Democrats and Elections
There are so many ways to begin this.
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League (N), respectively, met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. They issued a statement. A Charter of Democracy. A roadmap for the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy. For the 2007 campaign cycle. Assuming there are elections in the future for Pakistan in Bush's Afganistan-Iraq-Iran cycle of wars.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's Electorial Watch characterizes the political parties in Pakistan into three distinct groups;
- Parties and alliances committed to support all actions and policies of the military rulers unconditionally. The administrative machinery is also visibly sympathetic towards these individuals and groups.
- Parties and alliances that are acting as opposition to the military rulers and are professing to change the arrangement made by the regime during last three years.
- Religious parties and alliances that are against the military regime because of its policy against religious extremism and its decision to extend unconditional support to United States' military campaign in Afghanistan.
The PPP and the PML-(N) are squarely in the second group.
George Bush and his coterie can't run their war against Iran without General Pervez Musharraf. They need Karachi for logistics, and transit on the roads connecting the Indus and Persia, to run armor and logistical tails for the invasion of Iran from the east. Without that, the American military is constrained to a variation on the Iraq invasion of Iran from the west.
I think the sane thing to do is to let "Mushy" know that he'll be let go, along with all of the other Bush political appointees, when the time comes.
But another political contest was kicked off on February 10th. One with a much shorter fuse. Tony Blair called for elections, possibly as early as May 5th. He'd like to lead Labour to a third term in office, and continue the Bush-Blair version of "the Atlantic Alliance" for another major war.
I think the sane thing to do is to dump New Labour and help Charles Kennedy and the Lib Dems, and make sure that even if the outcome is John Michael Howard and the Tories, that the rhetoric of "government waste," a Tory perenial on both sides of the pond, is identified with frivolous, reckless military adventures.
George Bush and his coterie can't run their war against Iran without Tony Blair. They need London for political cover in the Commonwealth, the EU and the UN, as well as logistics. Without that, the American military is constrained to a running a land war in Central Asia from the Indian Ocean, without access to the Suez, or basing and overflights in most of Asia and Europe.
Seriously, we Progessives, in and out of the Democratic Party, should be doing our level best to defeat Geoge Bush's key allies, and Tony Blair is George Bush's ally. If we can't take Bush and Rowe out to the Greasy Grass and fit them and their annointed successors with arrow shirts until '08, we can stop their militarism-is-freedom lie by making sure that Labor voters in the UK know that we think their leader is unhinged.
Think of it as a chance to afirm Elvis. He's in the building, and he isn't singing to the Bushies, foreign or domestic.
Correction noted in comments.
Comments
It's Michael Howard and the Tories. John Howard is the prime minister of Australia.
I don't have any sympathy for Tony Blair and would love to see him out of power, but working for Labour's defeat seems perverse. The Lib Dems aren't going to win. A Tory government would be even more of a handmaiden to Bush than Blair's has been. Seeking a Labour defeat is basically a reprise of the 2004 Naderite position--ideological purity is more important than trying to prevent the election/re-election of a truly foul government.
Surely the thing to hope for is a Labour victory and then a coup against Blair. A Kennedy government isn't a realistic prospect. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is.
Posted by: yusifu | February 12, 2005 10:41 AM
First, thank you for the correction.
Second, no domestic social benefits can make aggression tolerable. Your point (in American) is that if Bush would jut keep his hands off of social security, he could loot the Middle East, and possibly lower the price of gas and raise the speed limit, so applause, rather than opposition, is the order of the day.
The Labor Party in the UK is wedded to the Republican Party in th US. There can be no policy defeat without either domestic political defeat, and the US opportunity is not for 20 months, the UK opportunity is in just over 2 months, or military defeat.
I never liked New Labor anyway. But you are free to start a "Commonwealth and US Progressives Committee to Re-Re-Elect Tony Blair".
Its a wicked big war waiting out there, not some ideological litmus test for policy wonks.
For Pak, I suppose you could argue some other General is preferable to the ARD, reasoning similarly.
Posted by: Eric | February 12, 2005 11:11 AM
The effort should be for natural labour supporters like myself to create a hung parliament.
Labour will be the largest party, however badly this election goes for the party. If the Tories were halfway credible, Blair would have been removed already.
I've got my proxy vote sorted, and it's voting Liberal Democrat in a three way marginal.
Posted by: Alan | February 12, 2005 11:13 AM
You're being unfair to my position. Nothing can justify this military adventurism. It is wicked, and history will condemn the U.S. and U.K. I certainly said nothing to hint that Labour's (marginally) better social positions make its support of the U.S. acceptable. My point was that a Tory government would be WORSE than Labour on Iraq and the war on terror, as well as on a host of U.K. domestic issues. Possibly a Conservative victory would appear to be a rejection of Labour ties to Bush, but I doubt it.
My own ranked preferences for the outcome of the election would be 1) a Lib Dem victory, 2) a hung parliament resulting in a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, 3) a Labour victory followed by a coup against Blair, 4) another term for Blair, and 5) a Conservative victory. Options #4 and #5 strike me as BOTH entirely unacceptable.
Our difference lies in what we think the implications of #5 would be. It seems to me that your hatred of Blair blinds you to how much worse Howard would be, on international issues as well as domestic ones. You think #4 is so bad it's worth risking #5; I think #5 is so bad it's worth risking #4. Much of the Labour party is troubled by Blair's support of Bush and by the New Labour paradigm; it seems possible that they may support a coup after they've secured re-election. I think that option #3 is the most likely to happen from among the desirable possibilities. That may just be my naivete about Labour party politics.
Translating your position into Pakistani politics would suggest withdrawing support from Musharraf with the result of bringing to power some other general even more inclined to kowtow to Bush. It's not a good or realistic parallel, but that's what it would be. I'm not suggesting some kind of centrist litmus test, just trying to live in the real world and to promote the sanest international politics possible.
Posted by: yusifu | February 13, 2005 11:32 AM
My point was that a Tory government would be WORSE than Labour on Iraq ...
How? Just what could Howard to that is substantively worse than what Blair is doing?
Are you suggesting that Howard would lead in the dances of aggression against Syria and/or Iran?
You have to have a good answer for these, and it can not be of the form "Tories would cut pensions and jail dissidents in the UK".
I'm interested in your reply.
Posted by: Eric | February 13, 2005 06:13 PM
How could the Tories be worse on the international front? I agree with yusifu, and you're just letting your hatred of Blair get in the way. From all perceptions, he's trying to be a moderating force on the administration, and seems to be doing a better job of it than Powell ever did. Some things a Tory could do:
-Slowly withdraw from the EU, or at least make the integration take longer in favor of closer US and Commonwealth alliances.
-Regularly criticize everyone at the UN for being anti-US stooges, as some of our wackier allies do.
-Encourage Bush into another misadventure in Iran.
-Build up the military so the UK can make more "significant contributions" in the war on terror.
-Is it really that hard to think of how the UK could be worse?
Posted by: Rousseau | February 14, 2005 10:14 AM