Worry Follows Musharraf's Resignation

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resigned yesterday. Whether or not this event is truly cause for celebration depends on the direction the government takes next.

Musharraf was essentially a military dictator from the moment he took control of the country in 1999 until he relinquished his role as military chief last year. He understood the language of democracy, as he has always considered himself to be within a secular liberal tradition; however, he consistently defied the Constitution in order to maintain power.

He managed to become increasingly unpopular at home, not only because of his disregard for the Constitution, but also because of his ostensible support for the U.S. war on terror. However, the U.S. realized rather late that the ISI and the military continued to support to Taliban and Pakistani extremists even after pledging their allegiance to the U.S. Thus, while attempting to play a double game, Musharraf alienated most Pakistanis and the U.S. government at the same time.

While the resignation of a dictator is cause for celebration, any sense of optimism should be cautious. The world will focus on the next president, but the most important man regarding Pakistan's future might be military chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. He managed to keep his word by restraining the military from saving its former boss after impeachment charges were filed against the President. It would benefit Pakistan if General Kayani brought the military under civilian control. However, there is no chance of that happening. The best circumstance to hope for is that General Kayani allows the civilian government to govern unimpeded and if they fail, he allows the Pakistani people to vote them out.

The U.S. and India will want the new president, regardless of who it becomes, to go after al Qaeda, Pakistani extremists, and the Taliban. The government will probably follow in Musharraf's footsteps and continue to fight al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is viewed as a foreign source and enjoys limited popularity in Pakistan. However, it is far less politically viable for the government to target its own citizens, even those who are extremists.

The government should bring Pakistani extremists into legitimate politics. It would be political suicide for an American politician to advocate this, but it would serve to marginalize the extremists. They maintain the scant popularity they receive because of their opposition to the pro-American government and these extremists do not have another avenue to express their frustrations. So they turn to violence. While most Pakistanis are currently anti-American, few are extremists. If the extremists are legitimized yet continue to use violence, it would turn the tide of Pakistani public opinion firmly against the extremists.

Pakistan must marginalize the extremists by bringing them into legitimate arenas and the U.S. needs to help build up Pakistan's economy, instead of granting billions in aid to the military. Those are the best hopes to secure peace and stability in Pakistan and those actions will only serve to make the U.S. and India safer.