As we have discussed in class this past week, the rise of the Hitler and the Nazis all came about legally. Hitler was able to use the Weimar Constitution to suspend the Constitution and the rights of the people through Article 48, which gave him the power to seize all control if he believed the republic was in danger.
Within the past week, the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, abolished the Supreme Court and suspended the Constitution declaring a "state of emergency" in Pakistan. Musharraf, who is both the head of the military and the country which is against the Constitution of Pakistan, has abolished the Constitution in efforts to maintain his power in both.
Here is the address of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/asia/07lawyers.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Similar to what occurred in the Weimar Republic with Hitler and the Nazis, what is happening in Pakistan closely resembles the beginning stages of what Hitler did to rise to power as a dictator. Both president Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Hitler declared a "state of emergency" thus allowing them to suspend the Constitution and democracy.
Some questions to consider:
-Given what occurred in the Weimar Republic after Hitler rose to power, what is the danger in what is happening in Pakistan today?
-What measures could or should be taken to prevent the democracy of Pakistan from being abolished?
-As Arron mentioned in his earlier post on "neighbors", what role, if any, should other nations involve themselves in the situation? Will "help" be beneficial or non beneficial?
-What are the differences, if any, between what occurred in Germany and what is occurring in Pakistan today?
Feel free to respond to whatever else you may think of!
8 comments:
I think the main danger is clearly that this could end up as a dictatorship. As for US interference, I believe that at this point nothing should be done. I don't think any other nation has a right to intervene before it is positive that there is need for intervention. That said, if the need arises (dictatorship appears eminent) there should be some intervention...
do you think finding that time is possible?
i think in the article, it said that the US should be doing more (maybe i read that wrong, sorry...) i agree with tal, though - i think the US is doing all it can right now. secretary rice is urging musharraf to bring back the constitution, and that's all we can really do right now.
maybe it said in the article and i missed it, but what exactly is the national emergency? could it be considered a legitimate emergency?
-coe
ps: @ casey - thank you for posting this! i was hoping someone would. :)
I agree with both Tal and Coe, nothing can really be done at this time. I am not sure the US should ever intervene in a case like this, unless there is massive violence towards the people.
To answer Tal, it is not our place to impose our views on other nations therefore even if we do believe in democracy, we shouldn't be able to force Pakistan into becoming one again (if that becomes the case), because it would open up opprotunities for other countries to interfere with our government. The exception to this would be violence towards the people.
So would you concider arresting lawyers and judges an act of violence or illegal enough to require intervention?
I don't know if it is our right to take action, but I think some outside force (U.N.?) does need to intervene. Seeing that Musharraf has called for a "state of emergency" just like Hitler did prior to the Holocaust, I think that it is not ok for other countries to just let this happened. We all know the consequences of Hitler's actions, so why would we want them repeated.
What I'm trying to say is that we don't study history for no reason; we study it so we can see trends to help us make better decisions in the future. So why would we let this one go?
I agree with what has been already said. I also am beginning to really see the "little steps" phenomenon play into international events. Several people mentioned that "at this point" mothing should be done by the US. I have some questions relating to intervention?
If not now, at what point should the US intervene? Where should we draw the line?
Gaby brought up violence to the people as an example for intervention, but are other situations in which the US should intervene? Do we have any responsibility to encourage and maintain democratic governments internationally?
First of all, I would be very hesitant in comparing Musharaff's actions with Hitler's during the Weimar Republic. While declaring a state of emergency and taking almost absolute power is never a good thing, it does not inevitably lead to genocide. The exact same thing happened (and is still happening now) in Bangladesh where a temporary government has postponed the elections indefinitely and is verging on possible dictatorship. It is an awful occurence, but genocide is not inevitably imminent because the same thing happened in Germany.
I also strongly oppose the US intervening. Remember what happened last time we took out a dictator? It left us with a war with no end in site, civil war within the country, billions of dollars and counting, thousands of American deaths, and a huge number of Iraqi deaths and more every day. We are in no position to invade yet another country because we do not agree with their politics.
should a country ever invade another country because they don't believe in the other's politics? We in the US think very highly of democracy, but many Germans in the Weimar Republic did not want democracy. Is it our "duty" to spread democracy because it works for us?
I do not think it is our duty to spread democracy. I think that the reason many people like the democratic system of government so much is that if everyone can be represented then events such as genocide are less likely to occur than if it were only one person making all the decisions. Specifically in our govenrment, checks and balances make it impossible for one person to decide that an action is legitimate and then taking it. That being said, I think it is the crimes against humanity themselves, rather than the forms of government that may or may not lead to them. I am not saying that other countries should wait until genocide is already occurring to come to the aid of the country where the genocide is happening, but Musharraf has not mentioned wanting to commit crimes against humanity. I think, though, that since this taking away of the Constitution does so closely resemble past preparations for genocide, such as in the case of Hitler, the international community should maintain a heightened awareness of Musharraf's policies, statements, etc. in case he does decide that he wants to abuse his power to instigate crimes against humanity.
i just wanted to clarify that I did not mean to go as far as to say that Musharraf's actions will inevitably lead to genocide, I was just pointing out that there are certain similarities in their actions.
Post a Comment