Pakistan has reached a watershed moment in its short history. For the first time in its six decades of existence, formal proceedings are in train to remove a sitting military head of state. In some respects, recent events reflect past experiences. The Pakistan supreme court has previously declared the Yahya Khan and Zia ul-Haq dictatorships illegal. On both occasions, however, the decisions occurred after the two men had relinquished power. The current decision to impeach Musharraf, should he fail a vote of confidence in the national assembly, is somewhat unprecedented. It is a shot in the arm for the rule of law in Pakistan.

At the same time as impeachment has been mooted in Pakistan, another, largely ignored one is being considered in the United States. Last month former presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, brought proceedings to impeach George Bush for orchestrating the invasion of Iraq. The Senate judiciary committee hearing his petition (pdf) did not allow Kucinich to use the 'I' word, however, and the hearing is symbolic at best.

But there remains an underlying logic to impeachment. Richard Nixon was almost impeached for clandestinely seeking to undermine his Democratic opponents (he resigned before he could be chucked out) and Bill Clinton was impeached for failing to disclose his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (the House of Representatives impeached him, but the Senate acquitted him, and he wasn't subsequently removed from office). It is therefore reasonable to query why impeachment proceedings against George Bush have only been countenanced so hesitantly and only now. Even at this juncture there is little support for the impeachment of George Bush from the Democrats or the media.

It's interesting to compare the impeachment efforts in Pakistan and the US, given their stark contrasts. Pakistan is a desperately poor, lower-tier power mired in years of corruption and a recent upsurge in violence instigated in part by elements of its own military intelligence. The US, in comparison, is the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet. Yet it too has been mired in political corruption and economic scandals. In their own ways, the countries share an alarming addiction to military corporatism. Both Pakistan under Musharraf and the US under Bush favour military solutions to political problems.

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic speaker of the house, opposes impeachment because "it would be divisive for the country". But, "if somebody had a crime that the president had committed," she mentioned flippantly on American television recently, "that would be a different story." Presumably the jury is out on Iraq until photos of Bush doing the thumbs-up at Abu Ghraib are unearthed. Barack Obama has decided to steer clear of the issue entirely. His stand could be excused on account of immediate political expediency. In one sense, he has very little to gain from supporting impeachment. John McCain would get free ammunition to line up Obama for the standard unpatriotic Democrat rhetoric.

Of course, all of this raises the question of what precisely politicians are meant to be doing if they always dodge politically risky issues. Just prior to gaining control of Congress in 2006, the Democrats raced to quash rumours that they would seek to impeach Bush. Pelosi argued, credibly, that such moves would only act as fodder for Republicans seeking to avoid likely defeat. "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me," Pelosi told the 60 Minutes programme. She repeated this argument in Time only last week.

Sadly, impeachment proceedings did not start after the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. What followed was a lame duck Democratic party consistently voting to support America's continued occupation of Iraq. It was left instead to Dennis Kucinich, the maverick congressman from Ohio, to launch independent proceedings against Bush and Dick Cheney. His efforts have been joined by a number of citizen activists that includes the man who prosecuted Charles Manson.

Since its election victory in February, Pakistan's coalition government has been chided by western observers for dithering in the face of a resurgent Taliban movement. It is true that the government's two major powerbrokers, Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, have largely been more interested in turf wars than mounting a consistent policy platform. And yes, the impeachment proceedings are politically motivated. Ordinary Pakistanis are hurting as the cost of fuel and basic foodstuffs increases at an alarming rate (by a whopping 32% (pdf) in July alone). The coalition government has been blaming Musharraf for these ills. Impeachment gives Sharif and Zardari further ammunition to stave off an electorate with little faith in them.

But for whatever reasons, Pakistan's politicians have taken a calculated risk. If they fail it will only serve to validate Musharraf. That they decided to proceed regardless is something to celebrate. Democracies, let alone coalition governments in a country as volatile as Pakistan, are complex animals. The impeachment proceedings against Musharraf are proof that Pakistan's politicians can occasionally rise above their nation's traumas to seek accountability for a dictator who has been consistently supported by the west.

This article was amended at 12:40 on Friday August 8