"Hitherto Mr Zardari may have trusted to support from America, Britain and Pakistan’s army, who are all, to varying degrees, wary of the populist and conservative Mr Sharif. He can no longer do so—the Punjab police’s decision to free Mr Sharif from confinement was very likely in response to an army command. Indeed, this may be a positive development in the effort to rebuild Pakistan’s much-abused democracy"

This is a shocking speculative comment. Military involvement in politics, as a rule, is never "a positive development". By definition, the military is incompatible with politics. Politics revolves around discussion, around compromise; politics is (supposed to be) a vehicle for citizens to voice and express their opinions. Politics is (again: supposed to be) rule from below.

The military is exactly the opposite: the men in uniform rule from above. The general passes orders down the ranks, not the other way around. So in a state where the military is actively involved in politics, this is, more often than not, the case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7946741.stm

"Soldiers have seized one of the palaces of embattled Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana in the centre of the capital Antananarivo..."The palace is occupied. This was our mission for today. For now, we have no more orders," an army colonel, who declined to be named, told Reuters news agency inside the captured palace."

Military intervention, for the best of reasons, is not a good thing. I am unwilling to say that military intervention should never ever happen; in the most extreme of cases, a conscience-driven military intervention may be a good thing -- a military intervention to oust a government bent on genocide, for example. But just though that may be, it is still a blow to democracy.