On November 3rd, President-General Pervez Musharraf declared an emergency in Pakistan, suspended the interim constitution and essentially placed the Supreme Court of Pakistan under military arrest. His move has generated a crisis in the region with serious global implications.

Pakistan to this day remains along with Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran and Bangladesh, one of the few Muslim states where democratic processes have taken roots over the years. Even when Pakistan is governed by military dictators, as it is frequently (1958-70, 1978-88, 1999-present), it is still able to sustain a free press, active political parties and independent judiciary. Its ability to retain liberal political institutions even under military dictatorship is an important characteristic that we must keep in mind as we watch the current spiraling sequence of political disasters in Pakistan.

Coup against liberalism

Some political theorists talk of "illiberal democracies" - polities where there are elections but often in the absence of other important democratic institutions such as free speech, free media and independent judiciary. Pakistan is, in a curious way, the opposite of an illiberal democracy. It is a liberal dictatorship.

The declaration of emergency by General-President Musharraf in Pakistan on November 3rd is essentially an attempt to pull a coup against an important liberal dimension of Pakistan – against the independent judiciary. In October General-President Musharraf won the presidential elections while holding on to the position of the Chief of Pakistani military. But according to the current Pakistani constitution, government employees cannot run for elections and therefore Musharraf cannot hold his position as the head of the military and still be eligible to run for political office. His election was challenged in the Supreme Court and right before the Court was to give its decision on the constitutionality of Musharraf's election as President of Pakistan, he has declared an emergency, laid siege to the Supreme Court, blacked out independent news media and has detained those who had moved the Supreme Court to test his eligibility and the legality of his election.

This last year has seen Musharraf move against two institutions, the judiciary and the media, which otherwise have enjoyed much free reign under a dictatorship. These moves are clearly indications that Musharraf feels insecure about grip on power as his popularity declines.

Musharraf's declining utility

In the last year, Musharraf's popularity has diminished both in Washington and in Pakistan, primarily because he has become increasingly less useful both at home and abroad.

In Pakistan he has failed to curb the extremist violence which has taken over 450 lives in recent months. The military campaigns in the tribal areas against Taliban supporters and against the Red Mosque and its adjunct seminary in Islamabad has generated unprecedented amounts of resentment and anger against Musharraf. He is now seen by his critics primarily as a Washington tool who does nothing except to fight America's war against terror, a war which most people in Pakistan view as a war against Islam. Musharraf is waging wars against his own people in cities and provinces, and that has made the citizenry as well the military nervous and unhappy.

Still, it's important to note that Musharraf brought a degree of stability to Pakistani society and gave impetus to its declining economy after the coup in 1999. His alliance with the Bush administration after September 11 2001 also brought billions of dollars worth of military and economic aid to Pakistan, from which the economy has benefited. He has also provided, thanks to the professionalism of the military, both efficient and relatively corruption-free governance. Pakistan's military is one of the few professional, competent and stable institutions in the country, and it essentially assumed the responsibilities of the state after 1999. With stability improving, the Pakistani population got used to positive changes and has forgotten the more blatant corruption and chaos under the previous democratic governments from 1988-1998. As a result, they are now are dissatisfied with the turmoil that Musharraf's desperate efforts to retain power are bringing to Pakistan.

Even some of the secular elite who have supported Musharraf's undemocratic ways are becoming wary of his high-handedness. They appreciated his enlightened approach to Islam and saw him as a force that while subverting democracy minimally (only at the top, since the rest of Pakistan's governments, local and national, were elected), nurtured a degree of secularity and religious freedom necessary against the rising tide of Taliban-style Islamism. But what they have finally ended up with is more Islamic militancy with extremist violence, and less and less democracy.

American policy and democracy

Since September 11 2001, Pakistan essentially became the frontline state against al Qaeda and the Taliban and America's major ally in the "war on terror". Ironically, Musharraf's coup in 1999 was described by many analysts as a coup against Washington, since the then-PM Nawaz Sharif was seen as too close to Washington and President Clinton. Until 2001, Musharraf was a persona non-grata in Western capitals, but he has since become the face of "enlightened Islam" and Muslim cooperation in America's war against Islamic extremism.

Musharraf was seen as the go-to guy for eliminating al Qaeda from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and a bulwark against extremist control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. In return, America provided military and economic aid and did not pressure him to restore democracy in Pakistan. When two of the four provinces in Pakistan fell to Islamist-leaning parties in state assembly elections, the dangers of instant democracy became easily apparent to the US.

But lately there have been rumblings in Washington. General Musharraf has not fully succeeded in suppressing Islamic militancy. Al Qaeda (according to the National Intelligence Council) has reconstituted itself to pre-September 11 strength and the Taliban continue to wage their war against Western forces in Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan. Muslims of Pakistani origin are also seen as the main source for recruitment by radical groups in Britain. Pakistan has steadily become the most critical state for American and Western security and - given the fact that it is a nuclear-armed state - the strategic significance of a state failure or collapse in Pakistan is that much greater.

In recent weeks, Washington has been facilitating a rapprochement with Benazir Bhutto that could enable Musharraf to make a transition to democracy and remain President - with Bhutto as Prime Minister - and sustain a secular alliance in power in Islamabad. The declaration of emergency by Musharraf is his second coup against Washington. It not only derails the latest effort to usher in democracy but also emboldens the Islamist opposition, who recognizes that by taking this aggressive step, the General himself has brought Pakistan to the tipping point. It remains to be seen if they can muster the capacity to go the distance.

Washington cannot and will not abandon Musharraf. Indeed his move, which brings Pakistan closer to collapse, basically forces Washington to stand behind him more firmly, albeit unhappily. In the end, the current crisis can be diffused if an early rapprochement between Musharraf and the Pakistani Supreme Court can be arranged. It is here that Benazir Bhutto can play a role and reestablish herself as a major player both at home and in the eyes of the US.

I never understood why these countries needed to be there - if the Balochistanis, Waziristanis and Pakistanis want to break up, what's wrong with that? Let them have a civil war and break up the country into peaceful parts. Maybe that is what's going to happen in the long run and they are wasting lives trying to keep it together. As Musharraf said in his address this is to preserve the integrity of Pakistan - Why? What good is it doing anyway? Just as they broke up India and now that is accepted, so also this too will come to pass in course of time...let it brak-up, I say.

>> Just as they broke up India and now that is accepted

So which is it ... are Muslims authentically and Indian or not? Like I've said before, Pakistan faces different problems to India but if you were so saddened by the Hindustanis subcontinental brothers suffering, would you really be proposing division to them as a solution?

Who said I was saddened by the Hindus separating? I never said that nor do I think that. It would have been even better if ALL Muslims had gone out of India and that way they would not have had to riot every few years!

My point was, just as the Muslims could not live with the hindus and they broke away so also the Balochis and waziris.

By the way, read this essay in the Post by a prominent Iranian Muslim Financier named Ali Ettefagh:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2007/11/why_not_dissolve_pakistan_too.html

>> My point was, just as the Muslims could not live with the hindus and they broke away so also the Balochis and waziris.

Thanks for pointing out the article, though you ignore some pertinent points .. Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere aren't your tired stereotypes in support of your conveniently racist attitude. They are different people who very sincerely share the same basic beliefs.

Whatever the transgressions, to make this "the problem with Muslims" is sheer ignorance. Your criticism is of those who are in effect the poor of India .. yes, muslims are poverty stricken in addition to being discriminated against in India. I bet if Hindus mobbed a few thousand innocent people in Gujerat, you'd say it was consequence of Muslim actions. The same double standard is thrown at Algerian immigrants in France, African Americans in the USA, New Zealand Maoris ... people with Hindutva mindsets seem to need to "cleanse" mother India of her own people... for fictitious principles not much different from Pakistans.

Why can't you just point out the problem in ALL post colonial countries where boundaries were made by YOUR Queen Mothers glorious colonial empire? Is it too hard to admit that you're inventing identity out of anti-muslim sentiment. I guess if people have nothing to fight for, give them something to fight against?

You note that "When two of the four provinces in Pakistan fell to Islamist-leaning parties in state assembly elections, the dangers of instant democracy became easily apparent to the US." Are the dangers not equally apparent to Musharraf, many moderate Muslims and secular Pakistanis, and even to you, Professor Khan? I have seen reports that the precipitating court decision was the release of some 60 persons convicted in Pakistani courts of some class of terrorism. Musharraf was certainly predisposed to this action by the court's rejection of the October election results, but releasing 60 terrorists in the wake of the jihadi-style violence of the recent past, including the suicide bombings of Ms. Bhutto's caravan, seems very provocative. Your analysis is useful, but, as usual, essentially polemic.

Ghulam, one phrase I never understood that muslims keep using: "anti-muslim sentiment". Why do you think this is so? Are we, the non-muslims, just hateful of muslims because we are inherently hateful? Or do you think we are just the children of the devil, fighting you, the forces of god? Or are we just plain jealous of "the glory that was islam"? What exactly is it that drives - in your mind - people like me to have "anti-muslim sentiments"?

wiesskopf,

anti-muslim sentiment is about loss of empowerment within any people
within any country. over 100yrs later, we still have anti-yankee sentiment in the south(i just did a wk long trip to atlanta by road) have had that thru entire industrial revolution. and anti-muslim sentiment is just that.

most muslims are uneducated, and poor and unempowered. if you do not know that. then you are very poorly informed. if you know that, then your questions are full of malice, rather then sincere debate. poverty and powerless-ness drives anti-xxxx sentiments.and you can be relatively prosperous, but a powerless people.saudis in saudi arabia fall in that category. they are powerless in voting their leaders into power, and thus, take to religion to empower themselves even tho they are pretty well off compared of the rest of their global muslim bretheren.

i have travelled and lived in muslim countries, including india, in asia&mideast;. from your articles, its hard to me to believe you may have a similar background.

re pakistan, i must say i love our democratic republic, and do not favor military govts. however, if you look at musharraf objectively, he is a far better communicator as a leader&visionary;for pakistan with a better merit track record, then the rich foreign educated/bred clueless benazir and dumb rich/religion card player sharif today for a nuclear armed nation at cold war with major regional nuke power india and on other side a post-medieval hostile lawless/mountain people as neighbors in afganistan.

lots of people wanted the US to split into two pieces. north and south. and over a hundred yrs after that bloody civil war, we are still one US, a united single nation under God.

I had to travel&live;in pakistan on work. pakistan's feudal and tribal societies need strong and disciplilned force to be abolished and prosperity brought in thru infrastucture projects that generate jobs,initially thru govt investment, and then thru private investments, ie once these regions(kept backwards over last 60yrs by feudals)develop an educated population to develop basic ability and security to think on their own, and to be able to perform basic reading, writing, arithmatic skills..and above all, some respect and possible fear, of one law and its enforcement, for everyone, most if not all this anti-muslim sentiment will be removed. In fact, I found pakistanis the warmest and friendliest people towards foreigners...

take it from someone who knows :-)