An extremely interesting series.

One question I have for Patrick is to what extent does emigration function as a safety valve for Pakistan and contribute to the disengagement of the educated middle class from the political process? There's been quite a Pakistani diaspora particularly to the U. K., Canada, and the U. S.

Very interesting article. However—you knew there would be a "however" did you not?

Why is it that no one ever has the intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade? Islam is what is keeping Pakistan and every other Islamic state from democratizing. Islamic-democracy is an oxymoron! The state and Islam may not be separated according to the Qur'an. All laws come from allah.

1) Insufficient assertiveness by legislators -Rights and responsibilities are seen through the crucible and prism of Islam, while being practiced accordingly.

2) Military Governance - The only way that a democracy can be somewhat sustained in an Islamic nation is via military governance. Example: Turkey.

3) Alienation and disengagement of educated middle classes from politics - It is common that the more educated the class the less they follow Islam. But, to keep the masses in line they encourage sharia.

4. Lack of active citizenry exercising accountability - An active citizenry is anti-Islamic. Inshallah- everything is the will of allah. Man can do nothing because Islam breeds nihilism and indolence.

Until these analysts are willing to look at Islam as the root of the lack of democratization in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world we will be going round and round in perpetual chicken-or-egg circles. Which came first: Islam or nihilism? Islam or indolence? Islam or lack of human rights? Islam or ignorance? Islam or terrorism?

Would it be too much to ask these analyzing "experts" to study Islam to get at the root of the problem?

Lili,

Not everyone. Try reading V.S. Naipaul's "Among the Believers" (and recvent sequel) for a very illuminating look that largely agrees with your assessment.

In answer to Dave Schuler's question, one of the things Naipaul points out is that Pakistan's chief economic export is in fact people. Repatriated income is a very very important economic engine for the country.

Lili:

You may be right. I sincerely hope not. It's one of the things we're in the process of determining in Iraq.

I've also, half-jokingly, heard the explanation that Pakistan refuses to be democratic simply because India (and Bangladesh) insists on it, and Pakistan can't abide being like India.

I'm not seeing a very clear picture of the feudal nature of Pakistani society reflected here.

The 'moneyed' class is also the class of feudal landlords, which employs both long-time rural retainers and the urban 'street toughs' in ways more than brutal enough to keep the 'educated middle classes' as passive as you complain that they are.

The actions of some groups and the inactivity of the others which you describe are explainable all too often, and as in so many third world countries, in terms of pretty immediate threats of violence.

The reasons for a lack of democracy in Pakistan cannot simply be ascribed to military interference or corruption or a lack of awarenesss of what democracy really means. As the previous comment points out, the lack of democracy is due to deeper reasons- Pakistan has always been dominated by a small feudal elite, it has hardly any "middle class". Even when democratic governments were elected, the leadership consisted primarily of large landowners (the Bhutto's, the Junejo's etc) or big industrialists (Nawaz Sharif) or some combination of the lot. Additionally, even with the Army in power pretty much the same people ran the government. An example of this can be seen by looking at the ministers and ambassadors in military and civilian governments (e.g in recent times, the "civilian" Ashraf Jehangir Qazi" and his brother Gen. Javed Ashraf Qazi. Jehangir Qazi has served in both civilian and military administrations. It has been said in the past that essentially 22 families control most of Pakistan's economy .). A good book about anecdotal accounts of feudal society in Pakistan is by Emma Duncan (she worked/works for the economist).

In addition to the feudal nature of Pakistani society, there is a distinct lack of a democratic tradition in Pakistan. Even civilian "democrats" like Z.A Bhutto refused to accept the results of elections (this was in 1970 when Mujibur Rehman won the elections, he was from East Pakistan, and Bhutto's refusal to accept the electoral verdict and the backing given to him by the predominantly West Pakistani Army was the proximate cause for the breakaway of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh.). This is partially a consequence of how Pakistan came to being. The Pakistan Muslim League of M.A Jinnah which demanded partition did not have a mass base or a following even in the provinces which became part of West Pakistan. The leadership of the Muslim league by and large did not participate in the mass freedom movement and also largely consisted of feudal interests. This was less true of East Pakistan which had leaders like M.A Suhrawardy. Since the Muslim League achieved political power without having to build up a popular mass base, it felt no need or pressure to carry out important reforms which would ensure strengthening of a democratic tradition (e.g land reforms) and neither did it have a political party machinery. The result was that the political master relied on the Army and the Bureaucracy for imposing their legitimacy.

Another reason for the power of the Army in Pakistan has to do with how Pakistan sees itself. Pakistan was founded under the principle that muslims in the Indian subcontinent could not share power with other religious denominations. Hence, Pakistan considers itself as the sole and legitimate protector of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. The direct consequence of this is the longstanding Pakistani policy of gaining control over the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir-the first such attempt was made shortly after its formation in 1947-48. The attempt to control Kashmir and gain dominance over its neighbour has been a very large part of Pakistani policy since its formation, and hence the army has been a crucial part of its national aims, to the detriment of its developmental agendas.

I forgot to add: during the cold war, especially from the '60's Pakistan received large amounts of military aid, which did not hurt the army's control over the state, and in the '80's Pakistan became the american proxy for the afghan "jihad" against Russia, to which Al Qaeda and its versions owe their existence.

Although elections in Pakistan from the fall of Zia to the rise of Musharraf can be charitably described as 'free and fair' they were subject to severe political engineering by the Pakistani intelligence (ISI). Nawaz Sharif himself was an ISI creation, as was the Islamic Jamhuri Ittehad, another political hodgepodge that is the parent of today's PML-Q.

Benazir Bhutto's PPP is perhaps an exception, but her policy freedom was circumscribed by the Army.

Lili,

I do not buy the Islam is not suitable for democracy argument. Given the chance, people will prefer to decide their fates for themselves - you can see it in best in Malaysia and in Bangladesh and in progress in Indonesia. These countries are in various stages of a struggle over radical Islam which is inimical to democracy, but they are also in various stages of triumph.

Patrick and Pildat ignore one very important reason why Pakistan failed to nurture democracy - the role of the United States and the West; precisely their tendency to coddle up military dictators due to realpolitik or expediency.

The Pakistani armed forces knew how to milk the Americans and they milked them for all they were worth.

In a strange way, its history repeating itself. The United States is backing another military dictator, while Pakistani public opinion is hostile. Instead of portraying itself as an partner of the Pakistani people (and helping them build democratic, modern, liberal institutions), the US is only legitimising Musharraf's rule by man.

I do not contend that the US and the west are solely to be blamed for the arrested development of Pakistani democracy; but they abetted its subtle and not so subtle subversion.

Joe, I have read V.S. Naipaul among dozens and dozens of other authors on the subject. Those books along with history and current events are what have convinced me that Islam is not reformable.

Islam is a tribal/feudal system at best. It was fascist in nature even before there was fascism. Muhammad was a clever guy: "One for all and all for one." Kill the rest if they don't want to accept Islam or pay jizya.

Here is what Osama has to say this morning with liberal quotes from the Qur'an. It's all supported by the Qur'an.

Kill Bremer, kill Kofi Annan, kill Americans, kill Britons, kill Japanese, kill Jews and anyone who is not Muslim—kill, Kill, KILLL!

" the wording was heavy with Quranic verse. . .

"I do not buy the Islam is not suitable for democracy argument. Given the chance, people will prefer to decide their fates for themselves - you can see it in best in Malaysia and in Bangladesh and in progress in Indonesia. These countries are in various stages of a struggle over radical Islam which is inimical to democracy, but they are also in various stages of triumph."

Nitin, Islam does not permit ANYONE to "decide for themselves." Everything must be done according to allah.

You must be kidding about Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangledesh. There are plenty of Islamic atrocities happening there perpetrated in the name of allah.

As I have time I'll fish out the info.

"I do not contend that the US and the west are solely to be blamed for the arrested development of Pakistani democracy; but they abetted its subtle and not so subtle subversion."

Nitin, what is fascinating that around the world, it is Muslims particularly Arab Muslims who blame "everything" on America that is wrong with their failed states.

Well before they were in the current state configurations, they were failed societies. It is Islam that is keeping these people down! Islam is not compatible with democracy or free-thinking. Everything in life must be done according to the Qur'an—the LITERAL word of allah.

Lili,

Let's assume you're right about Islam's incompatability with democracy and its unreformablity. What do you propose we do? Stamp out Islam? How does that work? Convert Muslims to other religions or secularism? How does that work? Isolate the Muslim world in an age of globalism? Assuming that's possible (an assumption I believe 911 pretty effectively put the kibosh on), how do we do it without wrecking the world economy, which is dependent on oil from the Middle East, or without sacrificing other economic advantages of globalism? I'm not necessarily trying to refute your argument. I'm just trying to draw out its implications and get some thoughts on how we deal with those implications.

Fred, I have addressed this issue many times. The Islamic world produces virtually nothing used in world markets—except oil. Because some of their economies are based 80 to 90% on oil, that dependence that means they MUST sell their oil or starve.

I have for a long time proposed to isolate the Islamic world. Cut them off in virtually everything from aid to cultural exchanges. We can trade because they need to trade. They will starve before we will walk. The ME is not the only place that has oil. It would be good for us to put some effort into the development of alternative fuels. It would also be good for us to walk. And certainly, we could all use a little less consumerism. ;-)

Fanatic terrorists aside, the only way to get Muslims to see the light, step out of their parallel universe and come into the 21st century is to educate them in the ways of the world. And that will not happen in our life times.

I predict that the isolation of Islamic nations as pariah states is what will happen quite naturally. Already "Fortress Europe" is deporting undesirable Muslims by the thousands. I predict that the same will happen all over the world. Aggressive Muslims who preach terror and sedition will either be jailed, killed or deported. The civilized world will only deal with Islamic nations that actually implement reforms.

Islamic nations will be watched. But, Muslims will be denied communion with the civilized world unless they behave.

What do you suggest we do, Fred? So far everything the Western world has done has only served to embolden Islamic fanatics. Both our PC and aggressive gestures are seen as weaknesses. It is time to isolate Muslim nations as one would isolate a recalcitrant teen. Lock them in their rooms, so to speak, and only deal with them if they behave in a civilized manner. ;-)

I have often said—Leave them to allah, as they request. But, first, CUT THEM OFF!!!

Lili,

Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia are democracies. They have their share of problems from the fundamentalists but that does not take away anything from them being democratic. Malaysia held elections this year where the Islamic fundamentalist parties were trounced by a multi-party coalition led by moderate Muslims.

Bangladesh's opposition parties are taking to the streets to protest the ruling party's authoritarianism and fundamentalist leanings. The Bangladeshi people vote out their government with ferocious regularity!

Indonesia is perhaps the least developed democracy of the three. But it is also the most populous and ethnically diverse. It has christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists; it has javanese, balinese, sumatran, chinese and other minor races; is spread across thousands of islands stretched across thousands of kilometres. Given its mind boggling complexity, it is a wonder that it is able to hold elections to elect its own president. The last president was kicked out when people took to the steets.

It is only when people are denied democracy and forced to put up with autocratic rule, that they turn to radical Islam. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Frankly, Lili, I don't have any suggestions. It's quite a conundrum. Still, I can't help thinking "Islam is incompatible with democracy" is a counsel of despair, and I don't believe the kind of isolation of the Muslims you recommend is practicable in today's world.

I don't think there is anything essentially prohibitive about the co-existence of Islam and Democracy. Isn't democracy about letting the people choose the laws they want to live by? If a people decide to live in a country where laws are God given, how is that 'wrong'? Frankly I find Lili's view of excorcising Muslim states from the "civilized world" and "lock(ing) them in their rooms, so to speak, and only deal with them if they behave in a civilized manner," much too arrogant, self-righteous and offensive. I don't want to bring out the cliched argument about moderate Muslims and Muslim states, however, there is a need to look at the grassroots; the history and yes, the religous tendencies of the majority of the people and not base your conclusions on politicizing 'Mullahs' who'd sell their religion in exchange for an hour on Larry King Live. If you are at all concerned with the 'betterment' of the third world, then this is possibly one of the worst ideas I have come accross. What's next? Bombing all muslim countries to make them democratic so that the US can bring 'liberty, freedom and justice' to what u call, the ignorant, uncivilized muslims?

"I don't have any suggestions. It's quite a conundrum. Still, I can't help thinking "Islam is incompatible with democracy" is a counsel of despair, and I don't believe the kind of isolation of the Muslims you recommend is practicable in today's world."

I always prefer to deal with things as they are, Fred, rather than as I wish they were. It is a fact, which few people wish to recognize, that Islam is incompatible with democracy, pluralism, a secular state and the rule of law. However, as we go along, and more people learn about the tenets of Islam, this will change.

I do believe the isolation will work. Iran is on the verge of collapse. Libya has come round. It's youth will be the Islamic state's undoing. I believe the same will happen in every other Islamic state whose "pig-in-the-python" is a disproportionate amount of young people— a majority under 30 years of age. Young people are not patient, they want change and they want it now!

While many of these might be induced into the folds of al Qaeda, many more want what the rest of the world has—progress, civilization, fun and stuff. There is no joy in Islam (as the ayatollah Khomeini said) and the young of today want joy in their lives.

The Islamic world, despite its railing against Western consumerism and materialism, is one of the most consumer oriented cultures on the planet. Women wear chadors with YSL studded in diamonds. Designer everything is bought by well to do Muslims to wear under the shrouds. The most expensive lingerie and beauty products are sold to the Islamic world—to be used under the tent.

I believe, if handled properly, isolation can bring these folks around. Today's world and its instant communications are exactly what we may count on to bring change. They can't stay on the outside, pressing their noses against the glass forever.

Hunt down the terrorists and isolate those who harbor and support them. Engage only with those Islamic states who are actively on the way to reform. The worm will turn. I believe it is worth a shot, because what we are doing now—trying to force democracy—is definitely not working.

There is a fable of a bet made between the wind and the sun—that each could "make" a man take off his coat.

hi frnds...i am doing Masters in International Relations. can i join u all?