public, the former Prime Minister has also expressed her opposition to Musharraf’s actions, which shows that he will not have much support with his endeavors. I enjoyed reading your post and I look forward to following your blog as this situation unfolds.“Pakistan: The Emergency Plus Edition”
Comment:
I found your post interesting and some of your arguments very valid. However, I believe our opinions differ when addressing Musharraf’s motives behind his declaration of a state of emergency. First, your argument about needing “diplomacy” is very valid and I believe that is a good solution, but I do not think that is what Musharraf is planning to enforce, since his background is in the military. It seems that this will only lead to more violence. Second, I would like to address your comment that “Pakistan needs a strong dictator. The fallacy ... the gross oversight ... has always been that he was never in control.” Pakistan needs stability and to gain control over their political situation, we agree on that. However, my question is, when has dictatorship ever been a good thing? Musharraf is acting in his own personal and political interest so that he can gain the control he has been lacking during his presidency. The state of emergency gives him the ability to overrule the democratic constitution, giving the President power to act as he sees fit, which consequently is not what the people of Pakistan want. I fail to see how this is a good thing.
