Nadira Lalji is a Senior Editor of the Global Notebook section.
Pakistan’s Deep Crisis: Dictatorship or Democracy?
Since Benazir Bhutto announced her decision to enter Pakistan between September and December of this year and contest the national elections against Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, speculation about the future of Pakistan has taken centre stage. Only last month, on 20 July 2007, Bhutto delivered a policy address at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on Pakistan’s current political crisis, “a deep crisis, a crisis that began almost fifty years ago when President Ayoub Khan seized power in 1958.” The “crisis,” she argued, is a product of the country’s unstable political history and its turbulent regime changes, namely, the military dictatorships that have consistently overthrown democratically elected governments in Pakistan.
Bhutto presented a compelling case for the restoration of democracy as a means of quelling the extremist threat. She contended that democracy was “never given a chance to grow” in Pakistan: Bhutto was granted only five of the ten years she was elected to serve as Prime Minister. At the crux Bhutto’s earnest call for democracy is her understanding of the options with which her country is currently faced. In her unwavering faith in democracy and her disregard for Musharraf’s military dictatorship, Bhutto repeatedly asserted her belief that “the choice facing Pakistan is not [one] between the military and the mullahs, it’s [a choice] between dictatorship and democracy.” Yet, can Pakistan afford to give democracy a chance?
Yesterday, Musharraf backed away from declaring a nationwide state of emergency. His actions may have provoked an unwarranted sense of relief in the international community. Nothing could be further from reality. On the ground, the chaos is undeniable, the lawlessness is palpable, the state of emergency need not be officiated. The past year has proven costly for warring parties in Pakistan, both sectarian and tribal. A spike in violence in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) as well as North and South Waziristan may be the product of short-sighted government strategy. The government has made concessions: some argue the government has sought to placate militants, rather than confront them.
This sentiment was exacerbated by the signing of the Miramshah Peace Accord on 5 September 2006, following a series of negotiations initiated through tribal jirga committees. The accord, which established a ceasefire in North Waziristan, required that the Pakistani Army withdraw troops from newly installed checkpoints and respect tribal laws. The Pakistani government’s actions have thereby proven to be a source of contention with the U.S. government. In light of the marked upsurge in Pakistani jihadist violence, and in particular, July’s Red Mosque events, the central government’s efforts to suppress al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been deemed too lenient by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to unequivocally back Musharraf’s military dictatorship. The U.S. has granted an unlevelled $10 billion of security aid to Pakistan since the war against terror began six years ago. Such linkages between the U.S. and Musharraf’s military dictatorship are so transparent that Bhutto has labelled Musharraf’s international supporters the “enablers of Pakistan’s dictatorship,” and more accusatorily, “the suppressors of the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people.”
Bhutto can scathingly remark upon present day U.S. relations with Pakistan, but is there another way out for Pakistan? Would a democratic state fare any better? Bhutto’s policy address concretely outlined her plans to stop the radicalisation of Pakistan’s 20,000 madrassas and to develop and finance the 48,000 primary schools she built during her office, so that people have alternatives when they choose to send their children to school. The long term benefits of such policies are irrefutable. But in the short term, a democratic regime change may push Pakistani extremism over the edge. What is certain, however, is that if no drastic political measures are taken immediately, as Bhutto predicts, another five years of Musharraf’s present governing strategy will allow for an Islamist takeover of Pakistan. The international community will then have to deal with the repercussions of a potentially insurmountable force, a strengthened Islamist threat with its “tentacles spread” across the state.
Portugal’s Legalization of Abortion: A National Decision?
Following yesterday’s national referendum, abortion was legalized in Portugal, a country in which an estimated 90% of citizens affiliate themselves with the Catholic Church. The referendum was a close call, yielding only 40% of the nation’s vote; only a slim majority of voters (59.3%) voted “yes” in favour of abortion. Regardless of the low turnout for the referendum, which prevents the result from being legally binding, Prime Minister Jose Socrates, leader of the Socialist Party and a strong proponent of the pro-choice movement, declared that abortion will be legalised. Prime Minister Socrates’ heavy-handedness in backing the proposal has come up against strong opposition and intensified animosity between the Church and state.
To date, abortions in Portugal have only been permitted in situations of rape, mental or physical health threats to a mother, or severe foetal abnormality. Seeking illegal abortions can even result in a jail sentence of up to three years. Under new laws, however, women will be permitted to have an abortion until the 10th week of pregnancy. The immediate benefits of abortion provision cannot be overlooked. It is estimated that over 40,000 Portuguese women resort to clandestine abortion every year. Women travel to other EU countries or board Dutch floating clinics to terminate their pregnancies. Socrates, who was heavily influenced by data compiled by pro-choice groups, claims that 10,000 Portuguese women are hospitalized as a result of illegal or botched abortions, which are frequently carried out in unsanitary conditions by unprofessional aids.
Socrates’ reasserted his optimism for the nation’s progress towards modernization yesterday, adamant that “the people spoke with a clear voice.” Yet, opposition to his pro-choice platform from Partido Popular and the Catholic Church remains strong. Leader of Partido Popular, Jose Ribeiro e Castro, has even gone so far as to say that Portuguese society has been irreparably divided, “Socrates will be responsible for this sad chapter in Portugal’s history, for insisting on a political move that has split Portuguese society.” The close results from the election attest to the divisive nature of the referendum. Moreover, the Church has been outspoken in its dissatisfaction; Braganca Bishop Antonio Moreira Montes compared abortion to the hanging of Saddam Hussein: “Everyone was horrified by Saddam’s execution. Abortion is a variation of capital punishment.” Other Bishops insist those citizens who voted “yes” in the referendum face excommunication from the Church, a claim that would effectively excommunicate over 20% of Portugal’s population.
Unsurprisingly, tensions between the Church and government have heightened dramatically in the last few years; abortion has been a primary source of contention and motivation for both grassroots activists and seasoned politicians. Yesterday’s developments thereby mark a significant turning point in public opinion, which, as late as 1998 during the last abortion referendum, favoured the Church’s pro-life guiding principles.
On the brink of Portugal’s ascendancy to the rotating EU presidency, Socrates’ push for modernizing reforms may be considered an attempt to unite Portugal with the rest of Europe. However, the authoritarian regime of Salazar, which ended in 1974, isolated Portugal from the rest of Europe and reinforced its people’s strong conservative values, values that cannot be eradicated in a single referendum. The referendum raises pressing concerns. What is to be the future of Church-state relations in Portugal? Are there more liberal reforms to come? Portugal’s movement towards “modernization” will inevitably require the state to make significant concessions, those of domestic unity and relations with the Catholic Church. The question is can the current government afford to make such concessions and sever such deep-rooted ties on its path towards modernity?