Musharraf Will Resign

by hilzoy

NYT:

"Faced with desertions by his political supporters and the neutrality of the Pakistani military, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, an important ally of the United States, is expected to resign in the next few days rather than face impeachment charges, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats said Thursday.

His departure from office is likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockey for the division of power."

This is very significant:

"Mr. Musharraf served as president and army chief, working hand-in-hand with the United States on the campaign against terror, until last November when he handed the army post to Gen. Ashfaq Parvaz Kayani, who promised to keep the army out of politics.

Since assuming the army leadership, General Kayani has remained true to his promise.

The neutrality of the military has actually tipped the scales against Mr. Musharraf, said Arif Nizami, editor of the daily newspaper, The Nation.

“They are not even putting pressure on the civilians,” to stop the president’s ouster, Mr. Nizami said of the military. “They are saying if you do it according to the book, it’s none of our business. They have pushed against Mr. Musharraf.”"

Comments

[Anderson]

In other news: the Second Circuit has voted sua sponte (= of its own accord) to rehear the panel decision that affirmed dismissal of Maher Arar's lawsuit vs. the U.S.

The CCR press release is correct that such a sua sponte decision is very rare.

[Nell]

Hm. The legitimately elected civilian government taking power doesn't seem like such an unstable idea. And the impeachment effort doesn't look so much as if it were coming from a position of weakness, either.

Maybe, just maybe, impeachment is an excellent idea for leaders who flout the law.

[hilzoy]

Nell: it wouldn't look unstable were it not for the fact that the legitimately elected civilian government is composed of two parties who despise each other, and that the one that is somewhat stronger wants to install someone who is widely regarded as unbelievably corrupt. (Imagine a coalition government between two parties headed by, oh, Cynthia McKinney and Duke Cunningham, with the latter somewhat stronger but both too big to govern without, and the latter planning to install Tom Delay as President.)

This is not in the least to say that I don't support the democratically elected government. Saying it's rickety is not the same as saying I want something else. It's just good to be clear about why people say that instability might ensue.

Though Musharraf's resignation means that one possible source of instability, namely his refusing to step down, has been avoided.

[LFC]

I can't imagine McCain being able to handle this situation. Maybe he'd manage some bold, stirring move, like send Lieberman and Graham to whine at them. More likely he'd be making attack plans.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Maybe he'd manage some bold, stirring move, like send Lieberman and Graham to whine at them.

Send surrogates to whine at them? Right. Typical liberal smearmongering. Clearly, he'll go himself, gather all the involved parties together in a conference room, and tell them to cut the bulls#it. At which point they'll see the light from his force of personal conviction and will install the most wonderfully democratic-minded executive imaginable, and everyone in Pakistan will finally get to enjoy the fruits of freedom, democracy, and a pony.

But assuming our President-elect-in-waiting doesn't have time to personally involve himself, I'll hold my breath to see how it plays out before I express anything resembling pleasure at this. All other things being equal, it's good to see Musharraf resign peacefully... but all other things aren't equal, so it's time to wait.

[Funkhauser]

Man! All those billions in military aid, and this is what we get? A president who resigns at the first sign of impeachment?

It's enough to make me want to take the fighter jets back.

[Anthony Damiani]

*sigh*

PAKISTAN can impeach their president for gross wrongdoing, and here in the good ol' US of A, we can't even manage a proper subpoena.

[Nell]

Hilzoy, I defer to your much closer and more recent study of the actors in Pakistan. Is your analogy at all close to the situation? That is, I realize the names were chosen for instructiveness and connotations to U.S. voters; are the parties really that far apart? Because that does sound very hard to hold together as a coalition...

[Random African]

Nell,

Ideologically, those parties haven't been that far apart since the left one moved to the right. However, they have bloody history. Murders, jailing of opponents when one is in power, impechement, corruption charges etc..etc..

I think it's been a while since a Pakistani PM finished his term in office. And I can't remember the last time one of them left office by their own will either.

So far, they're united by the desire to keep the military out of politics. But it's not the first time. They end up going after each other after a while. Always.

[hilzoy]

Nell: I was going for deep dislike rather than ideological differences, which are very hard to map onto this country in any case. (Power games, regional loyalties, relations with the military, and such matter more.) But I second Random African's take.

[dmbeaster]

Though I hate to say it, I suspect the best that can be said about this is that Musharraf wisely saw that his time was up and stepped down before being rudely kicked out. And that is a good thing.

The military's non-involvement? -- probably reflects their willingness to see Musharraf gone. If they felt strongly that he should stay, they would intervene as they always have.

The more interesting question (and probably unanswerable) is why the military decided that this is for the best.

Or it may be that the military is itself re-arranging its internal political loyalties now that Musharraf is going to be gone. Maybe there is no firm consensus at the moment, which explains inaction.

But inaction is still a good thing, even if ephemeral.