billsfanone Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/as...amp;oref=slogin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The question is whether he'll really give up power, or will he just give up the title like Puti-Pu did in Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The question is whether he'll really give up power, or will he just give up the title like Puti-Pu did in Russia. Edit: Never Mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The question is whether he'll really give up power, or will he just give up the title like Puti-Pu did in Russia. The two situations couldn't be any more different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 The question is whether he'll really give up power, or will he just give up the title like Puti-Pu did in Russia. I think it is pretty clear he will give up - he's been losing support in the party which backs him, and will not survive an impeachment vote. But your very question suggests you know little of Pakistan. The problem, which runs counter to our knee-jerk response towards military leadership, is that he has been a far better leader than the 'democratic' civilian leaders who run the country. [i call them leaders, but they are really party bosses - they are not popularly elected. The office of the President is popularly elected, but the Prime Minister is designated by a majority coalition of the National Assembly. Even within their parties, leadership is not elected, it is inherited.] Musharraf doesn't appear to be corrupt, and when he leaves in exile he won't be living lavishly [of course, I could turn out to be wrong here - only time will tell]. Contrast this with Bhutto and Sharif, who were each named Prime Minister twice and also removed by the then President for corruption twice. Bhutto and her husband had the gall to feather their nests by buying a large english estate *while still in office.* They faced numerous indictments by foreign countries on corruption and money laundering. Sharif was not much better, but Bhutto takes the cake. Her husband was known as 'Mr 10%' for the cut he was expected to receive on any foreign investment. So what have Bhutto's husband Zardari and Sharif been up to since they have taken political power in the National Assembly? The top agenda has been to grant themselves legal immunity, and to go after Musharraf. Let's not forget - Musharraf was not some dictator who ruled with no support. He was democratically elected - the controversy over his becoming president was based on the legal issue of whether we could run while in uniform, not over whether it was a fair election. And even in the most recent elections, the party that supported Musharraf finished second in the popular vote - Bhutto's and Sharif's finished 1st and 3rd. The impeachment of Musharraf is really based on political revenge, not on an obvious abuse of power. His fight with the Supreme Court (though a legitimate point of concern) was not that unusual. Neither Bhutto nor Zardari have clean hands in their manipulation of the courts. Musharraf did not rule by decree - elections were held, and politics went on as normal. He liberalized the press (unlike his predecessors), and pushed for women's rights (unlike Bhutto, who ran on that platform and delivered nothing). He worked hard to reign in military support for the Kashmir rebels and normalize relations with India, and was suprisingly successfull. Contrast this with Sharif, whose nationalist policies encouraged, funded and supported the violence in Kashmir. He made the country a nuclear state. He started the war with India in 1999; and it was that disaster which triggered the military coup. The sad truth is that Musharraf was probably the most responsible leader Pakistan has had in the last 50 years. But because he is a military general, we automatically assume Pakistan is some kind of dictatorship and throw our support to any corrupt demagouge who happens to be a civilian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 He has announced he is stepping down - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219044196...p_us_whats_news Interestingly, he will be stepping down despite the fact that there is no agreement to give him immunity. Sharif continues to press for treason charges (punishable by death). This is of course ironic since the new government gave themselves immunity on all outstanding charges and convictions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 He has announced he is stepping down - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219044196...p_us_whats_news Interestingly, he will be stepping down despite the fact that there is no agreement to give him immunity. Sharif continues to press for treason charges (punishable by death). This is of course ironic since the new government gave themselves immunity on all outstanding charges and convictions... Wait a minute. I was told that this resignation would be a mirror image of Putin's handover of power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 He has announced he is stepping down - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219044196...p_us_whats_news Interestingly, he will be stepping down despite the fact that there is no agreement to give him immunity. Sharif continues to press for treason charges (punishable by death). This is of course ironic since the new government gave themselves immunity on all outstanding charges and convictions... Well, Sharif, Bhutto-loyalists et al probably don't want Musharraff coming back to Pakistan exactly like they did last year when everything they touch turns to sh-- and the mainstream Pakistanis clamor for the better days under Pervez. It's a political see-saw there. Perhaps Sharif has read some Shakespeare and learned that you don't leave the progeny alive when you kill a king. I hope it's just exile, else the Pakistan govt would be doing exactly what AQ-affiliates tried and failed a few times. Further destabilization in the region... not good. Especially trading a pro-west leader for ones who are ambivalent. The main concern is, who has control over their nukes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts