Liberal Autocracies?

One of the terms that we use when we talk about the West and/or the developed world is "liberal democracy." That is to say that we have classic liberal values (personal freedoms et cetera) and democratic structures (voting and the like) as the basis for our government. My sense is that we used to believe that these things went hand in hand. Liberal democracies were the antidote to illiberal autocracies (absolute monarchy and similar forms).

Sounds good, right? What then are we to do about something the news that Pakistan may be changing its dreadful old laws on rape? Pakistan is clearly under the military dictatorship of General Musharraf. Where there are any democratic forms remaining, they cannot touch the power of the General. Predictably, some of the more extreme religious groups are up in arms. Sharia law has been interpreted harshly by them, and the religious groups would like to maintain those rules. Would any leader of Pakistan facing the wrath of motivated and organised religious voters relish the prospect of fighting an election with this kind of platform? In other words, would such a reform of the law taken place if Pakistan had a democratic leader.

Even under Saddam Hussein, probably a far worse species of dictator than Musharraf, Iraqi women enjoyed better civil liberties than they'd likely enjoy under a government led by a religious Shiite coalition.

I'm not a fan of dictators though. I'd rather the citizens of Pakistan work to resolve such issues democratically. Yet if I am honest, my first response to reading this while perusing the beeb's website was joy. Not blaming the victim for a rape is an improvement. Yet we owe this improvement to a dictator. I don't have any kind of universal truth to take away from this story, no prescription for our attitudes toward dictators, not even a nifty moral. I am not sure what our response to this sort of news ought to be.
Tags: Pakistan, democracy.