I’ve always thought that there was a certain irony in the fact that one of George W. Bush’s most notable gaffes when he was on the campaign trail in 2000 was when an interviewer, seeking to contrast his understanding of foreign affairs with that of Al Gore, asked him to name the leaders of various countries. The response to “Pakistan” was “General”, and when pressed, Bush repeated “General”. Well, Musharraf in theory is no longer a General, and I’m sure in many ways that Bush wishes he never did have to learn his name.
What’s been notable about most of the commentary about the death of Benazir Bhutto is that I think most of it is actually far more about us than about Pakistan. Take Pamela Bone, for instance, who unsurprisingly and rather morbidly turns Bhutto’s death into yet another occasion for trotting out her attacks on Western feminists and lefties. Or Piers Akerman who attacked the Rudd government for not having the experience as “P Platers” to guide us through an “international crisis”, as if the Man of Steel and Dolly would have somehow been able to do something meaningful - Australia just isn’t that important and probably Howard’s cosying up to great and powerful friends in some way compensated those who for irrational reasons consequently feel inadequate.
But, these egregious domestic examples aside, it’s been remarkable that Bhutto has been turned into some sort of symbol of democracy and Westernisation, and the whole “let’s stick with the strong man” theme has disappeared. Bhutto herself never spoke Urdu fluently, and struggled to express herself at all in Sindhi, which is not surprising because her first language was English, and she was educated in our tongue in Catholic and grammar schools and later at Harvard and Oxford. She maintained very extensive contacts with the media, and traded quite consciously on the politics of celebrity.
Condi Rice’s sort of world leader, in other words, and one whose agenda hewed closely to the desires of the West. None of that is to diminish the horror of her death, and the guilt that most appropriately lies on those who perpetrated such a vile deed, but it is to put into its correct frame the way her life and legacy are being used now.
For something of a corrective, it’s worth reading Tariq Ali, who knows much more about all this than most of us. He has called on her Pakistan People’s Party to renounce treating its leadership as a feudal inheritance (Bhutto herself was “life chairperson”) and back up its democratic rhetoric with democratic actions. Ali concludes:
The Pakistan People’s Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader. Both Pakistan and the People’s Party deserve better than this medieval charade.
Benazir’s last decision was in the same autocratic mode as the ones that went before it; her approach – tragically – cost her her life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election, she might still be alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.
None of the elites who’ve governed Pakistan since its bloody inception have done anything much for the vast armies of its poor, whether they’ve been civilian feudal elites or military elites. Hence extremism. A dash of genuine democracy would be a very good thing for Pakistan, but it won’t be genuine if it’s cooked up at top level through Washington inspired machinations with feudal “leaders”. Surely, in 2008, there’s enough evidence around that simply doesn’t work.
Elsewhere: For more well informed commentary, go to Open Democracy and on the religious angle, to The Immanent Frame.
America’s endless machinations, which often directly oppose the ideal of democracy which it claims it believes in, extend right across the world and are almost always based upon its own self-interest.
Pakistan and its ‘leaders’ are just more pawns in America’s hegemonic game.
“But, these egregious domestic examples aside, it’s been remarkable that Bhutto has been turned into some sort of symbol of democracy and Westernisation,”
Really? Where? And by whom? The most consistent theme that has emerged for me in the coverage, from day one, has been discussion of the deeply flawed concept of “democracy” that flows the feudal, patronage-based politics of Pakistan and the Bhutto clan’s role in perpetuating it. This discussion has been featured extensively in the MSM and the blogosphere - including LP.
Tariq Ali’s “insights” are hardly singular.
I’d love to see more democracy in Pakistan.
I’d like to see a general amnesty offered to all militant/insurgent leaders, jihadists, whatevers, etc on the condition that they engage in the democratic process and submit themselves, their views, their policies to the ballot box and agree to be bound by the results. Electoral monitoring done by whoever is acceptable to the majority of participants. If they get elected then we just have to swallow our pride and deal with it.
Simple reality is that for whatever reason there are people that we don’t like with a measure of domestic power/influence. Without their engagement democratic reform is going to be unrepresentative of the broader population, something that always ferments civil unrest and lends credence to perceptions of a crisis of legitimacy in governance.
“If they get elected then we just have to swallow our pride and deal with it.”
You mean like America (and Israel) did when Hamas was elected, Tony?
The counterargument, I suppose, is that the alternative bases of power in Pakistan aren’t likely to have any great commitment to democracy either.
Geoff, this is the sort of thing I was thinking of, and there’s a lot more of it around:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23007614-5013480,00.html
Dan the Man: You mean like America (and Israel) did when Hamas was elected, Tony?
It’s one thing to deal with a democratically elected government that has different views, but is by and large peaceful, it’s another when a country elects a political party that has a sole purpose of destroying another country.
I checked the link, Mark, but it doesn’t seem to me to substantiate a case for your claim that there has been a significant Western re-invention of Benazir’s place and practice since her assassination. For instance in the linked piece, Stewart observes - inter alia - that:
“The events of this week have only underlined the paucity of political choices in Pakistan and the limited options facing the West. The anointment of Bhutto’s 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as titular head of the PPP is a triumph of dynasty over democracy.
The first year undergraduate student will be co-chairman along with Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari, who is widely seen as deeply corrupt and is known in Pakistan as Mr Ten Per Cent.
Such dynastic control over politics has long been an unfortunate tradition on the sub-continent but in a crisis like this, it threatens to undermine the emergence of a talented new generation of leaders that Pakistan so desperately needs.”
Tariq Ali’s view is not dissimilar.
Perhaps so, Geoff, but there appears to be an underlying theme that we should just overlook these things. With the PPP, we’re getting democracy, which we didn’t get with Musharraf. There’s a certain degree of patronising pessimism that suggests “that’s just how they are”, whereas Ali points out Bhutto’s actions were challenged and disputed within the PPP by others, who were and are still frozen out.
Ali’s view is dissimilar because he actually calls for something to change within the PPP. He also knows a hell of a lot more about Pakistan than most of the insta-experts.
Desipis, I wouldn’t describe Israel, America or Pakistan as relatively peaceful. The first two are brutal, imperialistic military powers pretending to be benevolent democracies while the latter is a nuclear-armed military power that…well, given the number of competing players within its borders, who would know which direction it will move in?
Here’s a list of all the parties and alliances with members in the present Parliament of Pakistan:
Without peeking, see if you can guess which of these parties has the largest representation, whom they are alligned with, how they run their internal organisation, and what they stand for.
You can check your answers on the links beginning here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrik-e-Islami
Once you have done that you will be impressed by:
1. How unstable Pakistani politics are.
2. How personalised and dynastic Pakistani politics are.
3. How powerful Islamism is as a popular force. (this amazed me)
4. How outsiders who don’t understand the above are likely to make a horrible hash of intervention in Pakistan.
5. How it will be sheer luck if you click first on the biggest party/alliance in Pakistani politics.
Yes Dan, the HAMAS election is one example of ‘the west’ really, really needing to get over themselves and pull their collective heads in.
And Desipis, that kind of comment prevents it - if you think that HAMAS is just ‘a political party that has a sole purpose of destroying another country”, then you’ve totally ignored the reality on the ground in Gaza.
First things first: Face the facts.
Great article. Acropolis Review has some good coverage of this as well.
http://acropolisreview.com/
And of course none of you dares mention the elepahnt in the room. The “I” word.
Tariq Ali? Oh, FMD, now I have heard at all. What possible insights can an unreconstructed Trotskyist Luvvie, educated exclusively at private Catholics schools and Oxford have of interest to any of us here. I attended a lecture by him at the Seymour Centre a few months back. A dire ignoramus, whom nobody has told his train left the stattion 30 years ago.
Why don’t you read the article and see instead of boring us with your usual ad hominem judgemental nonsense?
Islam/Israel? Iraq? Iran? India?
All good ‘I’ words that could be included in a discussion on Pakistani politics.
There’s a thought; how would India react to a failed Pakistani state with all those nukes are lying around?
“That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.
The issue of democracy is enormously important in a country that has been governed by the military for over half of its life. Pakistan is not a “failed state” in the sense of the Congo or Rwanda. It is a dysfunctional state and has been in this situation for almost four decades.
At the heart of this dysfunctionality is the domination by the army and each period of military rule has made things worse. It is this that has prevented political stability and the emergence of stable institutions. Here the US bears direct responsibility, since it has always regarded the military as the only institution it can do business with and, unfortunately, still does so. This is the rock that has focused choppy waters into a headlong torrent.
This is one of the best summations of the current situation in Pakistan that I have read, apportioning responsibility where it surely belongs.
This is the funniest thing I’ve read about Bhutto’s death.
I am sorry I don’t know to link. But if anyone is interested, Winter Patriot, a US web site has really good posts about Pakistan. I read Tariq Ali’s article from there.