There has been a great deal of focus at the global level over the recent legal and constitutional efforts made by the military regime to organize the elections in October. In the process, General Musharraf could not escape criticism and even the American government was not spared for supporting the military regime in Pakistan.

     Commenting on President Musharraf’s televised conference of 21 August 2002, in which he had stated, “if you want to keep the army out, you have to bring it in,” The Economist wrote (“Five more years,” August 24-30, 2002) “powerful he (Musharraf) may be: but not safe. Fears of assassination are confining the general to the capital, Islamabad.” The same report also continued “Pakistan has become a dangerous place for anyone with Western links…Pakistan’s intelligence agencies now fear that government officials may be the next targets of Al-Qaeda in a move to destabilise the country in the run-up to the general election in October. Uneasy lies the head that wears the (stolen) crown.”

     David Rhode wrote in The New York Times (“Musharraf redraws Pakistan’s Constitution”, 21 August 2002) that some of Musharraf’s “recent actions have cost him support among the middle class. For instance, a referendum he held in April that granted him a five-year term as president was widely viewed as fixed. And opinion polls show that a majority of Pakistanis oppose most of the amendments he enacted today.”

     The most severe criticism of General Musharraf, however, came from The New York Times. In its editorial (“Power grab in Pakistan,” 23 August 2002) it said, “Pervez Musharraf’s latest assault on Pakistan’s democratic aspirations requires a strong rebuke from Washington.” Disagreeing with the American government’s perception, stated by Philip Reeker, the deputy spokesman for the State Department (“U.S. Warning on New Move by Musharraf,” The New York Times, 23 August 2002) said, “We believe that President Musharraf wants to develop strong democratic institutions in his country. However, we are concerned that his recent decisions could make it more difficult to build strong democratic institutions in Pakistan.” The editorial continued with its criticism: “Washington’s tepid response is embarrassing. Administration spokesmen have meekly expressed concern and reiterated America’s support for an eventual return to democratic rule. What is needed is strong and specific criticism of measures that eliminate any chance for a peaceful transition to democracy. It would also help to remind General Musharraf that American aid to Pakistan could be calibrated to reflect democratic progress, as the White House has just done with another repressive but strategic ally, Egypt.”

     Washington Post (“Musharraf’s Limited Democracy”, 23 August 2002) criticized the latest powers which Musharraf had assumed along with the formation of a National Security Council and the power to sack elected leaders. It stated, “Imagine President Bush giving himself the constitutional right to call Congressional elections and you get an only slightly overstated sense of Musharraf’s audacity.”

     Marcus Gee wrote in The Globe and Mail (“Embracing Pakistan’s dictator”, 24 August 2002) that recent measures adopted by Musharraf make “the election scheduled for Oct. 10 look like a bit of a farce.” Criticizing the American approach, Gee wrote, “The United States is doing Pakistan no favour by holding its tongue as the general stomps on Pakistani democracy. And it is not helping its own cause. One of the reasons that extremism thrives in some Islamic countries is that autocracies such as General Musharraf’s leave no outlet for peaceful dissent. With no way to express themselves democratically, frustrated people often turn to violence. Yes, terrorism must be fought, by military means if necessary. But if the United States wants to win over the long haul, it must show people in the Islamic world that there is an alternative to futile lashing out”.

     Far Eastern Economic Review, commenting on Pakistan’s economy (“Holding Up”, 29 August, 2002) stated, “Given the multiple knocks to Pakistani economy, it’s holding up relatively well.” However, it cautioned, “there is a good deal of uncertainty surrounding the outcome of national elections planned…Worse, attacks by anti-Western and sectarian militant groups continue, targeting foreigners and minorities and frightening away potential investors.”

     On the issue of attacks reported on the minority community, The Telegraph reported, (“Pakistan’s Christians lack cash for safety”, 24 August 2002) “Christian churches and schools scattered across Pakistan are largely unprotected because the beleaguered community, facing an unprecedented threat from Islamic extremists, has no money for basic security measures. Fear of attack has led to dwindling congregations and all of Pakistan’s churches, especially Roman Catholic, are laboring under a financial crisis.”