Coalitions Fall Apart
In a widely anticipated development, Nawaz Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League (N) have decided to leave the coalition government that they’d formed with the Pakistan People’s Party. This was anticipated because the PML-N and the PPP are the two main rival political parties in Pakistan. Their coalition has been driven by a shared opposition to Pervez Musharraf’s continued period of quasi-rule by the military, but with him resigning and new presidential elections scheduled that will return the country to full civilian rule it’s natural that the two major civilian political parties would work as government and opposition rather than as a nonsensical coalition.
For reasons that have always seemed to me to have more to do with Benazir Bhutto’s large number of college chums holding influential jobs in the United States than any policy reason, the U.S. has long seemed more comfortable with the PPP than with the PML-N. So in the event that the PPP loses the power — which will surely happen at some point — it’ll be interesting to see the American reaction. Indeed, the fact that the civilian government Musharraf overthrew was a PML-N one seems to me to have had something do with with the American elite’s relative comfort with his dictatorship until Bhutto decided to step-up her level of democracy activism.
21 Responses to “Coalitions Fall Apart”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
For reasons that have always seemed to me to have more to do with Benazir Bhutto’s large number of college chums holding influential jobs in the United States than any policy reason
i think it also has to do with the PML’s religious rhetoric. the u.s. seems to have no problem with political parties that appeal to religious language if that religion is christianity, judaism, hinduism, buddhism or shintoism, we don’t tolerate pro-islamic appeals, reflecting our discomfort with political islam. that’s another strike against the PML
August 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I knew it. I knew that before long the civilian parties in Pakistan would be squabbling like cats and dogs, while the country gradually falls under the sway of the Islamists. The one institution that was capable of keeping Pakistan free from Islamist rule, that was both disciplined, honest and forward-thinking enough to rule the country well, was the army, and General Musharraf. Liberal democracy cannot work in a country like Pakistan, and an iron hand on the ship of state is necessary. It was criminal of the civilian parties to demand that Musharraf step down, it was irresponsible of him to give in to their childish whinings, and it was thoughtless of the United States establishment to encourage them in their
complaints. I only hope that the army will remember its duty and take over once again before the Islamists can beat them to the punch.
The late Benazir Bhutto was an absolute slimeball, and Nawaz Sharif is another one. I suppose it’s better to be ruled by slimeballs than by Salafist fanatics, but it would be much better to be ruled by sincere and public-minded men like the General.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Yes, the PML always struck me as better than its press in the US, especially compared to the frightfully positive coverage of the PPP, however people might feel about the early 1970s PPP narrative. My wife, who has worked in Pakistan, like Sharif as well, with the usual jaded stance. And it is easy to develop a loathing of a the actual PPP…
August 25th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Sharif ordered Pakistani troops to cross the line of control into Indian Kashmir (think Pakistani Saakashvili). He did this soon before the Musharraf coup. Totally aside from US hostility to the M and fond memories of Benazir in the Crimson Key Society (she was still talking about in 1989) this is, in itself an excellent reason to vote for the PPP crooks and not the PML crooks.
I agree with Hector that they are abandoning the nonsensical coalition a bit hastily. Musharraf is gone, but the military is certainly not about to accept an absurd non-Pakistani idea like civilian control any time soon. The ISI is still ISIng. In Chile the Socialists and Christian Democrats coardinatored for years after the nominal transition to notionally civilian rule. I wish (but do not hope) that Pakistani civilian politicians would do the same.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am
My motto is comment first google second. I’m not sure that Pakistani regulars crossed the line. Still I would rather someone other than Sharif be Prime Minister
http://www.ieer.org/comments/dsmt/kashhist.html
“1999: Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, travels to Lahore, Pakistan for a peace meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. There is great hope for peace. Three months later Pakistan-based militants invade the Kargil area in Indian-controlled Kashmir, with the support of the military. A military confrontation, with the possibility of nuclear war, ensues. Nawaz Sharif travels to Washington and President Clinton convinces him to withdraw Pakistani forces from Kargil. Confrontation ends. Nawaz Sharif is overthrown in a military coup led by General Musharraf, one of the architects of the Kargil war. (Musharraf proclaims himself President of Pakistan in the year 2000.)”
August 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Sharif’s party is centre-right, more pro-market, slightly more religious, but not a religious party (unlike the JUI, JUP, and JI, which are all fringe/regional parties).
You would think that right-wing Americans would be more pro-Sharif, given that he represents industrialists, while left wing PPP was usually the quasi-socialist party (though Z.A Bhutto was a Feudal baron himself).
But, as you say, the reps of the PPP speak better English, and that’s pretty much all it takes to get US support. Hussein Haqqani, the Pakistani Ambassador to the US appointed by the PPP, is a former member of the Hudson Institute. Anotheer Chalabi/Saakashvili type.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Does anyone know what the “N” stands for in PML-N?
August 25th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I think Pakistan will figure out coalition politics just fine. Despite all the contention, Pakistan compares itself to India for its national prestige. India, made the inartful transition to coalition politics. Pakistan has always felt that if India can do something, they can do it just as well. Of all the Islamic countries, Pakistan followed by Iran have the best chance of becoming democracies. Hard as it might be for folks to realize, Pakistan actually has a history of Democracy – checkered but a significant history nonetheless. I just hope that we don’t meddle at the slightest straying of Pakistani electorate from what we want from them.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
N stands for Nawaz Sharif, if I am not mistaken. PML is the party of Jinnah.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Re: Hard as it might be for folks to realize, Pakistan actually has a history of Democracy – checkered but a significant history nonetheless.
Er, yes, Diaspora. That’s kind of my point. “Democracy” has been tried, and failed, numerous times in Pakistan since independence. How many times do you want it to fail? How long is it going to take the chattering classes in the United States to realize that liberal democracy isn’t going to work, period, in Pakistan? Pakistan is going to inevitably be ruled either by the army or by the Salafists, and I would much prefer that it be ruled by the army.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The “N” in PML-N stands for Nawaz, to distinguish it from PML-Q (Qaid), the faction of the PML that split from Nawaz and supported Musharraf after the 98 coup. Similar to the Indian practice of Congress(I), where the I stood for Indira.
The current PML-N, (and Q, or whatever) has no links to the 1940s era PML of Jinnah, though they like to pretend they do. The PML-N is pretty much the same as the old IJI.
Also, note Matt’s blatent Anti-Nawaz bias. He’s using an old photo of Nawaz, before he got his hair plugs in Saudi.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
As a Pakistani, let em tell you Musharraf was a LOT better than Bhutto, Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. It is only a matter of time that the army will take control again and I sure hope they do soon. The Army is the only “organized” and “disciplined” branch of government and I would like them to run everything in the country. Just because democracy works in western countries does not mean it will work in a country where the majority of its citizens are illiterate and have no idea how to vote for their best interests. There is a reason you’re not allowed to vote under the age of 18. Hate to insult my own “people” but the majority of them have a mental age below 18. These people don’t deserve democrary – yet.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:14 am
We have some idiots here who think we’re still in the 1960’s and that military rule is feasible any more anywhere. We are no longer in the age of Marighella and the failure of his doctrine and the leftist insurgencies in South America.
I have news for you. It’s a new ball game. Islamic militancy is on the rise in Pakistan and elsewhere, and the military is not going to be able to plug up the dike any more. Those days are gone. The more they try, the more they will lose. 4th Gen War is the name of the game, now, folks, and governments and their armies are inevitably going to lose that game.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 20th, 2009 at 12:03 am
L53M7V yihsnrzumzjv, [url=http://zijmxocegooi.com/]zijmxocegooi[/url], [link=http://hzjuhmvxdzhe.com/]hzjuhmvxdzhe[/link], http://mndelusprqjc.com/