It only took a brief television address to deliver the news, but the lead-up to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation was long and arduous. The process incited violence from the volatile region’s inhabitants and caused a stir of criticism from abroad. With dwindling support from his allies and a ruling coalition government pending, it was only a matter of time before an official resignation was called. During the live broadcast on Monday, August 18th, Musharraf took sole responsibility for recent turmoil in the region, claiming that he would rather resign than see his country crumble under the weight of an inevitable confrontation.
An ally of the United States since 9/11, Musharraf’s decision to resign will only strengthen Pakistani relations with the United States if stability in the region can be established. With an image tainted by battles with constitutional lawyers and judges, his exit was a victory for many Pakistani citizens. But how much of a success could it be, with violence now reaching a climax?
Due to the late Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party leading the coalition government, there is optimism that the People’s Party will be a contender in the upcoming election. The coalition government also reassured Washington and NATO that it is willing to match Musharraf’s security policy of combating militants, though negotiations with militants still remains a heated policy issue. Despite progress towards suppressing militant groups, there is still pessimism over Pakistan’s internal political dynamic. The region’s instability raises the question of whether a dictatorship is the only stable form of government available in the immediate future. Factional violence has been ample before and after the impeachment scares surfaced.
A military dictator who had strong ties with the United States, Musharraf provokes mixed feelings. Even though Americans like to deny it, dictators bring a certain measure of stability in alliance systems. It is difficult to determine whether the United States truly feels comfortable being the captain of democracy while it allies itself with dictators. However, no compliances can be achieved if Pakistan falls into civil war. The region is as unstable as ever, and touting democracy is hardly going to resolve internal issues.
Pakistan must focus on its domestic issues, such as combating violent militants, before it can tackle foreign policy. Sure, democracy is a possibility—but will it be undermined by civil war and an eventual coup? These are the challenges that Pakistan must face on its own, apart from foreign campaigning.
