As the son of a Pakistani immigrant, I’ve always felt integrally tied to events in Pakistan. Since my childhood, Pakistan’s endemically unstable politics have always been a topic of conversation at home. When I was in Egypt in 2001, as Pakistan and India were on the brink of another war, I recall the many briefings of my uncle, ambassador from Pakistan at the time, as he dealt with yet another crisis. The near-endless stream of Pakistani citizens visiting my father to talk about this latest crisis only further deepens my view that fundamentally, Pakistani history has a way of repeating itself. I grossly understate the obvious in calling Pakistan’s current political crisis a mess. Although Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf travels across Europe seeking foreign investment and convincing the international community that he is still in charge only a month after the horrific assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, his hold on power is tenuous at best. Still, while no one can be sure what will occur when Pakistanis go to the polls on Feb. 18, Musharraf will probably remain a key player in Pakistan for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the line echoed by the White House is the right one – continued support for the general-turned-president, the second such metamorphosis in Pakistan’s short history, coupled with public pressure to ensure that elections are fair and restrictions of civil rights are kept to a minimum. Perhaps, as many within the administration see it, the growth of Islamic militancy in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas and the ever-present specter of al-Qaeda necessitate a competent strongman, even if flawed, who has governed Pakistan tolerably well for the past eight years. After all, a furtive glance at democratic civilian governance in Pakistan can hardly inspire confidence. And yet, democracy as it has been practiced in Pakistan is almost unworthy of the title. He died before implementing his vision, thus leaving the nation bereft of firm democratic leadership from independence. Truly, since its inception as a state, Pakistan has been shaped by the military and, to a lesser extent, the civil service. But even civilian presidents and prime ministers have showed little compunction in concentrating power in their person and stifling opposition. Just looking back to the restoration of civilian rule in 1988 provides a sad portraiture of the failures of democratically elected civilian regimes in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto provides a perfect example. Though elected on a platform of liberal, social reform, her Pakistan People’s Party failed to deliver. Co-opted into a power-sharing deal with the military, dealing with instability in Sindh and charged with rampant corruption, she found Pakistan ungovernable. And while she has been widely touted, especially in the West, for her commitment to democracy, one ought not to forget that she was “president for life” within the PPP. Moreover, she rather undemocratically bequeathed her political party to her 19-year-old son. While the teenager is finishing his studies, Asif Ali Zardari – Benazir’s husband – will be the acting party head. Nawaz Sharif, prime minister until being ousted by Musharraf, also failed amidst charges of ineptitude, corruption and authoritarianism. But as poorly as Pakistan has fared under civilian leadership, military rule has been worse. Yes, Musharraf and the three other generals who have been in power by coup since 1947 have generally provided short term stability, if not prosperity, for Pakistan. Yet over the long term, the result of military rule has always been the same: The blatant disregard of popular will in the 1970 elections of the Awami League in East Pakistan directly led to the civil war that resulted in an independent Bangladesh. usharraf’s own rule provides further insight. For the first few years of rule, Musharraf was widely lauded. He relaxed press freedoms, practiced détente with India, furthered economic growth and made Pakistan a vital ally to the United States. Nevertheless, few would question that Pakistan is just as unstable now as when Musharraf took power. His sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, his newfound disdain for free speech and political opposition, and his government’s questionable relationship to the extremists he now fights make any such gains under his rule seem illusory. Such is the inherent paradox in governing Pakistan – domestic legitimacy, democracy and competent government seem incompatible. In truth, Pakistan has never really followed or been able to follow the democratic model as practiced by the West. The military has never been successfully subordinated to civilian rule and has directly held power for half of Pakistan’s history. Perhaps in a country as diverse, poor, uneducated and, at times, simply medieval as Pakistan, expecting true democracy would be unrealistic. But then I remember my Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” Adam Kemal is a sophomore in the College.