The False Dichotomy of Democracy

Letter to The Stampede
by Mariah Crilley '08

Why would the U.S. support a man who appears to reject democracy and seems to lust for power? Some would argue that the U.S.'s support for Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan is because of the need for a democratic ally in fighting terrorism in a volatile region of the world, but Musharraf himself, as the Associated Press quotes, called Taliban attacks "pinpricks" and "played down the impact of recent attacks". Musharraf appears not to be adamant in fighting terrorism, although he claims that shutting down television stations and sacking justices were actions to counter terrorism, which most of the world viewed as retarding Pakistan's democracy.

How can the U.S., a country born and bred on democratic principles, support a man who does not live up to its ideals? History has shown that supporting the man who seems most strategic to the U.S. almost always hurts us in the end. Supporting Osama bin Laden and Ferdinand Marcos may have been in the U.S.'s best interests at the time, but by sacrificing principles for safety or security, the U.S. loses in the long run. In the case of Osama bin Laden, funding his army worked in defeating the Soviets and forcing them out of Afghanistan, but it also put weapons, finances, and power into the hands of a person who harbored deep hatred toward the West. In supporting Ferdinand Marcos, the U.S. supported a corrupt mockery of democracy and allowed for one man to amass power in order to contain communism. By choosing the lesser of two evils in these cases, the U.S. still chose evil.

According to the White House's fact sheet on the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S., "The United States strongly supports Pakistan's efforts to develop robust, transparent, and representative democratic institutions...". The U.S. supports the democracy in Pakistan, despite the apparent amassing of power of Musharraf, although elections are looming close. The White Houses fact sheet states that it will give $1.5 billion between 2005 and 2009 to Pakistan for military but only $130 million for education. The U.S. appears to support a militaristic Pakistan, which the U.S. intends to use as a front against Islamic extremism. This may appear good to some, but more weapons in the hands of less educated people seem highly unsafe.
Even still, the U.S. aids Musharraf more so than it does the nation of Pakistan because Musharraf's unpopularity has been growing in Pakistan. Some people dislike him because he seems to be abandoning democracy, but others dislike him for his close ties with the West, specifically the U.S, says the Associated Press. This proposes a question to the U.S.: should we support a man who does not represent the nation he was chosen to embody? Should America support a man who thwarts democracy but does so in the name of fighting terrorism?

The answer is no. The U.S. should not support a man who goes against its principles and we should not choose the lesser of two evils. Some might consider it idealistic, but what does the U.S. gain by descending to that level? We lose our dignity, our credibility by supporting something which goes against all that we supposedly stand for in order to attain some modicum of a façade of safety. People say that we must give up freedom in order to attain safety, but what kind of freedom is that? Maybe you do not buy into my idealism, but how much safer can the U.S. claim to feel with its relationship with Pakistan? Benazir Bhutto was recently assassinated and riots raged across the nation. With, as the Telegraph says, $10 billion dollars of American assistance in the hands of an unstable nation, with most of the money amounting to arms and military training, the U.S. appears to have more to fear from the country and to gain. This does not mean that the U.S. should abandon the nation, but abandon the puppet figure Musharraf who rules Pakistan. In supporting Musharraf, we lose more than gain more, creating more unrest in the nation, leading to riots and the possible usurpation of an at heart democratic government. The U.S., in a world with burgeoning dislike of this country, cannot forfeit the ideals that made it famous and wonderful, and it cannot support a man who goes against all of its principles.

By Bishop McNamara HS |  May 22, 2008; 9:00 AM ET Editorials
Previous: NEWTONIAN POLITICS (4/22/08) | Next: Varsity PE?

The comments to this entry are closed.