Bhutto murdered
Benazir Bhutto was murdered:
“Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack. Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then set off a bomb. At least 16 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.”
Update: Criticism so far has focused on the apparent ease at which the assassins were able to get to Bhutto’s vehicle, with some suggesting that her security detail was either too few, too lax, bribed, or ordered to stand aside for the bombers. However, for all the speculation, no concrete facts about the identity and motivation of the murderers has yet emerged.
A bad day for Pakistan and democracy.
Deepest sympathies to all those affected.
(thanks!)
what a terrible tragedy….what a shock. inevitable as it was.
It is shocking. Senseless killing.
There are not enough swear words in my book for whoever did this.
Bloody fundamentalists, they don’t want a people’s voice nor do they want a woman in power.
It is sad to see the current situation prevailing in Pakistan. I didn’t have any fondness towards BB when she was alive (it was a n utter disgrace the way she was trying to broker a power0sharing deal with Musharaf and undermining the GENUINE democratic opposition) however she did not deserve this fate, no one does. Assassination of leading political figures is a very bad sign for a society, for it shows a clear and direct lack of trust and respect for the institutions of the state and society. One can only hope that the perpetrators are brought to justice.
I am not sure what information Sam has currently about ‘Blood fundamentalists’ being responsible…per you have inside information you would like to share with the rest of us?
Benazir was no pussy cat. Pakistani party politics is as violent, murky, sectarian, corrupt and as deadly as any that seeks to establish itself in the shadow of a dictatorship. She knew exactly what she was facing and had no doubt surrounded herself with the necessary dubious charactaers to ensure her own survival. Her death, really, shouldn’t be greeted with such suprise (except by those who are out of touch with the reality of dirty politics..such as the average croissant and clam socialists on this site..but simply a tactical victory for the other side.
RAMIIE
This is the most dreadful news for everyone. For Pakistan of course, all the countries in the region and the wider world.
It is not helpful to work on assumptions, we do not and cannot yet know who was behind it. There is nothing obvious as to who might have been responsible.
What is obvious is who would be the ideal perpetrator as no doubt we will start to hear from more pundits over the next few hours and days, taking Sam Ambreen’s lead.
I’ve no real education on Pakistani politics and haven’t really bothered taking an interest before. However, I do have an uncle who is proactive in the PPP’s campaigns and can only really echo the bits I pick up on. My family have supported Bhutto as far back as I can remember and I feel upset for them if nothing else.
“Her death, really, shouldn’t be greeted with such suprise (except by those who are out of touch with the reality of dirty politics..such as the average croissant and clam socialists on this site..but simply a tactical victory for the other side.”
Congratulations on being the more informed amongst us. Pff.
I keep reading back and picking up on information that’s leaving me a little unnerved. Can I not make a comment or express disbelief without being challeneged by those of you that clearly feel you’re more savvy in the field of politics? Fine, it’s where you come to chew over what you would do if you controlled the world but I’m coming from a place of shock and hurt on behalf of those that felt Bhutto represented them. I haven’t the foggiest who did what or who we should flog but I am aware of the sentiments her supporters feel. Just that and nothing but.
Bhutto faces lawsuits for kickbacks
Even if the Supreme Court accepts Musharraf’s amnesty, Of course, her murder is a terrible tragedy.
But let’s soberly consider the facts - she was standing essentially as a US stooge and her calls for democracy were all a sham. She was thoroughly and had pillaged the Pakistan treasury during her terms as PM.
What is her record?
- Bhutto stood to face several cases outside of Pakistan.
1. Swiss Case
In 2003 Geneva magistrate Daniel Devaud convicted her of money-laundering.
He found she and her close associates received around $15m in kickbacks from Pakistani government contracts with two Swiss companies (SGS and Cotecna).
Mr Devaud sentenced Ms Bhutto and her husband Asif Zardari to 180 days in prison, ordering them to return $11.9m to the government of Pakistan.
The decision was made in her absence, and the case is being reheard, with the former prime minister now facing the more serious charge of aggravated money-laundering.
Vincent Fournier, the Swiss judge in charge of the current case, told the BBC he planned to hand the case over to Geneva’s attorney-general soon.
2. UK case
The government of Pakistan alleged that Ms Bhutto and her husband bought Rockwood, a $3.4m country estate in Surrey, UK, using money from kickbacks.
Ms Bhutto and husband Zardari denied owning the estate for eight years. But in 2004, Mr Zardari suddenly admitted that it was his. In 2006, Lord Justice Collins, said Ms Bhutto and/or her husband bought and refurbished Rockwood with “the fruits of corruption”.
3. WHAT JEMIMA KHAN SAID (In UK’s Telegraph 21 Oct 07)
Benazir Bhutto’s call about “fighting for democracy” and “fighting for Pakistan’s poor” is a sham. This is the woman who was twice dismissed on corruption charges and went into self-imposed exile while investigations were going on about the vast sums she had siphoned into Swiss accounts. Her reign as PM was marked by extra-judicial killings and brazen loot of the treasury, with the help of her husband dubbed Mr 10 percent.
She has left the women as powerless a she found them. She never repealed the Hudood ordinances that made no distinction between rape and adultery. She preferred to kowtow to the mullahs to hang on to power.
So how much of state assets did she loot? BBC anchor David Frost asked blankly how many millions she held in Swiss accounts. Her answer: “David, I think that’s a very sexist question” - but what has loot to do with gender?
The figure stashed away turns out to be $1.5 billion, according to Musharraf’s own National Accountability Bureau. No wonder she could afford to buy luxury mansions in the UK and live lavishly.
Benazir ia adept at playing to the West. The Americans brokered her deal with Musharraf to grant her immunity from prosecution and share power for 5 years. The West never learns, always taking sides with the favourite of the moment.
Sad news but inevitable I think after the previous attempt to kill her.
Politics is incredibly violent in Pakistan. It is not uncommon for political parties to assassinate members of another party.
I really don’t know why Benazir had to go back. The fact is she was an incredibly corrupt politician who was obsessed with her international image. She was liked far more in the West, where they regarded her as an Anglophile liberal, than she was in Pakistan. She did done more harm than good for Pakistan.
I think General Musharraf, now out of military fatigues but still very much army, has more to gain from her death than the Islamists, who aren’t really in the game to win it, democratically, that is.
Just to agree with what Sam Ambreen said.
Could I ask a question of the experts out there?
The following is a list from:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C10%5C22%5Cstory_22-10-2007_pg7_24
And it misses the worst, most recent cases, from:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/A_brief_history_of_the_state_of_Pakistan/articleshow/2656448.cms
and
and now this
Could someone who knows what they are talking about please explain to me if there is a pattern to all this? It seems to me to almost be a kind of mutual suicide pact.
It also puts 7/7 into some kind of perspective, I think.
Quite shocking news. I’m sure there are plenty of us here who, like me, grew up hearing about Benazir Bhutto fairly frequently via the British media and generally by virtue of being Asian (family discussions, general awareness of the subcontinent etc).
Given the minefield of Pakistani politics and the various assassination attempts we’ve all recently been hearing about in the media, I guess unfortunately it was just a matter of time before one of the high-profile figures over there was successfully taken out. No doubt people like Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan are now being even more vigilant about constantly looking over their shoulders.
My condolences to all the Pakistanis out there, especially those who were supporters of Benazir.
Italian news agency Adnkronos International are reporting that Al-Qaeda have claimed responsibility.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437
AQ’s main commander and main spokesperson said “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen”
‘American asset’ claims notwithstanding, this is bad news.
What a load of tosh some of you are posting.
BB was not an American asset, stooge or anything else. She was first and foremost the leading Pakistani politician. As with all politicians, she was willing to talk and work with any other party/individual or country if she felt it would benefit her or Pakistan.
The allegations of corruption are exactly that, allegations. None have been proved thus far, which given the time and effort that both Nawaz and Musharaf spent in trying is saying something.
And Cover Drive could you provide some examples of when Pakistani politicians have attempted to have their rivals killed?
This is a tagic day for Pakistan, Pakistanis and especially the Bhutto and Zardari families.
Steve M,
If that turns out to be true, and I suspect it is, it makes the Wests’ - post Afghanistan ‘Victory’ - strategy look like the utter mince it has always been. Why the hell did they not hunt these people down, no matter where they were? That would have been the point of 9/11, would it not? Finding and killing the perpetrators.
But nos, we go and attack a country that had bugger all to do with it.
No, I don’t understand it either.
Sajn,
Perhaps you are competent to comment on my post at 15? I would be obliged for your insight.
Murdered is a bit of an emotive term…
Leon - “Murdered is a bit of an emotive term…”
OK, killed intentionally, contrary to law.
Leon,
Correct me if I am wrong, but murdered seems accurate to me? Where the hell are you coming from? Expain how blowing your political opponent apart is not murder. Go on, try.
While many will mourn Bhutto’s assassination, many before had died at her whims. While many Sikhs will remain respectful, few will mourn her loss due to her betrayal.
http://thelangarhall.com/archives/30
Al-Qaida has taken responsibility for the murder.
Is it just me, or the terrorist groups are jumping to claim responsibility to these types of things like they’re running for the phucking Miss America contest?
Anyways, she was murdered - which is hardly an answer to anything at all. Tensions will grow more than they already have. Killing her will not resolve anything, yet segregate the community further.
Lame.
Leon,
I asked you a democratic question. You need to consider it.
Ms_Xtreme
Point. This is mad stuff, stuff I referred to at post 15. Seems some folk think this is okay?
Sam
You are being childish. Bhutto was corrupt. Her father owned her party and on his death the baton was passed to her. Hardly democratic. I guessed you would have felt OK had the PLP invited Euan to be labour leader on his father’s much welcomed (in my house at least) departure from office.
*SIGH*
RAMIIE
Why can’t we call a corrupt nepostic dynasty a corrupt nepotistic dynasty as quickly as you would call a spade a spade?
Could someone who knows what they are talking about please explain to me if there is a pattern to all this?
Here’s a hint. It begins with “I” and ends with “SLAM”.
Ramie,
Whom I assume is Muzumdar, could even you admit that it was black fucking murder? Why not call a spade a fucking shovel? Because you can’t. It is relatively easy to say what you did:
It is a damn sight harder to apologise for the killers. Which you seem to be too ready to do.
Q&A session with someone in the know from Stratfor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122700970.html?hpid=topnews
[i]Seems some folk think this is okay?[/i]
Of course. There’ll always be opposing views from everything political to even how potato’s are cooked best.
Morgoth - I disagree with you. You cannot judge an entire religion based on the actions of some extremists. Islam doesn’t condone killing outside of war - even that has to be justified.
Please quit the ignorance.
Morgoth,
That is over simplistic, but thanks for trying. All 1.4 billion of them? If so, your attempt to rile all of them is as stupid as your chum, The Reverend Iain Paisley, who antagonised all Catholics. He was insane, you are too.
And I’m as much of an atheist as you.
Calm down Douglas, Morgoth is a well known master baiter. Just ignore him.
Murder begets murder and the one thing we can all be sure about is that any and all forensic evidence which resulted from the murder of Benazir Bhutto was washed away as quickly as the suicide bomber who pulled the trigger was blown to pieces.
The point must surely be whether you agree with BB’s particular type of pro western secular politics or not that the politics of the gun and the bomb is not a go thing for anyone.
Isn’t it funny how the BBC are bending over backwards on trying to pin this crime on Al-Qaida?
Isn’t it funny how the BBC are bending over backwards on trying to pin this crime on Al-Qaida?
I think they’re being “responsible”. They’re toeing the official line and that’s what all they’re needed to do, post-Hutton. More Islamist violence in Pakistan is great for Musharraf - being the custodian of Bush’s War on Terror in Pakistan which he can play up to, keep his arse in the driving seat and stave off real democracy. And the USA love having more mad Islamists to tilt against. Justifies the prolongation of US military bases stationed in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
There were at least 3 bomb attacks on high level Pakistani officials in the last few months. Including one near Musharraf’s HQ.
Isn’t it more than a little convenient that the only one that hits the target is on Bhutto, a few months before the proposed election date?
ZinZin,
I know that. I just think Morgoth should be shown up for the fool that he is. I have a great deal of respect for his astrophysics, which is not to say, his sociology is worth a shite.
Morgoth,
That is over simplistic, but thanks for trying. All 1.4 billion of them?
He was attacking the religion itself not all its 1.4 billion followers. Though given his demeanor I doubt he would differentiate. Nevertheless pretending that religion does not play a crucial part in this naive as well.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=odr2pJeSMqU
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CY1haUHjUdU
Here is a fine piece from one of my favourites, Tariq Ali:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html
I found it via CiF leader. It sets the scene perfectly-note his point about the cycle starting again.
digitalcntrl
Quite why would you side with an idiot? The point is moot, is it not? If 1.4 billion folk are all that daft, which they are not, then Morgoth would be right in his fears, would he not? The fact is that the 1.4 billion is as split as the rest of us.
Refresh - a fine read by Tariq Ali, as always. Thanks for that.
The root cause of all this is the mad rush to democracy which Pakistan isn’t ready for.
At the end of the day the people who rooted for democracy above all else should shoulder the blame. The stupidity is that nation building is just that building and not a mad rush to set-up voting booths.
Stability and building of institutions is what is needed and insane governments are still pushing for democracy.
I didn’t like Bhutto but she didn’t deserve this. For those shouting that corruption allegations were not proved well the Swiss had a pretty good case.
Also worth noting is the relatively mild reaction compared to what could have happened which just shows the people are fed up.
It is time to realise that there is a long winding road to establishing democracy and not a motorway.
Bush needs to understand that and stop bringing increasing instability to a volatile region.
Those here who shouted that democracy is above all else should today reflect on the instability this mad drive had brought and the fact that today people died simply due to the failure to create the very institutions needed for democracy.
It is time for the West to re-evaluate and tell those Yanks that this isn’t the way to bring forth democracy today. Today people didn’t just die but the push for a fast track to democracy via shortcuts and dodgy deals.
Avi Cohen,
I’m not at all sure I agree with you. Was Israel ready for democracy, and did it understand it, either? No, it did not.
It is, frankly ridiculous, for an Israeli, to argue against democracy as an ambition for the Middle East. ‘Cause, quite frankly, you are only willing to see it on your own terms.
Your arguement is ridiculous. Explain yourself.
Are there any pro-democracy Pakistanis out there who don’t apologise for the marriage of the Islamists and the Military and their bastard children, with the usual “Pakistan isn’t ready for democracy” bollocks?
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
Douglas Clark,
Frankly I am continually amazed at people who keep bringing up Israel or Germany or Japan or India. 2 successes (Germany and Japan)in a long long list of failures of creating democracy in a short period of time.
Israel is still a project in progress until there is peace with its neighbour and it doesn’t control it neighbour.
India is a democracy where many people don’t even know who they are voting for or even what they are voting for. So yes a democracy but with many people not part of its success. However they are making progress.
My point is that this mad rush to democracy in the vast majority of cases doesn’t work. The West needs to support the building of institutions which can lead to this not just rush headlong into setting up voting booths.
Any system including democracy needs a fair justice system, education for all, the spread of wealth, removal of corruption and so forth.
Large parts of the world are fed up with the Western approach and this is why the West lost support in South America, Latin America, Asia, Middle East, Africa etc. The way things are done isn’t working.
It shouldn’t be democracy first, it should be to build institutions first.
It isn’t a sprint it is a marathon and there isn’t a need to take short cuts. Imposing democracy won’t work. We have just seen that with a utterly mad push to impose democracy in a country not even with a rule of law over all its territory.
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
Also quite frankly America lecturing the world on Democracy when it has a 2 party system with both parties holding similar views on many areas is a bit rich.
Maybe George W Bush should teach young bro Jeb about the rights of voters to cast their votes in Florida huh!
What about here in the UK where ole Tony had to live a lie for so many years as he felt that they wouldn’t accept a Catholic as PM. Wow great example for democracy huh!
It isn’t easy and democracy even in Europe is still bedding in and world decisions are only taken when it suits the Security Council which hey is the worlds governing body run as a fucking dicatorship and not as a democracy. Hey were is that damn veto!
Why not reform the UN to reflect world opinion?
Sid,
Sadly,
Rumbold got it right, she was murdered. Perhaps because she was a democratic alternative. Flawed though she was.
In Pakistan the west supported military rule when it needed and now it supported essentially a feudal family dynasty when it wanted. Hardly a success story.
So build the things people need to have a better existence and then give them a voice to grow and prosper.
Not say here is your voice cause this is what we like now live with it. That is what is happening.
History shows us all the failures in this mad rush and the consequences of those failures.
Do the Bhutto Billions in Swiss Bank Accounts belong to them or the people? Democractic choice charged with corruption - so what good the choice for the people?
Build Nations.
If she didn’t die of natural causes or suicide then she was murdered.
One would think that bullet wounds and shrapnel when not launched by ones self constitute murder.
Religious politics aside, I always wondered why India has become a relatively successful democracy while Pakistan has floundered in military dictatorship.
It is an unfortunate truth that the people of Pakistan have never had a leader they have deserved. The intrigue of Pakistani politics, and the manner in which its various heads of state and government have met their end is a sad indication of the perpetual instability its people have had to face.
Benazir Bhutto was far from a perfect leader and the rumours of corruption that surrounded her are great scars on her legacy. But to ignore the context of how she came to power or how she ruled is ultimately to ignore much of her life. This was after all a woman who spent five years in prison as a political prisoner whilst her father was executed.
For all the things she did which i fundamentally disagree with i cannot ignore the fact she still represented genuine hope to tens of millions of Pakistanis. A corrupt leader perhaps, but by Pakistani standards more benevolent than her detractors would admit. Given his actions over the past month it is laughable (though sadly so) for supporters of Musharraf to paint her as a one dimensional kleptocrat. Whilst she spent the last weeks of her life campaigning for a democratic future he was busy declaring a defacto martial state and clamping down on the voices of liberalism and freedom whilst evoking, though ignoring, the radical militants.
Her greatest achievement the significance of which is all but ignored is that she was democratically elected as prime minister in an islamic state. For all the vitriol and racism that surrounds islam today, for all the tub thumping about the virtue of the west, for all the xenophobia that confronts Pakistanis it should be remembered foremost and above all that the people of Pakistan elected a female head of government at the very least 20 years before the US. They elected her without the national self congratulation that greeted Hilary Clinton being only a front runner in the primaries they elected her in a time when the webbased telecommunication revolution hadn’t started in the west and TVs were still luxury items in Pakistan.
Regardless of what happened during her term in office the manner in which she gained political power cannot be taken away either from her or from Pakistan.
You are a wretched and pathetic man. Your misanthropism isn’t a reflection of humanity its a projection from you.
Kulvimder @ 52,
That seems a fair and intelligent analysis. I’d still like an explanation for 15 though. That is a ridiculous way to operate a political system. If you are a liberal, expect to be blown up? No wonder folk keep their politics to themselves.
Or Kulvinder, even. Sorry about that.
I am not making it up - it’s the harsh reality Sajn. It happens mainly at the local level and involves gun battles between rival groups: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4161512.stm
In 1995 Transparency International, a Berlin-based corruption-monitoring organisation, named Pakistan as the most corrupt country in Asia and the second most corrupt in the world behind Nigeria. Partly as a result of this, the IMF suspended a $1.5 billion loan to Pakistan. At the same time Amnesty International accused Benazir’s government of massive human rights abuse. According to their report, Pakistan had one of the worst records of custodial deaths, extra-judicial killings and torture anywhere in the world, despite which not one policeman had ever been charged with or convicted for abusing his authority.
It was research by Imran Khan’s workers that led to the revelation Benazir owning a £2.5 million manor house in Surrey, a £3.5 million Chelsea townhouse, two luxury apartments in Belgravia and a Normandy Chateau. Benazir naturally denied all knowledge of the properties but the charges contributed to the President’s decision to dismiss her government.
I’m not sure how religion enters into this at all. Surely the most likely suspect is Musharraf? Isn’t that who benefits the most?
AQ may be trying to take credit for this, but so what? I’ll bet I could get five bums in Dallas to take credit for JFK, if I offered them enough whiskey.
Sid @ 41,
I think this final comment from Tariq Ali is worth highlighting here:
That seems to me to be the problem. Along with mad suicide bombers, obviously.
Avi Cohen,
Maybe aye, maybe no. The EU has expanded based on the premise that the states it enfolds are democratic. It has had significant successes in relation to Eastern Europe, for instance. It will not allow membership to anything other than a democracy. It will chuck out any member that is not a democracy. I’d argue that that that is a great example of ’soft power’. However most folk seem to see it is a plot. Maybe it is. If so, it is a good plot.
I see, for instance, no reason why India should not be admitted to the EU. The idea doesn’t seem to me to be particularily geographic. It seems to me to be a state of mind.
I don’t want to be mean, but at least Bhutto is out of the pic. I am NOT condoning any sort of violence which offs political exponents, it is wrong that she was killed, but for fuck’s sake, there are tons of bombings in Pakistan, hundreds of people get killed (I think it’s hundreds), and we don’t get the same global media reaction and moral outrage which elicit all sorts of eulogies. I think much of this “Oh no, Bhutto died” tamasha is because she was passed off as some “democracy” proponent by the Bush administration. What a joke! How meretricious! In angry moments, I’ve felt that Bhutto was just as pathetic at Musharraf, and I got tired of her trying to ingratiate herself to everyone when she never really spearheaded any opposition but simply piggybacked onto whatever various resistance movements that Pakistanis themselves had started long before her arrival into the picture.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for Pakistanis to have a real, viable leader who’s not related to some feudal dynasty (Bhutto), cricket (Imran Khan), or the military, all of whom at as some point have alluded to or asserted the empty rhetorical device of “Islamic democracy.” Time for the middle class, privileged folks who live so far from the realities of the majority of Pakistanis to stop speaking for the “masses” while lining their coffers and feeding their power trips and let Pakistanis choose a leader who will truly serve their needs.
Excuse my anger.
Oh, and Merry Christmas
Explanation for what? Using a starting date of 2002 and counting the number of killings that have taken place till now obviously evokes the 11th September 2001 as some sort of ’starting point’ presumably to connect everything neatly with the ‘global war on terror’.
That starting date is entirely arbitary though. If we take the life of Benazir Bhutto as timeline itself, she lost a brother in the mid 90s, another in the mid 80s and of course her father in the 70s. Is there anything we can conclude other than Pakistani politics is extremely turbulent? Not really no.
There was political violence and death long before 2001. The problems precede not only the taliban but the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Religion is one aspect of the trouble, but only one. If Islam were the sole dominant cause of all the tensions then everything would have been sorted out a long time ago, not least during the rule of Zia-ul-Haq when his islamisation policies would have ushered in a uniform interpretation of islam. The truth is far more complex, its a mixture of nationalism which at times is distinct from islam - almost secular, and the conflicting desires of various ethnic communities.
Desi Italiana #61
Well said!
Kulvinder,
Fair enough, as far as it goes. I’d like an explanation for the suicide bombings though. My starting date was entirely abritary, it was based on what I’d read. You are no doubt right to say it has a further history. What I don’t understand is your apologia for it? I take it that you are apologising for these dead lunatics?
How complex is murdering folk that you don’t agree with? It seems to me to be ignorant.
Yeah but you’re seeing only religion - well really islam :)
The differences between india and pakistan are, well, subtle. The dominant ethnic group in Pakistan are the Punjabis - and theres tension because of it. Pakistan has four provinces Balochistan, Punjab, Sindh, and the North-West Frontier Province.
Balochistan never particularly wanted to be a part of Pakistan and Balochi nationlists (mostly pashtuns) aren’t exactly happy at the human rights violations carried out by the punjabi dominated military. Peter Tatchell has a fairly excellent article on this. Balochis have always been a bit of a handful for the Pakistan government. The NWFP meanwhile has been a complete nightmare, these are the real mad mullah tribalistic types, they’re out of sync with Pakistan let alone the rest of the world. The problem is the Pakistan military (again factor in this means Punjabis turning up…) can’t gain control of the area. Infact the tribes are so powerful and organised around the NWFP and what they call the neighbouring ‘Federally Administered Tribal Areas’ that they managed to kidnap and hold what amounted to two companies of pakistani troops - just think of the resources needed to hold those men and feed them etc whilst in captivity.
That territory is to all intents and purposes a law onto itself. If the NWFP and Balochistan is taken out of the equation Pakistan becomes little more than Punjab and Sindh.
On top of all that of course, ethnic sikhs are also Punjabis. I can’t speak hindi but i can speak punjabi. Thats obviously without bringing up Azad Kashmir.
What im trying to give you a sense of a map of the conflicts that isn’t geographic. You have to look at where the ethnic groupings lie - not only where the physical borders are, or what the majority religion is.
Or arbitrary, even.
I don’t recall ever making an apology for what happened. Quite the opposite.
I don’t however wish to pigeonhole what is a complex social issue into one about islam. I know that isn’t the case and it would be ignorant for me to pretend it was so.
Would you be willing to die for a cause? What if you believed - however irrationally - that killing someone would be benefitial for your cause?
Those are rhetorical question btw, the point im trying to make is they’re just killing themselves for ‘a cause’. We may disagree with them as to the cause itself but dying for a cause is hardly something alien to most people. The only difference between a kamikaze pilot and a suicide bomber is what constitutes a legitimate target. In either case they’d almost certainly agree political figureheads are fair game.
Kulvinder,
Thanks for that. I understood that Pakistani politics was complicated, but what you have said makes it a lot clearer.
It does not, I would submit, argue against allowing India to become part of the EU, which I’d admit is a daydream at the moment. We need to get momentum around the concept that the EU is actually a force for good. This might be extremely hard. Given our press.
Oh deary me,
Kulvinder and I have cross posted. Whilst I largely agree with the Kulvinder of post 65, I am at a complete loss with this;
No, Kulvinder. I took you to be an anarchist, in earlier threads. Anarchists do not kill themselves on behalf of the state, or their concept of it. That would be ridiculous.
Douglas Clark,
That is the point I am making that when EU Enlargement is taking place the EU makes sure the nations are building the institutions which have democracy and then when there is democracy they can be admitted.
In the case of Pakistan there is no such attempt and yet there is a drive, still going on to have democracy.
Thus the short route is being taken.
No system can survive where certain institutions - basic institutions we expect here in the West - are not in place. I fail to understand why people haven’t learnt. Even after the murder of BB what did Bush and Brown say that elections should go ahead.
Elections are pointless when the institutions are not in place as we have seen in Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan for example. As we are seeing in Pakistan.
Surely the priority should be to push aid to help build the nation then work to democracy. Most of the aid being given is of the military kind which doesn’t solve the basic needs issue of the country. So we are going round in circles providing more military aid to counter growing extremism without trying to address the core issue which with respect is now decades old.
Also I would like to highlight that with regards to Eastern Europe most of those states prior to Communism say 100 years ago had started to establish core institutions and were helped for many years on the road towards completing their transition. Almost a decade of help before they came into the EU recently.
BTW I would like to highlight to all those that keep saying the Bhutto had allegations of corruption that the Swiss Courts had found her guilty of money laundering - ie. looting the country.
The Swiss court is from a recognised Judiciary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3125277.stm
Thus these are not merely political allegations of rivals. This is a serious issue.
Now the USA brokered a deal with Musharaf to provide Amnesty for her. Thus the USA is not helping the situation.
Would for example the EU find it acceptable to have a leader in the EU who has been found guilty of money laundering? The answer is no so why continue to impose and provide protection for such leaders in such volatile regions of the world.
This is simply Western Complicity and negligence. This is why Africa is in such a state and lareg parts of Asia.
As sad as this event is it shouldn’t gloss over the situation and dull our perception. BB also aligned with religous extremist when she needed to to stay in power. Thus her hurling accusations at Musharaf were quite frankly hollow.
Pakistan needs new leadership and at the moment it didn’t need Democracy. Speaking to Pakistanis they felt that Musharaf had started to get rid of corruption and indeed many ex-Military who helped do this are under threat of death. There was some stability. So the USA in frankly stupid foreign policy pushed for democracy when it was clear the country wasn’t ready. Musharaf cornered agreed and mayhem is what followed. But to save face Bush continues to push for election at the price of the deaths of so many people to achieve a hollow victory which will simply not lay the foundations for stable deocracy or government leading to more chaos.
This type of foreign policy with hollow victories is causing chaos.
Also as a frank example the only time countries make progress in negotiations is when Uncle Sam is not present. The Israeli’s and Palestinians do well without the Americans but when they are there then little if any is made. That in itself should be a lesson to everyone in the West that when western self interest is injected it leads to anarchy.
Avi Cohen.
Point taken. But, hopefully you will see my point too. India is at least as democratic as the Eastern European States we admit. My point, if you could take it as that, is that the EU could spread soft power, wherever it wanted to. That is what it is good at. That is the alliance I’d like to see.
It is, incidentally, why DK is a complete utter idiot.
Even though the assasination of Bhutto is tragic but we must focus on what her legacy was.
Overall Bhutto was a failed leader who missed a great opportunity when she became leader to move pakistan to a more democratic future but instead she used her time as prime minster to siphon money from Pakistan for her family and her cronies. She was just another failed despot in the short history of Pakistan. Pakistan have not had a good leader since the death of Jinnah.
The Western media today are portraying her as one of the great leaders of the world but in reality she falls well short of that.
Mirpuri1,
Maybe, but she doesn’t deserve to be dead, now, does she? This is the ridiculous extremism that seems to outsiders like me that makes my question at post 15 all the more relevant. You do not just murder someone just because you disagree with them. neither do you write an apologia for her assassins, which is what you seem to be doing.
Focusing on her legacy! She’s been assassinated. Apparently with your approval. Or compliance.
Latest from Tariq Ali:
A tragedy born of military despotism and anarchy
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto heaps despair upon Pakistan. Now her party must be democratically rebuilt
Tariq Ali
Friday December 28, 2007
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2232700,00.html
Douglas Clark,
I agree with your point that India can be part of the EU, but is the EU ready for another brown skinned country after Turkey.
Also I think nations need to be responsible in world leadership.
If India joined would it at a later point refuse Pakistan or Bangladesh entry? They did this at the ASEAN.
Hence you see countries can also be irresponsible when considering their own goals.
Israel needs to play an active role in building Palestinian institutions and membership and vice versa but do we see that - no.
From a personal point of view I think India is doing well in terms of democracy. Lets hope it continues to develop and enrich people’s lives.
Also does India need to join the EU. They do a lot of business with SE Asia and the ME so they may see joining as a detriment.
Longer term I think the Muslim world needs to wake up and form its own trading block to help it out of the mess it is in. This can help propel the Muslim world to advance education, science etc. The benefits for regional players such as Pakistan and North Africa are great and also for potential trading partners such as the EU, USA, India, China and Israel are huge.
Sad this isn’t being pursued.
I think we need a change of foreign policy.
“I think we need a change of foreign policy.”
I agree with that. It is an independent foreign policy that Pakistan needs - not be an agent for Washington. Pakistan should have always been unaligned. Like India.
Refresh,
Have you been watching CNN, Fox etc about all this ? During one of the numerous discussions on the topic yesterday evening, it was suggested on one of those channels that the reason Benazir was successfully assassinated in an “army garrison town” (which should, theoretically, have been a more secure location) was because it may have actually perpetrated by rogue jihadi elements in Pakistani’s military.
Extrapolating that, the murmurings about concerns for the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal have partly been based on the possibility of the aforementioned “rogue military elements” getting their hands on that too, sooner or later, if they were indeed behind what happened in Rawalpindi yesterday. People obviously have different opinions on the plausibility of this actually occuring, but it’s still a very worrying thought.
Assassination - A South Asian Story
I suspect it is an al-qaeda operation which the Pakistani military has fostered and facilitated, with or without al qaeda’s knowledge. I doubt but do not rule out that the US military/Bush had a hand in this. The fact they may benefit from it is not proof of anything.
Pakistani politics is ultra dirty and violent and this killing — happy leon? — is just the latest of many.
But i don’t need a diet of croissants, clams, or curried mutton to be saddened by the loss of life or to recognise that Benazir was a brave lady and to salute her for that.
Jai,
No I haven’t really managed to catch any intelligent analysis on TV yet. Other than listening to John Simpson of the BBC, who was very clear in saying that whatever percolates at the top the institutions of Pakistan are solid, the state could not become or be considered a failed state.
With regards the nuclear arsenal, I think it will be used to power a number of hypotheticals. Most of which support some seriously murky objectives, none of which are in the interest of Pakistan or the region (or the world).
Fox is simply a mouthpiece for the neocons to push their agenda.
She died due to a number of failures not because of anything else.
The nuclear arsenal and indeed the army is fairly resilient in Pakistan and it needs to step up and lead the way in progressing the country.
Benazir was a target for a long time, over a decade and if the army wanted to get her they would have done so earlier but thinking this through is too much for Fox!
If she hadn’t got out of the car again then the assasin wouldn’t have killed her. This alone shows that it wasn’t the army’s fault. Earlier in the day a senior member of the PPP said this as reported by the BBC who are better that Fox.
Avi Cohen:
Pakistan needs new leadership and at the moment it didn’t need Democracy. Speaking to Pakistanis they felt that Musharaf had started to get rid of corruption and indeed many ex-Military who helped do this are under threat of death. There was some stability.
Rubbish. How are you going to install new leadership without democracy. Have a new round of assassinations every decade? You are mouthing “reformist” language but insiduously supporting the status quo of military dictatorship coupled with Islamist warlord/tribal power bases remaining in power.
There are real pro-democracy forces in Pakistan. Bhutto was not one of them really, she represented a feudal, urban but non-military elite who hold most of the country’s resources.
For some reason the voices outside of Pakistan always side with either this group or the military strong-men. You say it takes time to strengthen democracy, but you’re not siding with the popular resistance to Musharraf which is calling for an independent judiciary and an autononous election referral commission.
Dilip Hiro is another of my favourites:
A tragedy foretold
If the polls in Pakistan go ahead as scheduled, Benazir Bhutto’s party is likely to attract a sympathy vote
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dilip_hiro/2007/12/a_tragedy_foretold.html
Avi Cohen @ 77,
Taking my ridiculous view of what the EU ought to be about forward a step or two.
You are quite right to point out that a member can black ball an applicant. If you care to recall, France did that to the UK. It didn’t stick though.
If, and I’d be quite clear about that, if Pakistan became a genuine democracy, with the consequent losses for backsliding, I’d be happy to see it as part of the EU. The EU is an economic power, which it is better to be inside than outside. Ask the Turks, who are going through some pretty rigorous reappraisals of their common law.
Me? I couldn’t care less about the amount of melanin in your skin. Should I?
btw, perhaps Israel could sign up too?
Beuller? Beuller?
I agree Sid.
What is needed is the recognition that intervention of the type we have seen since the inception of Pakistan and India has helped no one.
I opposed Zia al-Haq, and I oppose Musharaf. Zia for the judicial murder (sorry Leon) of Zulfikar Bhutto, and for his headlong jump into the Carter initiated insurrection in Afghanistan followed by the direct intervention of the Soviets and the hugely consequential wars and battles that followed.
I think Tariq Ali described it all as Blowback.
At what price for Pakistan? Over 2 million refugees hosted by the country for over a decade or two, a country which can barely support its own population.
So Pakistan delivers the body-blow to the Soviet Union for the West, and finds itself in a spiral where it now takes the blame for the all the consequences. Whilst here in the west we insist our foreign policy is not adjusted one iota.
Pakistan should have stayed on the sidelines and if Washington wanted to fight wars with the Soviets it should have done it on its own.
It was not too dissimilar to other proxy wars Washington initiated, a good example would have been Mozambique where South Africa played the part of Pakistan.
@Refresh 89…
“Pakistan should have stayed on the sidelines and if Washington wanted to fight wars with the Soviets it should have done it on its own.”
Actually Pakistan was already giving aid and supporting the mujahadeen prior to start of US funding. General Zia, who took power before the Soviet invasion, was a committed Islamist and saw it as Pakistan’s religious duty to aid its muslim neighbor against the godless commies.
Kulvinder etc, keep on deluding yourselves. Keep on ignoring the elephant in the room. How many more must die before you admit what the problem is? You remind me of the Tudeh Party circa 1979. And alas, you’ll probably have the same fate.
forget the elephant in the room. what about the monkey on the thread (#91)?
Refresh,
Could you clarify for me how Pakistan fought the Soviets? It seemed to me that they merely gave the Taliban a base, and allowed the Americans to equip them with modern day SAMs. Or, is there more to it than that?
Digitalcntrl, Zia’s propensity is neither here nor there. He was assisted into his role as dictator, just as he was assisted in the judicial murder of Bhutto by Kissinger.
Carter initiated the insurrection, enthusiastically furthered by Reagan and Bush Snr, exploiting religious sentiments was central to the policy. Otherwise they would have had to come and do the job themselves.
Washington had always sided with the right-wing religious groupings - to the extent that they could not stand Zulfikar Bhutto and then Benazir Bhutto for their intentions of empowering the poor. Not that I want to get into defending the Bhutto policies as practised. See my earlier link to a Tariq Ali article.
Douglas, providing logistical support, bases, training and housing refugees was all part of the war. Essential elements for an effective policy.
The whole of Pakistan’s resources would have been subservient to the Afghanistan policy.
I will seek out more information if I can find the time. Its a bit busy here at the moment.
Douglas, here is a very good resource partially addressing this particular aspect:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=sovietAfghanWar
And when you have time have a look at the whole thing.
“Could you clarify for me how Pakistan fought the Soviets? It seemed to me that they merely gave the Taliban a base, and allowed the Americans to equip them with modern day SAMs. Or, is there more to it than that?”
Not exactly, the Taliban actually did not come to power till 1994, the US aided the mujahadeen who were a polygot of groups of various ethnicites (whose members were later formed into the Taliban, Northern Alliance etc.) whose only commonality was their hatred of the Soviets. The US mainly provided advanced weaponry, e.g. stinger missles, and money for small arms and other supplies.
Ah, Morgoth,
You’ll be a happy chap, what with the most recent issue of Fortean Times, yes?
You are reminded of the Tudeh Party? Who, exactly, has them at the forefront of their brain? Apart from your good self, obviously.
If I could, for just a moment, take on the role of my heroine, she of the worlds’ sexiest voice, Mariella Frostrup. Could I just point out you worry too much? It’ll all come good in the end. Trust me.
There are no elephants in the room. It is too much gin. Believe me, I know.
digitalcntrl,
Thanks for that.
Point taken about the mujahadeen. How quickly we - OK, I - forget the details. But it still gives Pakistan not much more than a walk on part, does it not?
#56. Besides dying for the state is just one ‘type’ of cause. I never mentioned what the cause had to be.
You have no idea whats going on, you can’t be bothered to learn or read anything by anyone that does know. You just feel the need to keep posting without making any arguments. I have no idea why you bother but the comment section here has never been the the same as that on harrysplace or cif. Say something intelligent or go away.
“Point taken about the mujahadeen. How quickly we - OK, I - forget the details. But it still gives Pakistan not much more than a walk on part, does it not?”
I think both the US and Pakistan saw an opportunity in aiding the mujahadeen against the Soviets, albeit for divergent geopolitical interests. America’s interest was to obviously weaken the Soviets. Pakistan’s intrest was two-fold. One was to co-opt the threat of Pashtun nationalism within their own country (basically in NWFP, waziristan, etc.) by appealing to Islamism. The second was to ensure that govt friendly to India was not present in Afghanistan as this would mean Pakistan would be surrounded on all sides by her enemies. Pakistan’s support of the Taliban till 9/11 was actually motivated by these same desires.
Och, Kulvinder, and I thought you were the real deal. Now you are just a poncy libertarian. When did that happen?
Anyway, dying for a cause strikes me as being completely stupid, a sort of Darwinian solution.
Would I put my life on the line for something I believed in?
Probably, yes.
Would I choose to die for something I believed in?
Probably, no.
I take it you can see the distinction?
I think a few of you may find this article interesting to understand what the pressures were leading to many of these problems:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/26/nat19.htm
Many of the extremists elements that exist are thanks to input from the West fighting the Soviets.
Some extracts:
“What he wants is to build a bomb,” the-then under secretary of state Philip Habib tells the meeting while talking about Mr Bhutto’s intentions for acquiring a reprocessing plant.
“If you were in his place you would do the same thing,” Mr Kissinger responded. “I must say I have some sympathy for Bhutto in this,” he added.
“We are doing nothing to help him on conventional arms; we are going ahead and selling nuclear fuel to India even after they exploded a bomb and then for this little project we are coming down on him like a tonne of bricks.”
….
“Gentlemen, there are few countries in the world which by necessity or choice are still allies of ours. There is something indecent about our always proving that we are strong by kicking our allies in the teeth,” he observed.
“The Pakistanis don’t even have the appearance of a credible defence. What they have asked for from us is piddling compared to what the Indians have. I don’t think it adds to the stature of the United States to force an ally to be defenceless.”
Mr Kissinger then explained how he planned to convince Mr Bhutto to give up his nuclear plan.
“First, the only way we are going to get him off this reprocessing plant is to give him a reactor … Secondly, we should tell him that we will take steps to enhance his conventional defence. We can’t tell Bhutto that he can’t have either a conventional or a nuclear defence. Non-proliferation is not our only objective in South Asia.”
Commenting on the balance of power between India and Pakistan, Mr Kissinger observed: “An imbalance is being created in which Pakistan is totally dependent on India. There is no question that we can break Pakistan’s back because they have made the mistake of allying themselves with us.”
This explains somewhat why things have emerged as they have.
I still don’t think lessons have been learned as the same things are happening now with Iran.
Pakistan has felt exposed for the past few decades and the help it needed to build wasn’t there.
It still isn’t and this applies across the Muslim world. They need to be brought into the fold and not dictated to all the time.
The EU has a big responsibility but Blair destroyed the chances of the EU being a major player. The EU now needs to stand up and push forward and not sabre rattle. Help these countries to build.
Also increasingly India needs to play a key role which at the moment it is failing to do. It needs to develop as a player on the foreign stage.
Israel is simply lost and too relaint on the US and Europe already. It needs to reach across to North Africa and the Muslim World rather than reaching out half heartedly knowing it has the US on its side. Rabin started this but then it was largely ignored and the price is now being paid. The potential dividends are huge and the task is not easy and is being delayed for far too long.
Refresh,
Thanks for the reference, which I will read.
Some excellent observations Avi.
This
‘Commenting on the balance of power between India and Pakistan, Mr Kissinger observed: “An imbalance is being created in which Pakistan is totally dependent on India. There is no question that we can break Pakistan’s back because they have made the mistake of allying themselves with us.”’
Sums it all up.
And then Kissinger went on to endorse Paksitan’s genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. That was the price he was willing to pay to balance the imbalance. Cunt.
Sorry, saw ‘Sexy Beast’ the other night and it’s obviously influenced me…
“And then Kissinger went on to endorse Paksitan’s genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. That was the price he was willing to pay to balance the imbalance.”
Yes, another fine mess.
Sid, it also reminds me of their support for the Khmer Rouge.
And then Kissinger went on to endorse Paksitan’s genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. That was the price he was willing to pay to balance the imbalance. Cunt.
Not to mention that he eventually won Nobel prize for… peace!
Yeah man, what a Nobel farce.
Al-Qaeda blamed for the murder, according to “breaking” news at the beeb.
Didn’t the spokesperson for Al-Qaida already say it was them?
“Yeh bazi khoon ke bazi hai, yeh bazi tum he haaro gey.. Har ghar se Bhutto nikle ga, tum kitne Bhutto maro gey?”
Considered analysis here
“The root cause of all this is the mad rush to democracy which Pakistan isn’t ready for.”
Have to agree with Cohen here. Democracy and the liberal establishment was never rushed in any of the western democracies. It evolved through blood, corruption, mass murder, african slavery,Englightenment ideas, Empire, loss of empires and the triumph of civil rights ideas from Granville Sharp to Martin Luther King.
The blood on the Pakistan streets is just another milestone in that country’s march to wherever the collective will find peace with itself. Who is to say that White People’s five minute freedom every five years is right for them? Who is to say that in 100 years Americans wouldn’t be happier under a military dictatorship? All this hand wringing from the pampered adulturous/fornicating, guardian reading, public feminists, battered-settee revolutionaries and the clam and croissant brigade make me sick. Bhutto was no less corrupt than her father or Blair or Bush. All have sinned. Fact is the most honest man in Pakistan must be the General himself, Musharraf, who simply wants order, not an invitation to expound his views on The Late Show.
Yes Ms_extreme, we did hear al-qaeda claim responsibility yesterday according to AKI.
Avi Cohen
I agree with most of your comments. Politcs is so corrupt in Pakistan that if it really wants to become a successful democracy then the whole democratic system needs a radical overhaul. Most of the powerful politicians in Pakistan come from the wealthy feudal families such as the Bhuttos. To achieve any success in Pakistan politics you need plenty of money (to bribe the zamindars).
As Pakistan is firmly within the US imperialist empire I do not think a radical overhaul of the political system is going to happen any time soon. Pakistan, because of its geographical position, will always be critical for US interests. India has never been part of the US imperialist empire - having been an ally of the erstwhile Soviet Union - but the US has India within its sights.
Right now the US is dangling the carrot by way of the Indo-US nuclear deal. It suits the US fine to pump up India’s nuclear arsenal as a way of countering it’s future threat (China) to it’s sole superpower status. If India signs up to this treaty then India will effectively loose its sovereignty over its foreign policy. Any increase in India’s nuclear arsenal will not be seen positively by it’s neighbours including Pakistan and China and could trigger an nuclear arms race.
The Pakistan lesson is: not to be completely subservient to US interests because it will lead to tensions both inside the country and externally.
Kulvinder:
“Those are rhetorical question btw, the point im trying to make is they’re just killing themselves for ‘a cause’. We may disagree with them as to the cause itself but dying for a cause is hardly something alien to most people. The only difference between a kamikaze pilot and a suicide bomber is what constitutes a legitimate target. In either case they’d almost certainly agree political figureheads are fair game.”
Hmmm….I don’t claim to be an expert on suicide bombings, but I don’t think it’s seen as “killing yourself for a cause.” I think it’s more like “we’re killing you for a cause.” Suicide bombings also take away the fear that one may get arrested and/or incarcerated for their said actions, ie you can’t arrest a suicide bomber because, well…he/she is dead. I think the mentality is that “we are a walking bomb amongst you,” and some point out the fact that it’s to instill a fear of terror that is akin to those who say that they are the victims of terror. There’s this book that is supposed to be an excellent reading by Talal something or other called “On Suicide Bombings.”
But what I just pointed out cannot be used to explain suicide bombings the world over, so I’ll stop here.
___
“Balochistan never particularly wanted to be a part of Pakistan and Balochi nationlists (mostly pashtuns) aren’t exactly happy at the human rights violations carried out by the punjabi dominated military.”
“That territory is to all intents and purposes a law onto itself. If the NWFP and Balochistan is taken out of the equation Pakistan becomes little more than Punjab and Sindh.
What im trying to give you a sense of a map of the conflicts that isn’t geographic. You have to look at where the ethnic groupings lie - not only where the physical borders are, or what the majority religion is.”
Completely agree.
___
Another reading for those interested in Balochistan is Federic Grare, and a few other reports. You can find links embedded in my post on Balochistan:
http://italiandesi.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/balochistan-another-hot-spot-on-the-map/
““The root cause of all this is the mad rush to democracy which Pakistan isn’t ready for.”
“Democracy and the liberal establishment was never rushed in any of the western democracies. It evolved through blood, corruption, mass murder, african slavery,Englightenment ideas, Empire, loss of empires and the triumph of civil rights ideas from Granville Sharp to Martin Luther King.”
I completely disagree, especially with the first quote which demonstrates a complete lack of historical knowledge and tunnel vision.
First off, when you say this, you show that you know very little about political movements in Pakistan, even if they were so small that they did not come under your radar. There have been, since the founding of Pakistan, socialist and communist groups who have completely rejected what we see today.
The second one is this: The problem here is that Pakistan has never been ALLOWED to let democracy flourish. One contemporary example, which is really obvious and I shouldn’t need to point out, is the US and the UK supporting the Musharraf regime, with or without his uniform.
And w/r/t the US, Europe, and democracy, you fail to see similarities between the “West” and Pakistan. One could have very well argued that during all of those steps that the US and Europe took towards democracy, they were never really “ready.” There has been, and always will be, mass opposition and/or power opposition to democratic movements in any given location. The fact that there IS a democracy movement which has seen a lot of blood shed is totally discounted by this ridiculous notion that “The root cause of all this is the mad rush to democracy which Pakistan isn’t ready for.” No country is ever “ready.” None of those countries in the West was “ready for it.”
Democracy is not something that is handed to you, or it does not take place when a country is “ready for it.” In order to gain democracy and keep it, people have to constantly fight for it.
I’m saying this as an American who scoffs at how often we congratulate ourselves on being a “democracy” while our own practices make a complete fucking mockery of “democracy.” We like the label and throw it around, but we’ve lost the meaning long ago. We’re too complacent, and this is why democracy is slowly slipping through our fingers. This is why I say that it’s something that requires everyone to be vigilant about the fact that ‘democracy’ requires constant “on your toes” type of awareness.