Benazir Bhutto Killed
Hot off the presses has just come the news that the ex-PM of
It’s almost certainly too early to comment - and prediction is, of course, a mug’s game. However, several consequences are already apparent.
If nothing else, the death of such a major opposition figure will leave a large vacuum, both in the PPP and the democratic movement on the whole. Bhutto was renowned as a deeply charismatic figure, and was certainly one of the most prominent figures in the Pakistani democratic movement. Especially in the lead-up to the elections in just a few days time, this is even more crucial. I don’t know enough about Pakistani party politics to know who, or what, will fill that vacuum. Her rival, Nawaz Sharif? Another figure in the PPP? Maybe no-one? It might be that Bhutto was so key to her own party, at the very least, that the vacuum might suck it in and lead to its collapse, leaving another vacuum.
Or it might re-open the dialogue in the democratic movement. Bhutto dominated her party, and did stifle discussion within her own, not-so-democratic, party. It might even provide a wind of change, and be good for the movement (although this seems unlikely).
Such speculation is essentially useless though. It’s far too early, for a start. What I fear though is the effect this might have on the democratic process in
It might also provide an excuse for Musharraf to institute another state of emergency, postponing the elections until he judges it safe - which would not be for a while, even if he was being honest. He would be able to prolong his illegitimate rule for even longer - although whether the army would co-operate now that he’s no longer in charge of it would remain to be seen.
It may well be that this disruption of the democratic process is what the bomb was targeted to do. Various elements in
This cannot be allowed to happen. If democracy is to succeed, it must not allow itself to be stalled by fear. It must go on if the violence is not to continue.
But I can’t say any more now. I may try later, when I’ve had more time for research and thought.
Wow…This is really quite a shock.
My knowledge of the situation in Pakistan is not in-depth but from what I understand she seems to have been by far the most viable alternative to the {ex-}General. I read that she was corrupt even by Pakistani standards but to be honest if Musharraf was behind this, and I would not put it past him judging by past record, then she would be immensely preferable.
This seems a true pity and an immense concern.
I suppose that it is much, much too much to hope that the perpetrators are placed in a position where no more harm can be caused to the world by them but I hope at least that peace, stability and democracy somehow reach this troubled land.
Not least because of their copious nuclear weaponry…
I just saw this - I’m in Malaysia visiting some family for the holidays and - it flashed on CNN a few minutes ago.
My most immediate concern is that Musharraf has let himself get into the position of de-legitimizing the government (regardless of his involvement in Bhutto’s assassination). Democracy isn’t a big concern for those in the north-west frontier provinces of Pakistan - a stable government is. This instability will ripple throughout the sub-continent, lending even more support to the damned chicken-hawks within the US administration who argue that Musharraf can’t control his own country.
Lots of people don’t understand that the US lost a lot more than its head-of-government when Kennedy was assassinated, and all those conspiracy theories about “the CIA pulling the trigger” ran wild: the entire system of government had for a brief period lost its credibility.
Just my two pence.
It really is quite a shock, yes.
Similarly, I don’t know a huge amount about the intricacies of Pakistani politics. I’ve read enough commentary to know what’s being talked about most of the time, but probably not enough to do the talking intelligently. It’s so big, though, that I thought I should at least post something. Although I do wonder, in retrospect, how appropriate my posting of three cartoons and another, not-entirely-meaningful, article after this was…ah well.
What is a little easier to comment on is the reaction to the killing by parties over here. As might be expected, all of the party statements condemned the killing. The emphases, though, appreared to differ, which I suppose is interesting. Miliband’s statement (which came out first, and I suspect is meant to - there might not be any laws on it, but I imagine it might be frowned upon for one party leader to comment on something like this before the Foreign Office. After all, it was Miliband making the statement here, rather than Brown - who’ll make one later) was fairly balanced between the condemnation of the killing and urgings to not let this get in the way of democracy. This is, I suspect, because this is what the government is generally expected to say - quite apart from the fact that it’s in the language used by them in such matters for most of their tenure.
Jack Straw also made a statement, for some reason, and used it as an opportunity to condemn terrorism as an attack on the entire human race. It’s interesting that he discovers this universalism when it allows him to make a statement in line with government policy, and not at other times. In particular, if applied logically and consistently, this universalism would often come to play in his role as Justice Secretary - for by the same logic, to judge one person for, say, protesting in a place inconvenient to the government, is to judge all protestors. But, somehow, this doesn’t come into it. Do I smell a political statement here?
The Tory statement, which if I was reading successive edits to the BBC article correctly, came out last, focused almost entirely on the murder of an individual rather than the democratic disruption. To be entirely fair, this may be the BBC only quoting part of the statement, though I don’t know. It wasn’t a particularly interesting statement, though…
Whereas Nick Clegg’s was. It came out second, as I recall - really quite quickly - and is written in quite bold terms, at least for a Lib Dem. It very soundly condemned the attackers, primarily for the attack of democracy. But it’s the vigour that is most striking: it’s a, “dark day,” where a, “a hammer blow,” was struck against Pakistani democracy, the restoration of which is, “paramount.” This strikes me as unusually definite language for a Lib-Dem leader - certainly, I can’t see Ming making such a statement. Maybe this is a herald of a more general revival of activeness now Clegg is in charge?
That was quite a long comment…
I disagree: this isn’t a shock. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
My knowledge of Pakistani politics, I suspect, is substantially less than either of the previous comment-ers who claim limited knowledge. From what I can see, commentators variously describe Bhutto as a bastion of democracy or as a corrupt opportunist. Either way, she was very brave to return to Pakistan in the way she did.
Her murder is not a surprise, but it is upsetting. And the wider ramifications are huge.
“If it means sacrificing our lives, if it means sacrificing our liberties to save Pakistan, then we are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberties, but we are not prepared to surrender our great nation to the militants,” -
Benazir Bhutto