Pakistan elections
The following excerpts are a sampling of editorials published on Wednesday about Monday’s elections in Pakistan.
San Jose Mercury News: In parliamentary elections this week, Pakistan sent an unequivocal message of contempt for President Pervez Musharraf and his unwavering patron, U.S. President George Bush.
But in ousting Musharraf’s party and turning to two relatively moderate parties, Pakistani voters offered America one last opportunity to align with democratic forces opposed to the spread of terrorism …
Most Pakistanis want a stable, democratic government. … But Pakistanis want to get rid of the Taliban and al-Qaida on their own terms, not America’s …
Washington Post: …The big winners were the Pakistan Peoples Party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the Muslim League of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted in a 1999 military coup. Though results were still being tallied Tuesday, the two parties should be able to reverse Musharraf’s recent blows against the judiciary and the press if they cooperate. …
Both the leading parties have checkered records in wielding power in the past, so their victory should not be cause for triumphalism. The Peoples Party, which may have the first claim to forming a new government, should stick to its pledge to work closely with the Pakistani army and the United States to fight al-Qaida. The Bush administration helped pave the way for its victory by urging Musharraf to accept the return of Bhutto from exile; it also pressured the president to allow a fair election. Now the administration needs to reconcile those actions with their result, which has been the delegitimization of Musharraf’s claim to the presidency. The administration should urge its not-so-indispensable ally to step down …
Los Angeles Times: … (T)he U.S. can now demonstrate that it isn’t the fair-weather friend Pakistanis fear, or the patron of any individual leader, but a respectful ally of the Pakistani people. It should reward the country for making the transition to civilian rule by increasing the $300 million it provides in development aid. The U.S. also gives $300 million in direct military aid. Congress has been toying with slashing that, but now isn’t the moment. … The U.S. should continue to nurture the military relationship while insisting on transparency to assure that aid is spent on counterinsurgency efforts, not on the Indian border …