Friday, December 28, 2007
Ralph Peters: Benazir Bhutto may help Pakistan more in death than in life
Leave it to the always interesting Ralph Peters to write something harsh about Benazir Bhutto even before she is buried:
FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
Read the whole thing, and consider this bit in light of my previous post:
Now she's dead. And she may finally render her country a genuine service (if cynical party hacks don't try to blame Musharraf for their own benefit). After the inevitable rioting subsides and the spectacular conspiracy theories cool a bit, her murder may galvanize Pakistanis against the Islamist extremists who've never gained great support among voters, but who nonetheless threaten the state's ability to govern.
As a victim of fanaticism, Bhutto may shine as a rallying symbol with a far purer light than she cast while alive. The bitter joke is that, while she was never serious about freedom, women's rights and fighting terrorism, the terrorists took her rhetoric seriously - and killed her for her words, not her actions....
In killing Bhutto, the Islamists over-reached (possibly aided by rogue elements in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, one of the murkiest outfits on this earth). Just as al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand and alienated that country's Sunni Arabs, this assassination may disillusion Pakistanis who lent half an ear to Islamist rhetoric.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Dec 29, 01:16:00 AM:
An aquaintence of mine who immigrated from the Ukraine to the US, once told me about what he thought was the differences in politics between the US and the Ukraine (and more than a few other parts of the former USSR).
In America, people make a lot of money, then want political power, so they run for office.
In Ukraine, people have the power to get into office so they can make a lot of money.
This seems to be a general truism of most of the world outside of the G7 nations, other parts of Europe, Singapore, and a few other countries here and there.
I was once told that the president of Mexico usually leaves office a Billionaire. Witness the stories recently of Putin's alleged net worth.
Bhutto is what she was,as was her father and many other political types in the subcontinent and elsewhere. Democracy may not be the magic hat that many proclaim, but with a little more transparency and press freedom that flows from "democracy", it may just keep the kleptocrats from stealing excessively and excercising moderation.
I also think there is a way to go before there is a wide-spread rejection of "Islamism" in Pakistan.
Frankly, it has 'worked' for Pakistan in certain ways.
Consider:
The Mujahadeen (Islamists?)fighting against the Russians in the '80's kept them at bay, from pushing through Pakistan to get that warm-water port they have craved for centuries.
Their native Islamists have fought the Indians to a standstill in Kashmir.
A.Q. Khan, something of a devout Islamist and nationalist, is the father of the "Islamic bomb", and has increased Pakistani national pride and prestige (and fear and loathing, too).
And don't forget the ongoing annexation of Great Britain!
-David
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Dec 29, 03:14:00 AM:
"galvanize...rallying symbol"
People in developing and undeveloped countries seldom galvanize and rarely rally. You underestimate the williness of these people to tolerate unpleasant situations. Look at Zimbabwe.
Meanwhile, we take many of their best people, educate them in America, and allow them to remain in the West. Allowing them to stay in the West is one reason we have to struggle to find effective leaders in places like Pakistan. Think about that, immigration fans.
Pakistan and Afghanistan have been violent places for thousands of years. There is nothing new going on in these lands.
Sometimes overthrowing a dictator is easy to do. But we want to change a culture and a thousand (or more) years of tradition in a major way. That is not easy to do.
Any changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Dec 29, 12:08:00 PM:
P.S. Make that willingness, not williness. It was late.
By , at
Sat Dec 29, 02:00:00 PM:
Doesn't make it any less of a Freudian slip, DEC. :)
