What do Pakistanis really want? And, what's really going on with terrorism and civil strife in Pakistan, the issue which General Musharraf has taken as his pretext for the state of emergency? These are vital questions. In researching the issue and talking to experts we found some interesting answers - hence Avaaz's new global campaign to End the Emergency in Pakistan, and support prompt, free and fair elections.

One question people often ask is whether Pakistanis want democracy, or are ready for it. While there is a lot of support for the military to play a role in guaranteeing stability, the answer appears to be yes to democracy - and we're not just talking about elections, but human rights, Pakistan's newly-pluralistic media, the independent secular judiciary, and so forth.

In the August 2007 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, Pakistanis rated "ensuring an independent judiciary, free press and free elections" as their Number 1 national priority - even higher than economic growth, way above the war on terror. (85% thought these democratic foundations important in some degree, 53% very important.)

So Musharraf's claim that "The common people are concerned with prices, concerned with unemployment and poverty. They are tired of this uncertainty in the name of democracy" - brutally misrepresents what the large majority of Pakistanis think. Which is perhaps no surprise, given that 53% of poll respondents rated Musharraf negatively. (He rated worse than all politicians mentioned except for George Bush, worse even than Osama bin Laden.)

How about the messy reality of civil strife in the provinces on the frontier with Afghanistan and the "war against terrorism"? Well, within a day of the emergency announcement, the military concluded a ceasefire deal with the Taliban in South Waziristan, including the withdrawal of troops. Meanwhile, thousands of democratic activists are being thrown in prison. Emergency powers are being directed primarily against the political opposition, rather than against terrorist groupings.

It gets worse. The respected International Crisis Group (ICG) has published a series of in-depth reports on the conflicts in the frontier provinces and wider instability in Pakistan. It reported last year how President Musharraf's party and military have for years been working in coalition with a branch of the Pakistani Taliban in the Balochistan province, while turning a blind eye to the threats to internal and international stability. Specifically,

"With their chief Pakistani patron, Fazlur Rehman's Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam running the Balochistan government in alliance with Musharraf's Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam), a reinvigorated Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are attacking international forces and the Kabul government across Balochistan's border with Afghanistan."

The ICG's overall conclusions on Pakistan, published this summer, include the following analysis:

"Since the 11 September terror attacks, the U.S. has provided the bulk of $10 billion in aid to the military, believing that the military is their reliable partner and the only institution with the capacity to govern and to combat militants. On the contrary, by excluding moderate parties, military rule has fanned extremism; by alienating the smaller provinces and virtually blocking all institutions and channels of meaningful participation, it threatens to destabilise a country of 160 million people in a strategic and volatile neighborhood...

"The U.S. should use its considerable influence to persuade the generals to give up power, offering political and material incentives if they do so and threatening sanctions if they thwart democratic change. A free, fair and transparent election this year is the first, necessary step in the peaceful political transition that is needed to bring Pakistan to moderate, democratic moorings."

These are just some of the reasons why we take Musharraf's claim to be Pakistan's last bulwark against terrorism with a large pinch of salt.