You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan/South Asia
Muslims like both Osama & Musharraf
2004-09-14
Many in Pakistan and other Muslim countries like both Osama bin Laden and President Pervez Musharraf, according to a series of survey opinion polls conducted by the Pew Research Center. Despite soaring anti-Americanism and substantial support for Osama bin Laden, there is considerable appetite in the Muslim world for democratic freedom, says the study — conducted in various stages from February to August this year. A broader, 44-nation survey, also conducted by the Pew Research Center, shows that people in Muslim countries place a high value on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, multi-party systems and equal treatment under the law.
In other words, they're coming around to the idea that they should have the right to express any opinion they want, even if it's stoopid. They just don't want to see anyone else doing it. But I don't see anything at all in there about freedom of religion...
This includes people living in kingdoms such as Jordan and Kuwait, as well as those in authoritarian states like Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In fact, many of the Muslim publics polled expressed a stronger desire for democratic freedom than the people in some nations of Eastern Europe, notably Russia and Bulgaria. President Musharraf is widely unknown in the countries surveyed and a third or more in every country except Pakistan gave no opinion. Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president; 86 percent rate him favorably, and 60 percent view him very favorably — by far the highest rating of any leader in the survey.
I wonder what the opinions of the same segment of population are of Qazi and Fazl and Sami?
Views of Gen Musharraf are more positive than negative in Turkey, and are about evenly divided in Britain, the U.S., Russia, and Jordan. Negative opinion of President Musharraf is strongest in France, Germany, and Morocco, according to the poll.
(who needs the opinion of pussies like them)
But 65 percent in Pakistan, 55 percent in Jordan and 45 percent in Morocco also view Osama bin Laden favorably. About half of Pakistanis also say suicide attacks on Americans in Iraq and against Israelis in the Palestinian conflict are justifiable.
(now thats seriously fucked up)
Support for the US-led "war on terrorism" also has fallen in most Muslim countries. America's image abroad remains negative in most nations, according to the poll.
Musharraf is excellent for a country like Pakistan. If you see that how stupid the general populance is, you will realize that Dictatorships are the only forces keeping the Terrorists from getting power. Just as the Communism was checked by dictatorchip in 60s. So all proponents of democracy please note that democracy is not for stupid bastards. You need a high level of education and awareness before democracy. You wont let a baby put salt & pepper in his food. Well Musharraf way to go. All the Arabs who dislike him should mind their own business. And OBL you have a LGB coming up your ass.

I've made the point here before that we use the word "democracy" as a sloppy synonym for "individual liberty." The reason the concept won't catch on in the Muslim world is that individual liberty involves freedom of religion, which means that lots of Muslims might choose to become Christians, or Buddhists, or agnostics. It will be many years before the Muslim world can accept the concept of a person being allowed to make his own mistakes, of a population being governed rather than ruled. Which is probably why Bush isn't pushing the idea of freedom of religion in conjunction with his push for "democracy."
Posted by:Fawad

#5  Yes, but the most important point still remains to be made: you cannot teach democracy while simultaneously killing the people. Doesn't family mean more to all of you than country, duty, or democracy? That's only natural. The Iraqis see it not as a matter of insurgents eliminated, but as a matter of losing brothers and uncles - and wives and children.

So long as the U.S. military is on the ground in Iraq the local population will play passive/aggressive in the face of our overwhelming strength. They will kowtow in public while simultaneously ambushing inattentive or exposed Americans and other foreign targets of opportunity. Meanwhile, their leaders will be maneuvering for the big takeover once we've gone.

Not one of the fundamentals of democracy is present in Iraq. Least of all stability. Perhaps we've found our Ireland?
Posted by: Mister Write   2004-09-15 1:05:58 AM  

#4  Same as Latin America. Some make it some don't. When they break out of the feudal stage, it's hard to keep 'em down on the farm. If they're still feudal, you've got to wory about where tomorrow's meal comes from if you flip off the boss.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-09-14 9:12:10 PM  

#3  All due respect, but for even a very basic local body setup you need an industrial based economic system. Pakistan has a feudal society with very tightly knit clan system. To win an election you just have to buy or coerce the tribal leader, Mullah or the feudal lord of the area. People dont have the economic opportunities to move out of the feudal sphere of influence. So no matter how you look at it it is a loose loose situation until major economic and social changes take place. Namely the abolition of feudal system and mass abandonment of religion. Untill it happens you need a guy with a very big stick
Posted by: Fawad   2004-09-14 8:56:00 PM  

#2  Fawad ;-)

RJ, I believe that the stepwise progression is what we're working on in Iraq. That is, in most locations, participatory government has been taking place on the very local level -- and from what I've been able to gather, the locals are very enthusiastic and effective participants. We'll soon see if they have developed the understanding to translate this to the national level -- one can hope!
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-09-14 8:50:30 PM  

#1  What Fawad says makes a lot of sense, although I'm not entirely sold. There have been economists that charted new Democracies and found that a certain economic level is required for success (economics based purely on natural resources didn't count). Its likely that the economic success also equates to a certain basic educational level.

Having said that I think its not hard to teach democracy if you start at the local level and work your way up. People will vote for whats best at each level, and slowly begin to understand how these things work. It also insulates the nation from voting for a national figure who could lots of damage until they have a bit more experience in voting.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2004-09-14 3:56:07 PM  

00:00