Same Old Talk

Summary:
We claim to support democracy, but our actions show that isn't always true. In Pakistan we are supporting the military government of General Musharraf, even though there is ample evidence that a popularly elected government would not support Muslim extremists.

It is amazing how often history repeats itself. During the Cold War, we supported fascist governments over left-leaning, popularly elected governments. Sometimes, those governments might have been moving towards communism, but many times they weren't. (Iran is a perfect example of this, as are Guatemala and Nicaragua.) So basically, we only support democracy when the popularly elected government is one we agree with.

General Pervez Musharraf's military government in Pakistan is a perfect example of this. We support his regime at every turn while he suppresses reforms towards democracy. Our reason for doing this is Musharraf's cooperation in the War on Terror, as well as his ability to make Bush believe that if Pakistan were not ruled with an iron fist, and if democracy were allowed to flourish, the country (a nuclear power) would be ruled by religious extremists.

The reality in Pakistan doesn't seem to support Musharraf's claim though. There appears to be very little popular support for Muslim religious extremists in the country. Granted, recent violence in the country, including the government storming of a mosque occupied by extremists and suicide bombings in response, might appear to support Musharraf's argument. But if there isn't widespread support for the extremists then there isn't any reason why a popularly elected government couldn't deal with recent events.

One day, I hope our rhetoric actually matches our actions. I wouldn't expect Bush to ever accomplish this - but the problem isn't just with Bush, is it?