Some weeks ago The Economist wrote that Pakistan is the world’s most dangerous place.

Pakistan is a very uncertain country, because it does not follow a rule of law, it does not have predictable changes of government, and at the same time it has nuclear weapons. It is the most uncertain and unstable of all countries with nuclear weapons. This creates the feeling in the world that it is a dangerous country. So I think the most important thing to understand is that Pakistan is not yet as dangerous as it could become if its government is not restored constitutionally.

Has Pakistan been described correctly or with prejudices by the international media?

There are many prejudices about Pakistan and many other countries, but I think that the international media does not grasp the nature of the problem. It only looks at the many branches; it does not go down to the root. The root of the problem in Pakistan is that instead of unifying the nation through the Constitution and the law, the country has been unified through military and international aid. And if people could understand the real problem in Pakistan, then there would be less prejudice about Pakistan. Let me give you an example. Everybody talks about Pakistan’s politicians being corrupt, but you come from Italy and in Italy you have many allegations of corruption. But the army does not take over. Should the military take over because there is corruption among politicians? That is not the case. In Pakistan’s case, there is no understanding of the process of what is going on, instead there is only this constant commentary about events, and I think that the events make Pakistan look worse than if Pakistani were engaged and the international community said: “We want you to have a process”.

Pakistan had a female prime minister and the media was free until a few months ago. Does Pakistan show that Islam and democracy can be compatible?

The people of Pakistan have always wanted democracy. The people of Pakistan voted for a female prime minister, even though she had been denigrated by the mullahs and by our own military. And yet she remained popular. So I think Pakistan can show the way to the world by creating a Muslim democracy. The only question is: will the Pakistani military and its American backers let it become a democracy? Pakistan can be a model for other Islamic countries like the Arab countries.

And what kind of Islam is the Pakistani Islam?

Historically the Islam practiced in Pakistan was always very diverse and pluralistic. It was more colourful through the cultural influence of Persia and India. Now of course Pakistan has also been subjected to Wahabi Islam, which is more puritanical, coming from Saudi Arabia. The original diverse and pluralist Pakistani Islam is the softest side of Islam.

So it is better if the Arab countries become like Pakistan rather than Pakistan be “arabized”.

Absolutely, I think the Arab countries need to be like India and Pakistan and the Muslims of India and Pakistan.

Are Muslim fundamentalists popular in Pakistan?

The fundamentalists in Pakistan have never been popular; they have never got more than 4-5 per cent of the total votes. In 2002 they got 11 per cent of the votes because fewer people voted, but their absolute numbers have not increased. Their real power comes from weapons, money and organization.

Can the next elections represent a turning point for Pakistan?

If the next elections are free and fair – of which there is no evidence right now, because President Pervez Musharraf is trying to rig the election for himself and his party – they could be a turning point in making Pakistan a stable, mature, and parliamentary democracy. Maybe we will have the same problems Italy had in the early years after the Second World War, many coalitions, many deal-makings, but we will be able to unite the nation in democracy and in liberality rather than in fundamentalism.

Can the People’s party (Bhutto’s party) and Sharif’s party win and govern together?

I think that the likelihood that the People’s party and Sharif’s party will win a free and fair election is very high. And I think they can certainly govern together according to the “charter of democracy” that Mr. Sharif and Miss Bhutto signed not so long ago in London.

Many observers stress that to have a political dynasty like the Bhutto’s is not democratic.

I think that the major mistake is in understanding what I called the politics of family legacy, as being distinct from dynastic politics. In many countries people identify certain families with some causes. In Greece, for example, the two major parties have long been headed by a member of the Papandreou family; the other party was headed by a member of the Karamanlis family. Similarly, in India there is the Congress party led by the Nehru and Gandhi families. I would call this the politics of family legacy, not dynastic politics. In any case, as long as the leaders are represented by the people, they have the vote of the people and they can be removed from power by the vote of the people, this is a lot better than a military dictatorship.

Mr. Barack Obama does not exclude American attacks against Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. Would you welcome these operations or not?

I do not think that Pakistanis would like any foreign forces on their soil and that Pakistanis have to take care of the terrorist menace themselves. Because if Pakistanis do not take care of the terrorist menace, then the temptation for people outside to try and get involved will increase. So the responsibility of making sure that foreigners do not think about attacking Pakistan lies with Pakistanis.