Take two countries, both gain their independence at the same time. One is secular, democratic, has civil liberties, respects minority rights, and is rapidly becoming an economic powerhouse. The other is autocratic, in fact no civilian government has been replaced by another civilian government, the military is always intervening. The country is almost overrun with religious fanatics, society, and the economy, are medieval. Which country would you want to live in?

Well, Pakistan fits the profile for country number two. Political instability, poverty, and, Islamic fanaticism don't exactly make it a portrait of efficiency and sanity. Throw in a stockpile of nuclear weapons that could fall into the hands of Al-Qaida sympathizers and you begin to realize how unpleasant the situation is.

Now with the assassination of former Prime Minister Bhutto we are hearing the old debates about democracy and stability. Many, mostly on the right, are arguing the brining democracy into Pakistan is not as important as brining stability. For that, they argue, we should leave Musharraf alone and not have urged him to try to share power with Ms. Bhutto.

This argument is not a new one, but you would think that by now it would be a settled one. While there are some countries that can maintain real stability without being Democratic(think the UAE) they are few and far between. More often than not, the dictator promising to bring peace and stability only brings unrest and instability.

We tolerated Musharraf because he became an ally after the 9-11 attacks and we believed that stability was more important than freedom, and that what a dictator did was no big deal as long as he was our dictator. In reality the opposite is true. Freedom brings stability, and the cozier we are with dictators the more hostile that country becomes to the U.S. and the more instable the political situation is.

Musharraf has allowed terrorists safe havens in the tribal regions. He has made the situation more unstable, as he has attacked the rule of law and sought to undermine any institution that could challenge him, and has taken away what little freedom the people of Pakistan had.

What the country needs now is democracy, not tolerance of tyranny under the banner of stability. It's not an either or decision. Democracy, and the freedoms democracy brings, will bring far more stability to a troubled country like Pakistan. States of emergency, martial law, and delayed elections, might quiet things down for a time, but it's only making a bad situation worse. Not that the civilian governments(when there is one) did much better. But Pakistan will never develope into a real democracy with the rule of law, if every elected government is succeeded by a military takeover.

After the death of Ms. Bhutto, in an army garrison town, it shows that Musharraf has lost control of the situation. Even the army is working with the extremists. A dictator who can't control his own army isn't much of a dictator, and isn't much of a sales pitch for bringing stability. The recent events show that Musharraf hasn't made the coutry calmer, or more stable.

If we want peace in the only nuclear power in the Muslim world, then it's time that the General go, and Democracy arrive.