Bhutto’s back
After eight years of exile, Benazir Bhutto has returned to Pakistan in a deal brokered with President Musharraf.
She’s talking the democracy talk as she walks the comeback walk:
“Restoration of democracy is the only guarantee to the people’s progress and prosperity,’ she added before departing in a slow-moving convoy from the airport to the centre of the metropolis along roads lined with thousands of supporters and onlookers.
Bhutto has written a piece extolling democracy, appearing as an op-ed in today’s Boston Globe. In its high-minded rhetoric, she declares her determination to achieve none other than:
…the reconciliation of the values of Islam and the West, and a prescription for a moderate and modern Islam that marginalizes religious extremists, returns the military from politics to their barracks, treats all citizens and especially women with full and equal rights, selects its leaders by free and fair elections, and provides for transparent, democratic governance that addresses the social and economic needs of the people as its highest priority.
It’s a plan that sounds as good as Benazir looks—and that’s pretty good, since Benazir is undoubtedly the best-looking female head of state ever:
But words are cheap, and actions speak louder. Bhutto herself is a figure of extreme controversy. It’s not only the terrorists who are out to get her; there are others who wish she’d stayed away.
Benazir has long been accused of corruption, as this Ralph Peters piece points out. He calls her “a feudal landlord posing as a [small “d”] democrat,” full of charisma and lofty words but signifying nothing other than:
…a new era of hyper-corruption, as Bhutto’s grab-all gang replaces the relative moral rigor of the military in the public sphere.
The thrust of Peters’ column is to explain that, although Musharraf is far from perfect, his rule has amassed a better record than Bhutto’s, and that civilian leaders are not automatically to be preferred to military ones.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Pakistani history, but I do know that it can be hard to evaluate whether charges of corruption are true, or merely the strategies of opponents. In Bhutto’s case, both a Pakistani and a Swiss court have convicted her of corruption for taking kickbacks, and then overturned the rulings on appeal. Her husband served eight years on charges he continues to deny.
The allegations and counter-allegations against Bhutto and her husband are described in some detail here. The truth is elusive; there are many enemies with the motivation and the power to smear here in the all-too-easily-manipulated Pakistani courts, and yet the charges could certainly be true. Corruption is no stranger to power brokers, be they male or female, in third-world countries or first.
More importantly, as Peters points out, whoever is leader of Pakistan or any other country with a similar history and structure face problems that are systemic:
The generals and colonels learn that patriotism, no matter how heartfelt, is no substitute for sound economic principles, the rule of law and a merit-based society. The absence of healthy governmental institutions is as fateful for the coup-makers as for the demagogues they overthrow.
Pakistan is by no means one of the most failed countries in the world. But it is a country that lacks such institutions, and therefore presents great temptations for the misuse of power both for reasons of personal aggrandizement and to control the destructive and even more anti-democratic forces that would like to take over. In such countries, the choice often appears to be between the Scylla of dictatorship and the Charybdis of chaos—or worse.
[UPDATE 10/19: It’s a sad commentary on our times that there’s no real surprise in the news that over a hundred in the crowd were killed in an assassination attempt on Bhutto’s life during her triumphal drive through the streets of Karachi. Reports differ on the details, but a suicide bomber—or bombers—was clearly involved. As in most murder mysteries, there’s no dearth of possible suspects.]
My Bhutto’s back and you’re gonna be in trouble!
(Hey-la-day-la my Bhutto’s back)
You see Bhutto comin’ better cut out on the double!
(Hey-la-day-la my Bhutto’s back)
You been spreading lies that Bhutto was untrue!
(Hey-la-day-la my Bhutto’s back)
So look out now cause she’s comin’ after you!
Bhutto the best looking head of state ever? That’s a long time, what about Cleopatra? Also you don’t get much of a look at female Muslim heads of state so how do we really know? Queen Elizabeth II is a head of state, here’s an old image of a young Queen:
http://www.raabcollection.com/_images/inventory/manuscripts/large_Elizabeth8357.jpg
I dunno. That babe in Ukrania is pretty hot.
Well, it’s already started…
Seems a suicide bomber has already tried to take her out. She apparently was uninjured.
Pakistan is one of those fasciating case studies that forever generate theses and dissertations in political science, history and economics. If one looks at the progress of the much more complex situation in India, one needs to ask why Pakistan has failed so badly in comparison. India, as the largest democracy, despite the scores of languages, amazing disparate social structure, maze of religions, number of political parties, even the number of terror acts and political assasinations survives and indeed thrives. the contrast is stark and disturbing.
“It’s a plan that sounds as good as Benazir looks–and that’s pretty good, since Benazir is undoubtedly the best-looking female head of state ever”
She looks a lot like my ex-wife…but she’s probably much more stable, emotionally.
Bhutto was a nice public face for the most corrupt gang of treasury looters in history. The unique case when the ruling class did pretty nothing except looting and demagogy. What is not unique that in this country only military have some sense of discipline, honor and patriotism. Every other institution of state is rotten through and throuth, like it was in Chile before Pinochet.
The contrast between Pakistan and India can be explained only by inherent traits of Muslim tribal culture. Both countries were under British rule applied uniformly, but India was able to use advantages of common law and Western administrative methods, but Pakistan was not. Workable democracy needs long radius of trust. In Muslim or tribal societies people can trust only blood relatives, so corruption is not an anomaly, but the way of life. All civil servants take bribes, and the higher rank of bureaucracy, the higher sums are. The whole state machine becames a mechanism of looting. Only military stay away from this scum due to discipline and sense of honor.
Hey there!
We would like to invite you to participate in our transatlantic blogsphere, and ad your blog soo to the blogroll.
it seems you allready know some of the participants (your blogroll).
your blog’s not only looking beautiful, but really professional in it’s analysis of difficult themes.
united we stand!
bye.
Blogteam from Switzerland
“Die Realité¤t”
One irony, really, of Pakistan under Musharraf, is that some are arguing for a stronman in his mold in Iraq – maybe there’s great stability in a regime like that.
Yet, Bhutto’s return, with the bombing, shows how frightening genuine reform democracy is to the al Qaeda barbarians. So maybe a strongman, from the terrorist’ perspective, is seen as actually the most compliant, especially if the military in a regime like Pakistan’s becomes infiltrated with coddlers of the forces of nihilist terrorism.
Interesting, in any case…
Also, I’m passing along this link on the regrouping of neoconservatism:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-heilbrunn19oct19,0,1500804.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
A great morning read, with promising implications!
No foreign force can install strongman of this kind by its own choice. The man must be popular with army, as was Napoleon or Pinochet, or Mustafa Kemal: initially at last army is his only power base. But Iraqi army cease to exist after toppling Saddam, and even if it didn’t, its reputation among general population excludes its using as a political force.
The thrust of Peters’ column is to explain that, although Musharraf is far from perfect, his rule has amassed a better record than Bhutto’s, and that civilian leaders are not automatically to be preferred to military ones.
Peters is a fool. Yes, civilian leaders are automatically preferable to military leaders, because you can kick the civilians out. See, modern Pakistan for an example of how military rule works. Or alternatively, Burma.
Americaneocon, Musharref has been a strong man, but has he been a particularly effective one? Yes military regimes are stable, by virtue of the fact that they repress rival political movements. But they are highly unstable when they finally collapse; democracy is inherently more stable than military dictatorship.
As to corruption, I recommend an article in the most recent Atlantic for an example of how easily corruption has permeated the Pakistani military. Remember, power corrupts, regardless of whether you’re wearing a suit or a uniform.
As to Americaneocons points about the militants fear of democracy, I agree with that completely. They fear it because they know that a true democratic Pakistan will deal with them considerably more harshly than Musharref has while at the same time sapping them of the moderate Muslims who might be inclined to support them against the dictatorship.
“Democracy is inherently more stable than military dictatorship”. Only if democracy is possible, which is not the case in Pakistan and majority of Muslim societies.
“you can kick the civilians out”. Sometimes the kicking out requires military coup or, worse, civil war. In Turkey military is the only guard of secularism, just as in Egypt and Algeria. Without military grip on the government these states would pretty soon became islamist, as it happened in Gaza.
IMHO, it is much more easy to wipe out of the map any Muslim country than make it democratic.
She’s back because she loves the spotlight and she’s greedy for more billions of usd.
Only Musharraf and the rmy can provide her the protection she’ll need to stay alive until she leaves on her next holiday, which should be soon.
She’s a greedy bitch who has ruined her family name while plundering the nation’s wealth.
Pakistan needs to continue to rebuild its foreign reserves (with her far away from the till) and get busy building their economy along with preparing for more earthquakes, floods, draughts, food shortages.
If you hold a true election today neither she nor Mush wins.
a correction:
“Only Musharraf and the army can provide her the protection…”
It’s a plan that sounds as good as Benazir looks
It might sound good, but in reality it is not good, considering the fact that it doesn’t take into account the actual nature of Islam, as “the reconciliation of the values of Islam and the West” and “a moderate and modern Islam that marginalizes religious extremists” are impossibilities.
“Democracy is inherently more stable than military dictatorship”.
Democracy when it is just starting off, has many many wars and deaths that it causes. For America alone, people died because of the difference between a republic and a monarchy. Then plenty more died when the Native Americans allied with the British in Canada to attempt to push Americans back. We’re not even mentioning what came afterwards.
What people know as “democracy” in this day and age is in actuality the Golden Age secured by two American nuclear bombs, the American military umbrella, and the American military supremacy on land, air, and sea. Economic might and control also plays a part, since people would much rather take money from America than fight in wars that might get them killed. Wars are begun because people on one side or the other wanted something, after all. When America says no, you can’t take over your neighbor’s country, other methods must be used. Like the UN and oil for food. Can’t war your way to power and wealth, then might as well bribe folks. And if the US will actually give you money for talking about democracy, then that’s good too.
Even Europe would still be fighting, democracy or not, without the United States keeping the peace on that continent.
Pingback:blog
Pingback:Just to do, and die « Likelihood of Success