In cases of political conflict, the most difficult task is often separating the good guys from the bad. This can seem impossible as, for one, there is never consensus on the definition of these two terms – it is usually a matter of one’s perspective. Furthermore, solutions cannot be reached simply by identifying an enemy and placing blame. Peaceful resolution of conflict is a product of negotiation and compromise.

A case in point is Pakistan. The political situation as it currently stands is confusing. Progress has been, if anything, stagnated by the recent general elections. An intricate web has been woven by political motivations, religious extremism, and military might, all set against the backdrop of years of administrative corruption and mismanagement. Added to this is a population which now, more than ever, demands a transparent, accountable government which will fulfill promises made long ago of peaceful stability, and social and economic growth.

2007 was a year of political turmoil, the consequences of which spilt over into the New Year. The figure exerting the greatest influence in Pakistan has been and continues to be President Pervez Musharraf. Though many think recent developments have weakened his power and that his demise is imminent, it is not seem likely that he will fade from the political landscape any time soon. Musharraf came to power via a military coup d’état in 1999. In 2002 and again in 2007 he extended his term in office by five years. When the Supreme Court of Pakistan endeavored to review the legality of his re-election (in 2007), he declared a state of emergency: from November 3 to December 15 of last year the Constitution was suspended, private television channels were shut down, and several judges and lawyers were jailed. Chief Justice Mohammed Chaudhry was placed under house arrest and the judiciary, under new leadership, confirmed Musharraf’s re-election.

Such measures are reminiscent of dictatorial rule. But while absolutism is unacceptable in this day and age, perhaps the strict methods Musharraf has taken during his time in power, when balanced against the desperate need for stability, pervasive in Pakistan today, are justifiable. Musharraf has after all been an outspoken ally of the West against the ‘war on terror’. In 2002 he condemned Islamic extremism and in 2005 denounced terrorism outright. This, however, seems to be less a nod to the democratic ways of the Western administrations than a strategic manoeuvre to have international sanctions lifted and to increase the amount of fiscal aid flowing into Pakistan.

His domestic politicking dampens any democratic credentials Musharraf may have further. While he granted general amnesty to political leaders in exile, including Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif (another important leader of opposition) was for a longer period excluded and prevented from returning. Moreover, though inroads were made into negotiating a power-sharing agreement with Bhutto, no conclusive results were reached.

In any case, discussion of these negotiations is obsolete in the wake of her assassination. Leader, at home and in exile, of her father’s leftist Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), Bhutto was an inspirational political candidate. She had been Prime Minister twice, a significant feat given that she was the first woman elected to hold such a post in a Muslim nation. However, despite her grand rhetoric and vision, she was dismissed from office both times due to charges of corruption. Allegations were made against both her and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, in several countries. Many still believe there was truth to the accusations though neither was jailed and the issues never fully resolved. An ally of democracy and advocate of change and growth, she had powerful ideas to propel Pakistan forward, both economically and socially. Nevertheless, the tangible effects of her rule were few. The question remains as to whether she learned from her past mistakes and would have made a genuine difference if she had lived. We will never know.

Following her death, Zardari assumed leadership of the PPP, with their 19-year old son acting as a figurehead. Neither commands as much respect, nor rallies as much support, as Bhutto herself did. Though the PPP achieved a majority in the February 2008 elections it cannot oust Musharraf without forming a coalition with another party. The head of Musharraf’s opposition has effectively been severed. No predictions can be confidently made as to short-term future developments. This must be especially disconcerting for Pakistanis who are unsure which way the balance will tip and how long the current turmoil will continue to upset their day-to-day lives.

The ubiquitous threat of violence can by no means be ignored. Several attempts have been made on Musharraf’s life throughout his time in power and Bhutto was herself warned of the risks she would be taking upon returning (acutely so when she escaped the first attempt on her life in ___). It also important not to forget the immense death toll of innocent civilians which increases with every attack. However these extremist undertakings have led to no improvements. They are fundamentally incoherent. Different factions loyal to different leaders target different persons in power. Indeed many factions are actually in conflict with one another. Their only success has been to exacerbate the already very difficult circumstances and entrench in the Pakistani peoples’ minds the constant apprehension of attack. The bombings that continue to happen all over the country have highlighted the instability that exists. The longer the political struggle and stalemate continues, the faster an already deteriorating country will be torn to pieces and peace will begin to appear an unattainable goal.