Though not an expert on the subject, I have been a keen observer of the happenings in the world around me, which includes the immediate neighbour Pakistan. I had a very negative opinion of the ultra conservative and crude-looking President Zia-ul -Haq and the regressive administration that he headed. I also remember the subsequent periods of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and the squabbles and instability of the period. Both these so called stalwarts of democracy were notorious for the corrupt practices of their regimes. The name of Asif Ali Zardari being synonymous with corruption is still fresh in our minds.Then rose on the horezon of Pakistani politics the name of a suave and gentleman-looking Pervez Musharaf who has come across to millions of TV viewers as a relatively progressive, modern-minded and no-nonsense man. He ensured stability to the administration of Pakistan during the post 9/11 period and lent support to the West's fight against terrorism. He did this putting his own life at stake, when politicians like Benazir or Sharif would have dilly-dallied.
Yet when the politicians regrouped and are exerting their collective presssure against Musharaf, the same West/US, which once found him handy, is deserting him in the name of "democracy". I fail to understand whether corrupt or not, politicians and lawyers have an exclusive claim to democracy. If such is the case how do the US and the West approve of the rulers in the Middle East. And if they follow this kind of use and discard policy, who else would be foolish enough to co-operate with them in their "fight against terrorism"?
Would some one care to answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment