Absolutely wrong, Dave. That is exactly WHY we should be worried about Pakistan. Pakistan is not, at the moment, a democracy. The channels of power run really deep.

I do not believe that Pakistan will be a democracy next year, or the following year either. Good thing; bad thing? Don’t know. But as long as Musharraf does enough to keep the present goose happily laying golden eggs, he will stay in power.

That, as I have said before, is the objective.

Just remember, Dave. Musharraf was NOT “democratically elected”. He originally took power as head of the army in a military coup. All of the argument about “stepping down” as head of the armed forces has nothing whatever to do with democracy.

It is all about window dressing.

The question though is whether we should welcome this particular step. I say that we should, that it does have some meaning, and has been something that the Pakistani opposition to Musharraf have long demanded. A small step yes, but a welcome one.

You say that this step doesn’t matter, that Gen. Kiyani is a lapdog to Musharraf, and we should not care at all about this. Your total method of reasoning for those positions is that ‘politicians are bad.’

I think you are the one that can do better.

As for Sharif and Bhutto, they are about as flawed as Musharraf, obviously Pakistan does need a better leading figure to emerge.

What is the First Principle, the First Objective of politics?

Get hold of the power.

What is the Second Principle, the Second Objective of politics?

Keep that power in any way that you can.

Now, like the US “prove there are no WMD’s”, you can illustrate the untruth of that by showing me a politician who has not followed those two precepts.

I know of one; his name is Mike Minogue. He lasted (just) three years before he was a’holed by his own party. He represented Hamilton East, a fairly strong left wing area, and he was from the right wing party.

You can dismiss it as cynicism if you wish, but should either of Bhutto or Sharif look like they are getting too close to the seat of power then Musharraf will make sure they do not succeed. Ooops, too late, that prophecy has already happened.

Similarly, if Musharraf were to fail, it would not take long for the army to remedy that defect in the democratic process and either he or another General would take over.

As you have pointed out in your later post, Musharraf is smarter than the average dictator. He knows that the real quick way to get off-side with the ROW is to start looking like a dictator. Much better (and Bainimarama in Fiji is his star pupil at this) to let the populace think that everything is still normal, allowing a “normal” level of background noise, and at the same time letting it be known that there are certain activities that will not be tolerated under any circumstances - like suggesting that Musharraf is a dictator…

So Sharif is gone already; how long do you think Bhutto might last?

What prospect “democracy” then?

The Army is Pakistan’s most respected institution, and Gen. Kiyani is well respected, both within and without Pakistan. He is not considered to be a lapdog of Musharraf, althought certainly he is no enemy.

Musharraf is of course still President of Pakistan, and certainly weilds considerable authority. I would imagine that in most situations the army would certainly obey him, but I don’t think he has absolute power over it, any more (and perhaps less in some ways) the an American President has over America’s army. If you have some evidence that this analysis is mistaken, I would be interested in seeing it.

And what is the betting that his “replacement” is not on a very short leash? Or should that be puppet string?

I would bet my boots that the relationship (in terms of command) between Masharraf and his top Army poodle will be a whole lot more “effective” that that between Bush as CinC and USArmy.

Bluntly, Masharraf is still as much in control of the Pakistan army as he was last week.

This is of course something that the opposition has been asking for for years.