Bhutto's death
It is normal to speak well of the dead, particularly when they die in such an unacceptable fashion. No doubt the quiet season for the news media has also contributed to the wall-to-wall coverage of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. But the way that she is being portrayed as a fallen heroin is out of sync with her track record and what the prospects were for her relaunch.
She arrived back in Pakistan courtesy of a US brokered deal after around a decade out of the country dodging corruption trials. On the plane from Dubai she told the world's media that he had two priorities - to reform Islam and to help the poor.
This should have stuck in the throat. She was not some fresh faced political idealist. She had record - maybe not a criminal one, but as good as. She's twice been prime minister and had done nothing on either count, or much else of note. Had her family not already been substantially wealthy, she may have been able to argue that at least one poor person had been helped. It's estimated that she and her husband swindled tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in kickbacks from various state deals.
There was more than a hint of the colonial mentality when the US and UK backed and brokered her return to Pakistan. Doesn't matter to them about her personal enrichment. Even recent scandals in our country have involved politicians benefiting their political parties, not their own pockets. What Bhutto and husband were complicit in was on an altogether different magnitude. But then our political leaders would take the view that so many national leaders do this kind of thing - and in fact the UK refuse to investigate BAE giving the Saudis exactly the same kind of "commission".
We've also heard about the tragedy of the Bhutto dynasty which is on a par with the long-suffering Kennedy family. The news has given full background on how Benazir's father died, as well as her brothers dying in "mysterious circumstances". What no one is mentioning is that Bhutto's husband Asif Zardari is widely believed in Pakistan to be responsible for Murtaza's assassination. Benazir's mother believed her daughter ordered it.
So for her to appear in Pakistan this year as the saviour of the Islamic faith was incredible. But it shows what regular appearances on the Western media circuit can do. Gaining support from these elites is in many ways more important than the acceptance of your own people. She gave not one jot about Islamic issues before the war on terror started. Her government were in fact supportive of the Taliban during the 90s. But she said the right things on the TV now so it was ok.
Bhutto's life has been ended, and it will probably mean that her name will live on in folklore as an opportunity missed for Pakistan. It's probably better for her legacy that it ended this way, as she did not have the credibility to achieve the things that she was setting out to do. There must have been better options than changing the constitution of the country to have Bhutto serve a third term as PM.
It has been a particularly embarrassing year for Pakistan, in the context of decades where there has not been much politically to be proud of. Pakistan celebrated it's 60th year in August. Is this what was envisaged back then? There's already competing claims of how she died - was it a bullet, shrapnel or banging off her sunroof? - never mind who did it. Al-Qaeda were said to have claimed responsibility, now they've denied it. Others are blaming Musharraf for direct or indirect involvement. Similar beliefs were aired after the Karachi bombing, where Bhutto inexplicably put her supporters in danger by organising a street carnival to welcome her back, knowing full well it was a huge security risk. Her husband said he believed the secret services were behind the explosion. It's not the first time that a Pakistani politician has been killed, it wasn't even the first time in the very park that Bhutto died - Liaqat Ali Khan's death was also suspected to have the hands of the military or security services behind it.
What's urgently needed is support for the fledling democratic movement. In a year where Musharraf has clamped down like never before with his "emergency", people have rebelled at the grassroots, most notably the lawyers' movement. This may be a slow burn, but it's better than the useless installation of more corrupt puppets.
Note: Flag courtesy of BBDO







The death of any human being is a tragedy, but it is all the more tragic if western propaganda twists it into yet another justification for its war on terror. This is another wee episode in a long saga where every time a bus exhaust backfires, everyone shouts "Al-Qaeda!" and civil rights are savaged as a knee-jerk response. As a boringly pure-bred Scot I'm sometimes ashamed at the idiocy of the "west". How, in a simple, easily understood way, can we engage with the ordinary, decent people of all nations, races and religions and create solidarity against the master puppeteers who engineer this long-running, dangerous farce? I have much more in common with them than I do with the leaders of the western nations.
Posted by: Anne Baird | 29 December 2007 at 12:45 PM
The west's "daughter of the east" was hardly looking out for Pakistan's interests. Bhutto and Zardari had plundered the country's wealth - with the national debt sky-rocketing. The popularity of her PPP is restricted to rural Sindh where the Bhuttos remain the feudal lords. She was charismatic, but was unable to continue her father's popular idealogy of Islamic socialism. The current situation in Pakistan is bad, and with the likelihood of free & fair elections being slim, the immediate future doesn't look so bright. In some quarters there is already talk of civil war (over-exaggerated)and the west's biggest concern: Pakistan's nuclear assets falling into the wrong hands. Bronwen Maddox wrote a good article in the todays Times.
Posted by: Umar M | 29 December 2007 at 05:57 PM
No.
Posted by: Adnan | 30 December 2007 at 12:00 PM
You shouldn't really use someone's death as an excuse to rant about how rubbish etc the west is.
No-one was really suggesting she was going to miraculously solve all Pakistan's problems. She wasn't perfect, just a far better option than Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif or the Taleban. It's easy to attack political leaders. What would you do instead? "Support Pakistan's fledgling democratic movement" - what, in practice, does that even mean?
"Useless installation of corrupt puppets" is a good soundbite, but she was risking her life to fight a democratic election. That's not an installation. And a person isn't necessarily a corrupt puppet just because people in the west happen to like them.
Posted by: Andrew Carmichael | 30 December 2007 at 01:14 PM
Osama I'm a bit disappointed about your response to this barbaric and tragic event.
It is the sheer barbarism and fundamentally reactionary nature of the act that so appalls and needs to be at the forefront of our thoughts.
We shall always struggle to achieve progress where we have brutal and corrupt people who readily resort to murder and even indiscriminate mayhem to protect or further their own selfish ends.
Whatever reservations any of us might share about the murdered individual or her associates, I’d like to think that with hindsight you might have preferred to use some more circumspect timing and language on this one.
Posted by: Ted Harvey | 30 December 2007 at 05:35 PM
Personally, though I understand the sentiment behind Ted's comment, I think that it's precisely at those times when the media machines will work their hardest to tell masses what to feel and how to think, that alternative (or read: commonsense) views need to be expressed with some vigour.
If you call someone a villain every day of his life, there is little sense calling him anything else the day of his death, especially if you see a clear agenda to befog people's minds about the realities.
Posted by: so_happy | 30 December 2007 at 09:28 PM
Whilst it is sad when anyone dies, her and her family shows what is wrong with Pakistan, and through it, the wider Islamic world.
What educated and experienced person did they put in her place? Out of all of Pakistan they could only find one person with the experience and education to fill her spot. It happens to be her 19 year old son who hasnt even finished his education.
That shows EXACTLY what is wrong and why the PPP or anyone of the Bhutto line will not be able to fix it.
As to her being a criminal, she was convicted of money laundering in Switzerland. She was indeed a criminal, convicted and sentenced to six months in prision and ordered to pay restituation for the money her and her husband stole.
Posted by: Abu Sinan | 31 December 2007 at 03:20 PM
Andrew Carmichael says "She wasn't perfect, just a far better option than Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif or the Taleban"
Really? Is that all the options? How about backing someone from Pakistan, who is educated there and is known for their honest track record?
Had she only followed the most important thing her father ever taught her....“There are two hegemonies that dominate our country. One is an internal hegemony, and the other is an external hegemony. And unless we challenge the external hegemony, we will never be able to deal with the internal one”
Bhutto was nothing but a failure and her husband was nothing but a corrupt person known as Mr 10%.
The feudal system in Pakistan is the problem.
PS - see the new air to the throne speak? What language did he use...Urdu, Sindh....why English of course! That should tell you all you need to know.
Posted by: Azad Ali | 31 December 2007 at 04:09 PM
Whilst it is true that the death of Benazir Bhutto, is a tragic and sad event; that children are now without the guidance of a mother and a husband without his soul mate; for once I have to agree with Osama. (thanks for the links, they make very interesting reading)
If we merely look upon Benazir's political life and not her private one; is this all that the political elites of the country had to offer the people of Pakistan, was this election ever about raising their life chances and conditions, or merely an opportunity for one of the ruling elites to become prime-minister for a while, or life even.
That's where I stop in my tracks and question this idea of democracy, when I realise that Ms Bhuto was leader of the PPP for life, and that she willed that position to her son, for life.
This is not a loss to the world on the same level as JFK, Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X. For the last two here they lived the ideal that they spoke of, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Ms Bhutto. It is the people of Pakistan who suffer now, because of the political game playing of their elite classes.
Posted by: aineliva | 02 January 2008 at 08:53 AM
FYI, an interesting table. Not that I expect such data will temper salaciousness of the Orientalist representation of Muslim women.
Posted by: sk | 02 January 2008 at 06:50 PM