Here's Some Really Divisive Politics

Here’s a quick thought exercise. Imagine that the governor of one of the most populous, prosperous states in the union was assassinated by religious fanatics who felt that their way of life was threatened. Imagine the assassin grinning for the camera to cheers and adulation from crowds who have gathered for a glimpse of this killer. Imagine the voices of reason and rule of law, fearing for their lives, quietly positing their opinions on public television instead of offering a forceful rebuke of this brutality.
That's exactly what happened in Pakistan this week. Shortly after gunning down Salman Taseer, the zealously secular governor of Punjab province, Malik Mumtaz Qaziri shouted, “We are ready to sacrifice our life for the prestige of the Prophet Muhammad” to the cheering streets outside an Islamabad courthouse where he’d just been arraigned. Religious fundamentalists overtly approved of the murder, and masses of their followers showered Mr. Qaziri with rose petals and garlands of flowers. No senior officials commented on the motives of the killing. The president, Asif Ali Zardari, himself a close friend of Mr. Taseer, did not attend his funeral out of security concerns. All indications are that an initiative to liberalize blasphemy laws has now been dropped.
American fundamentalists clearly have strong faith in the unerring veracity of their religious views. They usually also hold strong faith in American institutions. For this reason, the thought exercise above seems nearly implausible in an American context. This is not to say that in past epochs of polarization there have not been violent protests, and even more violent reprisals. It’s not to forget the all-too-long list of assassinations of important American figures. But it takes one person to kill someone. The difference is in the reaction of many. Nobody of any authority or stature, religious or otherwise, would dare condone such an affront to our democracy. No ecstatic crowd would ever gather outside the courthouse of an assassin.
Pakistan is not a nation in the classic sense. It’s an artifact of colonialism; the very name Pakistan is a clever use of its constituent territories: Punjab, Afghan (province), Kashmir, Sind, and baluchusTAN. Without a trace of irony, it also means “Land of the Pure” in Urdu and Persian. Sure, we are little different as the “United States” of America, but few of us would consider ourselves ethnic Californians, or the unwaivering vanguards of Arkansas culture and values. We argue all the time over centralized versus devolved authority, but the outcomes of those arguments are mostly respected and upheld by our civic faith.
Pakistan is in real trouble. Its spiraling social upheaval, coupled with its geographic positioning and possession of nuclear weapons, makes Pakistan a greater threat to international stability than perhaps any other nation on Earth. We have few tools to influence the outcome of events in Pakistan. Who has a remedy for righteous contempt of national institutions? In the event of a total collapse of its government, we have few options at our disposal. Do we invade here too? I hope the experts are a few steps ahead of me, because this doesn’t look good.