Although it is unsure as of yet who will be Pakistan’s next president, Bret Stephens believes - and makes quite a strong case in support of his belief - that the next president will be a “category 5 disaster” for both Pakistan itself and the world.

This Saturday Pakistanis will elect Pervez Musharraf’s successor. Musharraf came to power after a millitary coup, which was necessary because civilian leaders had led the country into chaos and instability. Although he made many mistakes, Musharraf was generally a reasonably good president; under his rule the economy boomed, and order was - at least somewhat - restored.

His possible successors, however, are of an entirely different brand altogether. Three individuals have a reasonable shot at winning the elections, and all three have serious weaknesses and flaws that could, Stephens argues, prove disastrous for Pakistan, the region, and the West.

Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, for instance, is the candidate of ‘former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s party. Mr. Sharif — whose record includes bankrupting his country, presiding over a disastrous military campaign against India, and attempting to implement Sharia law while awarding himself near-dictatorial powers — has made it clear he intends to gut the powers of the presidency should he return to office.’

Another important candidate, the one who will probably win, is Benazir Bhutto’s widower Asif Ali Zardari. Zardari is known as “Mr. 10%” because of his corruptness. He forced companies that tried to do business while his wife was leading the country to pay him 10% of the money they earned, of transactions, etc. As a result, he became one of the richest men in Pakistan, with a wonderful condo in Britain, close to London. All in all, he ‘earned’ approximately $1.5 billion in this manner.

He has compared himself to Jesus Christ - which should worry just about everyone - but American psychiatrists say he is anything but; instead, he suffers, according to them, from dementia. That is bad, what is worse is that it is probably not true; he probably lied about his mental state in order to defend himself against corruption charges in Britain.

Under civilian rule Pakistan’s economy has suffered tremendously. ‘The Karachi stock exchange has lost about a third of its value and the currency about a fifth in recent months.’ All thanks to Zardari and people like him. Of course, Zardari himself is not worried; he knows that he will be able to enrich himself in the coming years, regardless of what happens to the economy as a whole, or so Stephens argues.

Lastly, Zardari may present himself as pro-Western, but he has already agreed to stop fighting against the Taliban and other Moslem extremists hiding in Pakistan. Terrorists are all too happy with him: Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, a religious party, threw its support behind Zardari after he decided to stop taking on the Taliban.

Mushahid Hussain Sayed, a former journalist and one-time political prisoner of Mr. Musharraf who is nonetheless running as the candidate of the general’s old party, lastly, is the best of the bunch but he ’stands next to no chance of winning.’

And so, the elections many consider to be hopeful, could very well prove to be disastrous. The West’s decision not to support Musharraf any longer was and is a gamble; we can only hope that the card will fall in way that benefits us. It could very well be, however, that taking the risk to replace Musharraf with someone supported by a majority of the people proves to be one of the worst decisions in recent history.

Especially because a firm majority of Pakistanis believe their country should not support the United States in its war on terrorism and oppose fighting against the Taliban in their country.