The Pakistani Way

The more I read and study about Pakistan the more I find myself alienated from its people, culture and political dealings. I opened up the Pakistani newspaper today (not literally, who reads an article on a paper anymore?) and I just couldn't imagine a riot like the one that happened in Pakistan today ever happening in the US.

The people in Multan, Pakistan (the home town of the new prime minister) burned down the state electric department and a bank because the power company announced another power cut. The mob also set fire to furniture, buses and motorcycles, but what I thought was the most outrageous part of the riot was that they dragged 10 electric company employees out into the street and savagely beat them with wooden planks. As if the low level employees are to blame for the power crisis. 40 people were injured in all and thousands of dollars of damages were accrued, but more importantly is that this is a sign of democracy's apocalypse and the four horsemen are high food prices, power shortages, credit shortages and no quick solutions to any of the other three.

Not to run this point into the ground, but I've said all along that a war with Mursharraf isn't what the majority of Pakistanis care about. They don't care that parliament was run by religious radicals, they don't care that the judiciary was sacked and they don't care what the constitution says. Let's be honest, the uneducated masses of Pakistan care about where their next pay check is coming from and how much of it is going towards food. The regional police chief, Mirza Muhammad Ali said that the power outages were putting 500,000 loom workers and their families at risk of starvation since they worked 20 hours a day and with the power outages they would be out of work for a period of time.

If problems like these power outages keep going unaddressed, then the new civilian government is going to find itself with few supporters. When the PPP came into office they promised that they would fix the power outages. Thus far, however, the only real action they have taken is replacing the head of the state electric department, which in my opinion, is more politics than a resolve to fix a problem. The new power plants they are considering building won't be done for 6-10 years and the current hydroelectric plants are losing power every day with the falling water levels. Their answer is that Mursharraf caused all these problems - a claim I'm willing to bet is true. However, people tend to have short term memories and when their families are starving the question isn't, "who caused this?" - it's, "what are you gonna do about it?" I'm sure putting Mursharraf's head on a pike will feed the people though, right?

Musharraf: The Real Dr. Green Thumb

I have to admit, just reading what Musharraf said makes me want to throw on an army uniform and say, "sir, yes sir!" I've never seen one of his speeches and it probably wouldn't help since I don't speak his language(s), but I'm told he's even more charismatic in the delivery of his speeches. So when Musharraf says something like this with regards to a peaceful transition of power - you want to believe him:

"You think someone who has spent his entire adult life defending Pakistan and the past eight years trying to put democracy back on track wants to see the government fail and the country return to political anarchy? No. I'm committed to making this work. I had planted the sapling of democracy and I will not let it be affected at any cost."

I'd love to believe that Musharraf has been trying to promote democracy by sacking the judiciary an dismissing parliament. I'd love to believe that imprisoning political opponents was a necessary growing pain and that he really was watering the seed of democracy all along. Unfortunately, my damn common sense keeps getting in the way. Musharraf would say that I "can't see through the uniform," but when I hear stories about how Condi Rice has repeatedly had to restrain him from delaying elections I find myself being justifiably skeptical of the President.

It's obvious that Musharraf has an ulterior motive for claiming to promote democracy. Maybe he wants to hold on to some of the power he's about to lose. I think it's more likely though that it's a front for the non-transparent power he's exercising in the background. My professors have often times called me a cynic for never believing that a military ruler might just want to step down peacefully for once. I hope they're being sarcastic when they say that, but I suppose every political scientist wants to believe that humans aren't always power hungry.

At any rate, Musharraf got one thing right in his speech yesterday. He painted a grim picture when he asked, "Can you imagine what the effect would be on the business community, both foreign and domestic, or in the capitals of nations allied with us in the war on terror if the first thing they saw after this election was a political war between the presidency and the government? I think it would be catastrophic." Indeed, it would be. As I've been saying all along - the last thing parliament should be thinking about is a war with Musharraf because it will ultimately play into his, or at least the army's, hands. Crucifying Musharraf will only serve to mend broken egos, but it will not solve the plight of the poor and middle class people in Pakistan. Here enters the next military dictator - on his white stallion throwing out bread and money to the beggars on the street with a sword hidden at his side and the prime minister's imminent death at hand.

An Unlikely Figurehead

This week, President Mursharraf spoke at the 13th COMSTECH Assembly; an organization geared towards promoting the technological exchange between first and third world countries. Among the various issues he discussed at the conference he called for the “end of discriminatory distribution of economic resources in the world to eliminate extremism and the sense of deprivation” and claimed that “the Muslim world must initiate dialogue with the West to clear current misperceptions.” What the hell was COMSTECH thinking when they asked Mursharraf to speak at this conference?

Asking Mursharraf to promote the end of inequality is tantamount to former president, William Taft (a 340 LB modern-day Buddha), promoting a healthier American diet with a giant fried chicken leg in one hand and vestiges of Crisco in the other. I suppose that someone who has firsthand experience stealing from the poor to give to the rich would know a thing or two about discriminatory distribution. And hey, who better to tell the West that their perception of a backwards and oppressive Eastern society is all wrong? He could make that speech right before his two O’ clock appointment to sack the judiciary, dismiss parliament and execute some political prisoners – you know, the daily routine stuff.

I’m not saying the president is wrong and I completely understand why Pakistan, a leading industrializer in the Middle East, would be asked to talk about technology sharing, but come on - Mursharraf? This is the guy you want spearheading your initiatives? See if you can book the prime minister next time and save the president some time. He has too many military operations to cover up as it is!

The Predator! Send Arnold to Pakistan!

I had heard of predators before but I suppose I didn't realize how much they were actually used until I read this article. Predators are the pilot-less remote controlled planes used by the US to conduct reconnaissance and bombing missions. In the last few years they have been the perfect loop hole for Mursharraf and Bush to conduct US strikes against terrorists while allowing Mursharraf to maintain his famous claim that only Pakistani forces could conduct missions on Pakistani soil. Of course, Mursharraf has always maintained that he was opposed to these bombing runs and that he strictly monitored and managed their occurrences. Newsweek printed an article today which indicates that the US has essentially been given free reign now to bomb as they please inside Pakistan due to the realization that terrorism in Pakistan isn’t just a US problem anymore.

Pakistani generals and Mursharraf were quick to deny these claims because they were afraid of the US-hostile civilian parliament reacting to them. They continue to maintain that they have never allowed the US to conduct these bombing run. The Newsweek article, however, maintains that there has been a huge spike in the number of predator missions conducted and no protestation accompanying them. While I’m happy to see that Mursharraf and the military are being careful not to anger the new parliament; I’m not convinced that Newsweek is misinformed about the deals between Pakistan’s military and the US.

Pakistan’s intelligence in the terrorist areas is so bad that the US has had to rely solely on its own intelligence just to run these missions. In just one year the number of suicide attacks in Pakistan has risen from 6 to 65. At some point, it makes sense that Pakistan’s military said, “What the hell, just go ahead and start bombing.” Absent this Newsweek report which was a result of a leak on the US’ side, I don’t think anyone in Pakistan would have been the wiser.

In the bigger picture of things, this really isn’t anything new or profound. The day the military unilaterally allows US full access into the country will be the day a scandal is really formed. My intrigue with this story is that it’s more so a foreshadowing of the way the military is going to maintain its control in the country. Parliament is horribly equipped to monitor what the military is doing. These permissible predator attacks will probably continue to happen and I highly doubt parliament will be able to pass a law that changes that. If this is allowed to happen though, then what stops the military from making backdoor deals both domestically and internationally? I’m not a CIA agent, but I guarantee that this Newsweek article is at least half right and Pakistan’s military is brokering deals with the US. This story just underlines the imaginary control parliament has over Mursharraf and the military.

It's a Start...I Guess?

The Pakistani courts today decided that a law that's been on the books since the creation of the constitution is unconstitutional. I'm a little confused by this since I was under the impression that the judges still weren't reappointed, but whatever - apprently there's some sort of interim agreement I'm unaware of. Anyways, the law was that you had to have a B.A. or higher in order to hold an elected position in the government. Obviously, this should have been ridiculous to begin with considering that less than 5% of Pakistanis hold such a privileged degree, but the reasoning behind the decision is that "no other democracy in the world has such a law on the books and we shouldn't either."

Well, ok...I guess that's good, right? Yea, they got rid of an elitist law that prevented almost all of Pakistan from participating in their government, but for the right reasons I wonder? I mean, under that line of reasoning there are tons of laws on Pakistan's books that don't appear in any liberal democracy.

For example, what about the blaspheme law? Under this law, you can be jailed for saying anything blasphemous either about the Muslim faith or about a muslim government. There was a case last year where a guy posted his book online that was critical of Pakistan's religious law. He was jailed for over a year even though he removed the book. Apparently he was a bad prisoner though because he ended up being shot in the head by the warden. Obviously, this educated author was a hardened criminal causing tons of problems in prison huh?

I think Pakistan should be careful what the reasoning is for overturning a law. If they really wanted to show a concern for human rights then they should be overturning these rights based on the belief that everyone has a right to participate in their government or everyone has a right to free speech - not because other democracys do it. There is a subtle difference, but this is the key difference between a liberal democracy and a democracy in function only. I hope changes like this will continue to happen in Pakistan though, however, they should be done so carefully. The changes happening now will set a very important precedent for the future of Pakistan.

Pakistan Didn't Elect Bush!

For all the backwardness implied with the name Pakistan, the people are not so backwards that they would elect an ex-alcoholic from Texas once, more or less, twice. Unfortunately, the recent elections in Pakistan didn't magically quell the terrorist threat on the outskirts of the country. Insofar as this is not the case, President Bush will continue to make decisions that radically affect the Pakistani people until terrorism is gone or his term has ended. Almost assuredly, it will be the latter.

Terrorist organizations/tribes are still residing in Pakistan and they will need to be dealt with either diplomatically or by force. With regards to this matter, Fareed Zakaria points out that even though the Bush administration has continually pushed democracy promotion in the middle east; now that it has finally happen they would rather work with the dictator in pursuing a policy to deal with terrorists in Pakistan. Bush aides indicated that they would continue to work with president Mursharraf as opposed to the new parliament even though he's the anti-democratic spokesperson for the country and no longer has control of parliament (at least not directly or transparently speaking).

Obviously, this is a characterization of this administration's foreign policy: pulling the puppet strings from DC. The Bush administration would rather deal with an easily controlled Mursharraf. Undoubtedly he is easier to control than a new and unknown multifarious parliament. The downfall to this, which is aptly pointed out by Zakaria, is that no one is fooled by the puppet ruler and any decisions that are made as a result of Mursharraf's backing will be viewed as the US' war and not Pakistan's. The result will be a poorly run and poorly supported war which might lead to an increase rather than a decrease in terrorism altogether. On the contrary, if parliament calls the shots then the legitimacy of the war there will be maintained. Parliament's leaders are quick to explain that their plan for dealing with the terrorists is the same as Mursharraf's anyways except they will be able to succeed where he as failed. They want to open up lanes of diplomacy with the outlying terrorist tribes and whereas Mursharraf couldn't do it cause he was afraid of assassination, parliament's sheer numbers solves this problem. I'm not suggesting diplomacy will necessarily work. Often times these extremist groups are immune to peace talks. However, if there is a need to go to war in Pakistan - then parliament should be the one who makes that call.

The US has gotten sloppy with its behind-the-scene-CIA-cover-up strategy. For whatever reason, Bush and his people feel that open or vaguely veiled coercion of other countries is acceptable. Although I would feign promote this in any way, the fact of the matter remains that if a country thinks it's running the show then it will be motivated to carry out its objectives, even if their orders are really coming from another country. In short - perception is reality. However, since Bush is as sly and tactful as an elephant with a marching band behind it, we'll need to take the training wheels off Pakistan and give them a chance to ride on their own now. We can give them a push to get them started, which might include soft power help in maintaining Pakistan's independent judiciary, but that doesn't entitle us to man the handle bars and direct their policy on terrorism. We'd do well for ourselves not to try to anyways. Terrorism in Pakistan is as much a problem for us as it is for them. Our goal should not be to solve it our way and our way only, but rather to solve it. If there is in fact a solution to terrorism then entrusting Pakistan's parliament with the task of finding it will be the best way to reach it.

Democracy: Pakistan's Pink Elephant

Democracy in Pakistan is like a cordless screwdriver, it takes two days to charge and you get about an hour of use out of it. The recent democratic elections in Pakistan are the result of nearly 20 years of political turmoil, and yet, there is no indicator that democracy won't sputter out within the year. In the country’s 60 some odd years of independence it has spent about three-fourths of them under some sort of corrupt dictatorship and half the time it was the military running the show. Indeed, it would seem that it takes decades for the people of Pakistan to get politically charged enough to demand a democratic or transparent government and only a few years to revert back to an authoritarian dictatorship. Plainly put, Pakistan's corrupt history has a bad habit of repeating itself.

Why? Simple, those in power aren’t going away because an election they allowed decided to vote their party out. Their networks, power and wealth are too dense and deep-rooted for democratic governments to reform them. This ultimately yields a lack of results and a disillusioned populace with a nostalgia for a less democratic, albeit, stable time. Recent elections in Pakistan were fair and they were able to dislodge the military’s extremist party from parliament, but this is not what constitutes a democracy. PPP supporters quick to herald in a new democratic era forget that Mursharraf is still president, the military is still economically in control and parliament is no more powerful now than it was last month. It takes more than one ingredient to bake a cake.

A small Pakistani history lesson will remind observers what happened the last time Pakistan thought they had “democracy” in 1988. Benazir Bhutto, the female prime minister, was elected and dismissed from office twice on charges of “corruption.” Her successor was jailed on charges of “treason.” Surely, this was a transparent democracy fighting corruption at every turn, right? There’s an old joke about Pakistan, the only reason they avoided being the number one corrupted government in the world in a “1996 global corruption index” was by bribing Nigeria to take its place. We end this history lesson with current President Mursharraf’s military coup in 1999. This led to yet another dictatorial constitution granting him the following powers: right to dismiss parliament and the judiciary at his pleasure, appoint military chiefs and declare a state of emergency thus granting him dictatorial “emergency powers.” To date, despite a new civilian government, this constitution remains unchanged.

Granted, revamping a constitution is a serious political feat for any government, even those with popular support. However, parliament’s clamoring for a reinstated judiciary, a new constitution and the president’s resignation – shortly followed by Mursharraf’s veto is only a foreshadowing of what’s to come. In the past, Mursharraf has manipulated elections, circumvented the constitution to allow himself to maintain the dual posts of president and army chief of staff and struck unholy alliances with hard-line Islamists in Parliament while assuring his U.S. backers that he was cracking down on them. There is little reason to believe that he is quietly relinquishing his power when both the military and the Bush administration are behind him. Even if he is unable to openly wield the influence he once did, Mursharraf still has a never ending supply of roadblocks to throw in front of the new fledgling government’s objectives.

The new coalition parliament might have the backing of the people but Mursharraf and the army have something better: the backing of the world’s super power and a no-strings-attached-fat-check in which to command the economy. Parliament has virtually no authority to dictate policy for the army and the generous $10 billion foreign aid provided by the US is given in the form of direct military funding. In other words, another piece of the power-pie parliament has no authority over.

Pakistan would do well to take a page out of Turkey’s book if it wishes to antiquate military rule. The new EU member was in a situation similar to Pakistan's not too long ago. The incumbent government was able to maintain power for two reasons. First, they made sure to protect Turkey’s domestic and international interests and thus, made sure there was no excuse for the military to get involved in government affairs. Second, and most important for Pakistan’s case, Turkey’s parliament made the public’s wellbeing their highest priority and enacted successful economic reform in the country.

Parliament’s mission to crucify Mursharraf and the military will be an uphill battle and the victory short lived. As soon as the military ceases to be a problem then the economy will be the next big issue. The PPP will be called upon to answer for their shortcomings and this will be the “excuse” the military needs to justify its rise to power again. Pakistan’s new government should focus more on the well being of the people rather than waging a costly and, altogether, pointless, campaign against the military. When the general populace begins to benefit from reform then they will cease to harbor nostalgia for military rule. At present, parliament seems to be acting out the same cycle of autocratic tradition that has plagued Pakistan since its birth. The only cure is a shift in focus from a securing of power to a promotion of public wellbeing.

Public Intellectuals: The Public and the Intellects

Does AA stand for alcohol anonymous or average American? After living in the most densely populated area of the US (Southern California) for ten years I honestly don’t know if there’s a difference. No, my point isn’t that the average American is a binge drinker but that he is uneducated and unaware of his role in the United States. Given that our country is driven by the average American, it’s a little unnerving that he’s drunk at the wheel. The blame game doesn’t stop there though. What about the ivory tower intellects that spend their time talking about topics that are either irrelevant to the average American’s day-to-day living or talked about at a level so intellectually elevated that the average American can’t make that connection. No wonder then that 3 hour car chases and Brittney Spears’ latest scandal get more air time than immigration policies, international trade agreements and interest rate fluctuations combined. ABC 7 news is the number one rated news station in Southern California and yet no decently educated person would think they were getting a good idea of what’s going on in the world by watching a whether girl dressed like a stripper and two news anchors whose only real talent in life is pretending to be smart.

Society has dictated a symbiotic relationship between public intellectuals and the average man that has broken down over time in America. The public intellectuals give the people the facts and the average man decides, in utilitarian fashion, what to do based on those facts. However, both parties have broken their contractual agreement to the other. The average American is not educating himself enough to be able to comprehend even the simplest of concepts and consequentially the public intellectual, in his impatience, has resolved to just being an intellectual. That is, he no longer tries to explain himself to a population lacking the expertise that he has.

The Average American is grossly undereducated considering the resources available to him regardless of his socioeconomic class. The national graduation rate for high schools is 71% in the US. California specifically, which holds the most electoral votes and most seats in the house, has a 64% graduation rate. Take that statistic and then consider how horrible our schools are in relation to the rest of the first world. We ranked 19 and 20th in math and science respectively among 36 countries (side note: this test was done later with both first and third world countries – we were beat by a couple of the third world countries so our ranking went even lower). To put this in perspective for you, when I taught IR to a few LA public high schools HONORS classes I was unable to find a single student who could explain to me what capitalism was. To give another anecdote - I attended my little sister’s high school homecoming game a few months back in the suburbs. The homecoming princesses were supposed to be the smartest and prettiest girls in the senior class. Only one out of five of them had any aspirations for attending college. The other four said, “I would like to get married and start a family after graduating from high school.” The college bound teen did not win the crown…Ladies and Gentlemen; these are your future voter.

Given that your audience doesn’t understand capitalism, how far can you really dumb down the material in order to explain why their jobs are going overseas? I sympathize with public intellectuals – I really do. However, walking away from the masses by locking yourself in an ivory tower does not bring meaning to your work anymore than discovering the cure for cancer and then keeping it a secret, does. Stephen Mack is absolutely right when he talks about the supposed “conflict” between intellects and anti-intellectualism in America:

[The “conflict”] is both wrong and wrong-headed. It is wrong in the sense that it traffics in the self-serving fiction of American anti-intellectualism. And it is wrong-headed in the sense that it undermines the value of citizen responsibility by subordinating it unnecessarily to the most elitist argument for the public intellectual, the one grounded in the myth of an aristocracy of experts.

It is not an American tradition to be anti-intellectual and believing that it is only further separates the intellectuals from the people they are supposed to be trying help, by excluding them from the problem solving process.

There’s an obvious disconnect in this country between intellects and the masses. Both parties have turned their backs on each other in distrust leaving a vacuum that’s filled by mindless media dribble and misleading politicians. Both sides need to reach out to each other in order to become the body of criticism that’s needed to turn the wheels of democracy. Our country’s system of governance ultimately relies on the watchful eye of the people to administer justice and make changes in the system where need. The status quo would suggest that a bank robber just walked out with the cash and the security guard shook his hand. The US would do well to take a page out of the book of other countries. Pakistan is in horrible condition right now but it’s most recent election results would suggest that they know a corrupt dictatorship when they see one.

Religion: The New Scarlet Letter

"Lighthouses are more useful than Churches"
-Benjamin Franklin

Stephen Mack posted a piece that argues that "dialogic neutrality," or the elimination of religious dialogue in politics is infeasible in the United States given a.) our liberal history – from abolition to labor movements – is entangled in religion and b.) it’s intrinsically unfair, “to ask religious intellectuals to disarm their political speech of its fundamental moral rationale." Furthermore, Mack posits that religion offers a unifying identity or “sense of belonging” which without, democracy cannot sustain itself. He ultimately concludes that we shouldn’t be worrying about the existence of religion in politics but rather the way in which it is used. Mack certainly is not the only proponent of arguments like this and I would feign suggest he is on the far right of this argument. However, there seems to be this unquestioned mentality at every point in the spectrum that feels religion is super-glued to our government - you can work around it or through it, but it's there to stay.

I take issue with this argument for two reasons. First, the use of religion, at least for just causes, in modern democracies is an antiquated tool. There are strong alternatives for social unity that don’t utilize religion. Second, our roots in religion are not justification enough to suggest that we cannot and should not disassociate our government from religion. The principles and values on which our country was founded are no longer validated by religious authority. They are in themselves sacred because our citizens have chosen to promote and preserve them. Furthermore, some of the worst atrocities have been done in the name of God. Man has proven time and time again that he’s not responsible enough to wield the infallible power that religious zeal yields. This power often leads to a horribly destructive group think mentality which, in lieu of a check on religious fervor and given alternative unifying indentities, means we shouldn’t use it at all.

The religious man may have played a prominent role in politics in recent years but, leave no doubt, he’s a dying breed. No one can argue that religion, at least in the Western world, has lost its power status throughout the past millennia. Kings no longer bow to the pope and bribes are still paid to a big man, but he isn’t “god” and he doesn’t wear a funny hat. Perhaps the elderly still hold religion dear and they certainly vote more than any other group but when they’ve left this earth they will leave behind a more secular generation. Surely when today’s youth takes over with their “godless” pop culture – religion will take yet another hit. People are finding other social cleavages to align themselves with. Low-income blacks unite over policy issues just as much as white Christians do. Hispanics in LA didn’t vote for Villaraigosa because he was catholic but because he was Mexican. Women are uniting behind Hillary Clinton because they feel she will promote equality between sexes in the work place. Blacks are uniting behind Obama because they believe he will represent them better than a white politician. Their religion is a moot issue in the election. James Skillen best depicts what truly is at stake in politics today:

This country's increasingly diverse society, culturally speaking, can live comfortably enough with religious diversity in private. What Americans do not yet accept or know how to establish, however, is religious diversity in public--in politics and in government because the old-time civil religion demands an America whole and undivided. Consequently, the real political fights and culture wars are not over differences in private faiths but over the principles of political faith that should define the American way of life as a whole. The contest over the right to define those principles is the contest for majority control of Congress, the White House, and the courts--and the winner takes all. Those who disagree with the majority will still have every right to hold their private convictions, but they will not have authority to exert any public control. What would be most helpful, then, is a probing examination of where candidates stand with respect to the American civil religion, and that requires dealing with the truly relevant questions of political religion.

Religion is not at the heart of political tension any more. There are values associated with what Skillen phrases as a “civil religion," unattached from God or a god. These values are more of policies and ideologies than religious creed backed by a deity. The political landscape is no longer one of ontological banter but rather deontological debates. Rights and wrongs are judged and decided on an individual level not taken at face value from a book. Religion is one method for identifying one’s civil religion but it is far from the only alternative. I am an upper class white male but I am not “Christian.”

Just as it's important to analyze religion's role in modern day America, it's also important to study the empirical role it has played in politics. Anyone who attended grade school in the US is taught about the Puritans who came to America to escape religious persecution. America like all countries is proud of its roots and like most countries we find out cradle more so in a church than a public forum. However, to suggest that we're the same country today that we were almost 400 years ago is like saying Marvin Gaye and today's rap artists are the same because they found their roots in jazz/blues. It’s fun to talk about the Puritan leader, John Winthrop, and his vision of “a city upon a hill,” but there’s a black sheep in that story that gets locked away and never talked about. Winthrop was eventually thrown out of office because he fervently refused to form a general assembly which would give a voice to the people. Now explain to me how that aligns itself with the democratic society we’ve built today. Few would argue that Ben Franklin wasn’t an integral figurehead of the constitution and he surely saw the need for separation of church and state long before America was diversified religiously (see quote at top). In just under a hundred years then we see at least some of our leaders - from Winthrop to Franklin - beginning to change their opinion about the role of religion in government.

Herein lies the hallmark of American government: its ability to innovate and adapt to the needs of its people without a violent revolution or a struggle for power. Part of this innovation has been the ability to govern a diverse group of people fairly and justly regardless of their religion BECAUSE we have downplayed the role of religion in society. The constitutional rights afforded to citizens in the 21st century are rarely venerated because they are “God-given rights,” but rather because they are “American rights.” They stand for freedom and tolerance for all because Americans, as a country, decided to preserve them. A Buddhist or a Hindu doesn’t believe his fourth amendment rights are a result of a higher being but rather because the US as a liberal society decided to value them. Similarly, I don’t think you would find a Buddhist or a Hindu would suggest that these are bad rights because their religious idols didn’t stress them. These rights have been around long enough that they validate themselves without the “hand of god.” American politics may find its roots entrenched in religion but this does not necessitate identification along religious lines.

The obvious flaw in my argument is that religion was still responsible for the ultimate creation of the US and it was still the reason for many other civil rights movements. In essence, there is an undeniable good that religion is responsible for. My counter to this is that for every instance of good that has been done in the name of God, a horrible act was done in the same manner. Martin Luther King Jr. was a minister who fought for the equal rights of all and he did so on the basis that God created all men equally. However, wasn’t that same god used to justify the slavery of African’s in the first place or the god that the KKK worked for? Wasn’t that the same god that gave a man the right to control his wife however he chose? More pertinent, isn’t that the same god that’s being used now to deny gays their equal rights? Look at the neo-conservatives who recently had control of office with the support of evangelical Christians. The US experienced one of the largest and most catastrophic group think movements in world history. We went to war with less than credible intelligence. No one in congress stopped to think about whether faulty data was a possibility and no one stopped to consider if sending less than half the recommended troops to Iraq was a good idea and certainly, no one paid any attention to the anti-war rallies. All the while George W. Bush rallied the religious right “with God on our side” and less oversight than even Nixon.

This is the very wicked paradox that Mack discusses. Religion can rally the righteous troops, but politics ultimately guides them to a corrupt end. I agree with Stephen Mack and religious conservatives insofar as they argue that religion can unite people under one banner and can be used for honest objectives. However, I disagree with those who posit that "can" and "must" are the same thing. Given that there are alternative means of uniting people in today’s society, it seems that it is empirically unwise to trust anyone with the unchecked power of religious zeal. Mack and others say we should try to guard against this unchecked form of religious zeal. I would argue that the nature of the beast lends itself to raw, unbridled power and thus should never be used. I would not readily be a US citizen if any given branch of government had unbridled power. Equally, I refuse to allow a religious majority to take charge of America’s reins without ditching the bible first. Ask Indiana Jones what happens when we open the Ark of the Covenant. God’s power is too much responsibility for man. Let’s close our eyes and lock the Ark up in the cellar of the old government.

Conspiracy? No, just Pakistani politics...

It's hard to open a Pakistani newspaper these days without seeing the name Benazir Bhutto. For most Americans this name means little more than an unpronounceable mouthful of syllables and another excuse to ditch the world news section for the sports page. However, for many Pakistanis she represented the hope for a new government independent of the military. She (yes, a woman - can you believe it?) served as prime minister for a number of years before being exiled to Dubai in 1998 as a result of false allegations of corruption. She was finally allowed back into the country in October of last year after reaching an "understanding" with current president and former chief of army staff, Pervez Musharraf. At the time of her homecoming, Pakistan was under military rule pending the upcoming elections where she was the opposition frontrunner as chairman of the Pakistani People's Party (PPP). Anyone who’s ever opened a history book can see where this is going - an anti-military politician going into the elections against the former head military general who was undemocratically appointed... As you guessed it, she was assassinated by a suicide bomber on December 27th, 2007 just two weeks before elections.

Granted, she was assassinated by Al-Qaeda operatives due to her “crackdown-on terrorists” platform but there are still strong undercurrents of corruption in this story that have nothing to do with Bin Laden and his cronies. Let’s analyze the facts here:

· After multiple public death threats from terrorist leaders AND an assassination attempt at her homecoming rally, she requested body guards from a government agency similar to the US’ Secret Service. None was provided for her.
· Bhutto requested security from Senator John Kerry who then requested security on her behalf from Condi Rice. His request was ignored.
· Even though she was in a bomb-proof and bullet-proof limo at the time of the explosion she still managed to die even though none of her passengers sustained any injuries.
· The initial autopsy report said she was killed from bullet wounds to the head. Upon further inquiry, this was changed to a head wound suffered when her head hit the car door handle in the explosion. No blood was found on the car doors.
· When Scotland Yard was called in to conduct a neutral, third party investigation into the matter, the Pakistani police limited them to only discovering the cause of death (which is what lead to the change in cause of death).

I know what you’re thinking, sounds like a story out of a Tom Clancy book, right? As much as I’d love to stroke my ego and declare my investigatory-scandal-skills supreme, my observation is far from original. Pakistani newspapers know better than to tattle on the government and US newspapers are more interested in proclaiming the atrocities of Al-Qaeda than investigating a conspiracy, but the Pakistani people aren’t stupid. A PPP leader was quoted as saying, "We will go out with a pledge to fight those who snatched away our leader. We will defeat them. We will vote them out." There are also many people pointing fingers at Washington, wondering why they weren’t being very good watch dogs in a country supposedly so important for national security. The easy answer is: Bush’s administration is incompetent. The better answer is: the US didn’t want a leader who wasn’t willing to put border patrol at a higher priority than the needs of her people. God forbid the US ever covertly supported a military dictator over a more representative, albeit, US-critical government. *cough* Saddam *cough*.

The elections are in total disarray at this point as the PPP has yet to appoint anyone besides Bhutto’s 19 year old son and the corrupt business industrialist, his father, as president and acting president respectively. The name “Pakistan” is translated to mean “land of the pure.” Sad to say, the people who reside in the country are at odds with its name. On a high note, at least all of Pakistan’s WMDs are safe!

The Pakistani Paradox

Pakistan is truly the poster child for scholars pushing the idea of countries experiencing growth without development. That is, a country who’s GDP continues to rise but whose developmental indicators - such as education, fertility rates, and life expectancy - remain stagnated. Economists who were attempting to repair Pakistan’s economy after its independence in 1947 worked using the same intuitive principle that drove the Marshall plan: more income yields a better society (Cohen, 95). However, the results after fifty years of growth would suggest a new principle is needed in Pakistan. Despite doing remarkably well with the growth of the economy compared to countries in similar economic situations, Pakistan has consistently ranked lower than some of the poorest countries in the world in terms of development indicators. In large part, this can be attributed to the country's political elite and tradition of ethnic factionalism. However, equally important to consider, and often overlooked, is the role that foreign agenda's have played in making Pakistan a slave to foreign aid and, subsequently, an inattentive social reformist.

Pakistan’s list of achievements in the past fifty years is truly a rags-to-riches, Heratio Alger story. Between 1950 and 1999 Pakistan was able to hold an average GDP growth rate of 2.2% which effectively tripled its GDP (Rodrik, 439). Moreover, its current PPP is in the greatest one-third of the world (Joeks, 37). Indeed, Pakistan has come a long way from the struggling newly formed nation it once was. However, it’s important to keep in mind that it also received the third largest amount of foreign assistance in the world and massive amount of World Bank and IMF loans. Obviously these loans are not misfortunes and if anything it only sets the bar that much higher for Pakistan in terms of social development because it received help when many more deserving countries were overlooked. Unfortunately, after all the aid Pakistan received and the economic progress it made, very little can be said of its social progress.

The laundry list of social crises in Pakistan surly eclipses the country's economic successes. Pakistan continually scores below the standard benchmark for a country with its income in development indicators such as infant mortality rates, literacy rates, and GDP spent on health care (Casterline, 96). Moreover, Freedom House ranked them the least democratic country in their income bracket and that was during a time when they had a democratically elected government (Rodrik, 446). Before and since then, Pakistan has slipped in and out of martial law in the name of fighting their rival neighbor, India (In fact, they are currently under martial law due to the inexplicable reason that were they to initiate elections there would be a possible terrorist attack). Perhaps even more appalling is that regardless of its transparency at any given time, forced child labor has been a problem without an end in sight (Toor, 195). Indeed, at the rate it’s going, Pakistan will be the first fully industrialized nation to employ child labor. It’s no wonder then that the average teacher is only present 19% of the school year (Gazdar, 51). The list truly goes on; despite spearheading the use of contraceptives in third world countries Pakistan boasts a horrible fertility rate and a growing concern of overpopulation. Pakistan has surly been successful in its defense spending, however. It spends billions on unused highways and nuclear weaponry each year and its defense budget outspends anyone in its income bracket by 3.3% GDP. There are numerous developmental disasters in Pakistan - and to be sure, those listed here only skim the surface - but how and why does such irresponsible spending occur in a country so economically proficient?

There are a few answers to this question, one of which is simply that the political elites in Pakistan either don't see a benefit to investing in their people or don’t want to because they fear they will lose power. Indeed, economists largely agree that when land and labor are abundant and labor capital is scarce there is a relatively low incentive to invest in the betterment of the labor force because it will yield little benefit. Thus the political and economic elite see little incentive for investing in education, health care, etc. for the Pakistani people. Only when the country becomes more developed and capital becomes abundant will landowners want to invest in the people (Galor and Moav). The paradox, of course, is that without the initial investment there won’t be any development. Hence, Pakistan would seem to be stuck in an underdeveloped slump. Another reason the political elite refuses to invest in the people is that a healthy and educated population will ultimately demand more rights (Bourgignon and Verdier, 285). When people become informed and realize they are being treated unfairly they will naturally voice their opposition to such treatment. Thus, those in power see it in their best interests to monopolize education and other resources. Consequently, social spending suffers leading to little, if any, education and healthcare for the poor. The elite greedily spend on their own endeavors and neglect the will of the largely uneducated populace.

A second approach to the explanation for Pakistan’s backwards development suggests that Pakistan suffers from the common post-colonial problem of ethnic factionalism. The British often indiscriminately drew borders for their colonies without regards for local ethnic divisions; Pakistan seems to be no exception. There are hundreds of ethnic groups within its borders and over twenty languages spoken in the heterogeneous country. Indeed, Pakistan is divided by three major fault lines. There are divisions between ethno linguistic groups, natives and immigrants and finally, amongst the different Muslim sects (Sharif, 131). Even if we assume that those in power are working for the benefit of their people, determining what the “public good” is for so many different factions becomes tedious if not impossible altogether. Different groups obviously value spending on different endeavors. Many Muslim groups living in rural areas of Pakistan, for example, want increased spending on agriculture and irrigation while Indian immigrants flocking to the cities would like to see more investment in factory facilities to attract foreign investors (Malik, 28). A limited budget will ultimately allow for investment in one or the other. Who decides and which one is chosen as the public’s best interest is obviously very controversial. The result of such stalemates is a lack of public services. With so many interests at stake, arguments over the distrbution of federal money effectively freeze the legislative process. Even when they do come together to create some sort of begrudged legislation, there is often little support for it in its implementation (Rodrik, 465). For example, a bill passed in 1990 calling for electricity in rural areas was finally implemented in 2004, over a decade later! This explanation for Pakistan’s backwardness is also very convincing in that it explains why so much money in Pakistan is spent on defense. Regardless of their differing points of view, every faction in Pakistan can agree that national security is a top priority. Unfortunately, setting aside differences for the well being of their people does not rank as high.

However, this last point is as much an effect of ethnic factionalism as it is an effect of the poking and prodding of Pakistan’s financial backers. The US especially, although not alone in its endeavors, has made demands of Pakistan that force it to divert funds to its military or risk facing a loss of economic aid. With 92% of its debt paid by foreign aid, this hardly appears to be a choice (Rodrik, 440). The US’ focus on Pakistan, at least in recent years, is a result of two factors. 1) Pakistan’s shared border with Afghanistan has made it a safe haven for Al Qaeda operatives seeking to destabilize the US’ already unstable, pet project. 2) The instability of Pakistan itself makes it a prime target for the theft of its nuclear technology by terrorist organizations residing in the country. Unsurprisingly, US and European demands have followed suit with these concerns. Pakistan has been “asked” to secure its nuclear stock piles and to crack down on militants based in its rural regions. Obviously, demands like these steal both money and attention away from public service projects. The foreign aid given to Pakistan is a gift with a stipulation involved. The vice here seems to be that Pakistan can’t survive without foreign aid, however, Pakistan can’t progress while being dependent on it either.

Moreover, the US has made it abundantly clear that the priority given to the well-being of Pakistan’s people will always rank lower than its own interests. A quick trip down memory lane will reveal that the US cut financial aid to Pakistan in 1990 because of its refusal to end its nuclear bomb program. With the introduction of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan “miraculously” received $707 million in aid from the US in 03’. America’s 2008 budget will cut aid given to India and increase Pakistan’s aid to $770 million. When the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, Randall Tobias, was asked why this was he responded, “Pakistan and Afghanistan are important to national security. India isn’t.” With virtually no alternative to fulfilling the demands of its financial backers, it’s no wonder that Pakistanis receive the amount of assistance that they do and yet see little social benefit from it. At any rate, it’s certainly hypocritical of any aid giver to expect development to occur under circumstances like these.

This is not to say that some solutions have never been attempted, however, all have ultimately failed. There were initially three different five-year plans. The first one in 1959 called for universal free primary education. However, this was obviously never pursued. The second and third five-year plans emphasized universal health coverage especially in rural areas and in the fight against malaria. These too failed due to lack of enforcement. Doctors never showed up to hospitals in rural areas and medicine was in too short a supply to ever be effective (Noman, 82). More recently, the Social Action Program was implemented to try to improve a number of social issues in Pakistan. It was a heavily foreign funded program with the goal to improve everything from school enrollment, infant mortality rates and the use of contraceptives to voting, government transparency, and lobbying for social spending. World Bank analyst, William Easterly, indicated that the data suggested the program was a failure (Rodrik, 455). The enrollment in primary education and the amount of money spent on public services actually went down. Even the areas that did improve, still did not meet the expected benchmark of a country in Pakistan’s income bracket. It’s hard to counterfactually evaluate the program but it would seem that it was $8 billion that could have been better spent.

The common theme amongst all the attempted solutions was that they failed to address the root causes of the problems mentioned earlier. None of these solutions attempted to tailor solutions specific to the problems of a corrupt elite and splintered nationalism and to be sure, no foreign aid giver has resolved to make less military demands on Pakistan. Granted, such a solution is hard to engineer. There are few examples of success in situations similar to Pakistan’s. One need only observe the never ending conflicts in countries equally divided such as Nigeria, Sudan, or Rwanda. However, there are three broad goals that might bring focus to the solution planning for Pakistan. First, public spending should be a localized process. Federal funding would be fairly divided amongst local governments to do with as they please. Issues of corruption and of consensus are much easier to solve at the local level where homogeneity exists. Second, foreign countries contributing aid should stop expecting short term growth. Part of Pakistan’s problem is that they are continually given aid with the expectation that it will yield short term growth. While short term growth clearly isn’t a problem for Pakistan it does cause them to forgo public spending in return for more loans. Finally, the international community, especially the US, should renew efforts to broker peace deals between India and Pakistan as well as resist making demands on Pakistan’s military in order to limit defense spending. The US’ recent nuclear trade agreement with India is obviously not comforting for Pakistan and merely promotes another arms race at the expense of social spending. However, since the US does have more leverage over what India does with its nuclear weapons now, it should utilize that influence to prevent further conflict between the two nations. With the assurance of security in place, Pakistan will be able to scale back its defense spending and begin to cooperate on social policy planning.

Bourguignon, Francois, and Thierry Verdier. “Oligarchy, Democracy, Inequality, and Growth.” Journal of Development Economics. 62, no. 2:285-313.

Casterline, B. John, Sathar, A. Zeba, and Minhaj ul Haque. “Obstacles to Contraceptive Use in Pakistan: A Study in pujab,” Studies in Family Planning 32, (June 2001)
no. 2: 95-110. http://www.jstor.com/

Cohen, Stephen P. The Idea of Pakistan. The Brookings Press. November 2004,pg. 95.

Galor, Oded, and Omer Moav. “Das Human Kapital.: Brown University. 2000 www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Oded_Galor.

Gazdar, Harris. “State, Community, and Universal Education: A Political economy of Public Schooling in rural Pakistan.” Asia Research Center, London School of Economics, October 2006.

Joekes,S.,N. Ahmed, A. Ercelawn, and S.A. Zaidi. “Poverty Reduction without Human Development in Pakistan: Money Doesn’t Buy You Everything.” Development Policy Review 18, no. 1: 37-62.

Sharif, Shuja. "Musharraf's Administration And Pakistan's Economy". Contemporary Review. Mar 31, 2005. 129-134.

Malik, Iftikhar H. "Culture and Custom of Pakistan". Published Greenwood Press. 2005, Pg. 28. http://www.googlescholar.com/

Noman, Omar. Economic and Social Progress in East Asia: Why Pakistan Did Not Become a Tiger. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg. 82

Toor, Saadia. “Child Labor in Pakistan: Coming of Age in the New World Order,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 575, Children's Rights. (May, 2001), pp. 194-224. http://www.jstor.com/

Rodrik, Dani. “In Search of Prosperity”, Princeton University Press. 2003, pg. 439-470.