Between a Dictatorship and a Hard Place

The shocking assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto signals an era of extreme political instability, that may result in paralysis of the political process and hence chaos in Pakistan. Like the Gandhi Family who fell victims to assassins during India's transition to democracy, Pakistan's Bhutto Family is following a similar fate. It is difficult to determine exactly who is responsible for the murder of Pakistan's favorite daughter, but almost all political factions may use the situation to further their cause.

In the end, as always, it is the democratic process and the Pakistani people who have the most to lose.

Although General Musharraf has condemned this act of terrorism, he must be relieved at the removal of his most serious opponent who repeatedly questioned his legitimacy. In a piece she wrote for Huffington Post last September, Bhutto described Pakistan under Musharraf's command as follows:

Almost a decade of military dictatorship has devastated the basic infrastructure of democracy. Political parties have been assaulted, political leaders arrested, and the judicial system manipulated to force party leaders into exile. NGOs have been under constant attack, especially those that deal with human rights, democratic values and women's rights. The press has been intimidated, with some reporters -- even those that work for papers like the New York Times -- arrested, beaten or made to disappear. Student and labor unions have not been allowed to function. The electoral institutions of the nation have been manipulated by an Election Commission that could not stop rigging and fraud. And in the battle against terrorism, we look on with dismay as the government of Pakistan ceded sections of our nation that previously had been governed by the rule of law to Taliban sympathizers and to Al Qaeda, making Pakistan the Petri dish of the international terrorist movement.

Despite a questionable record during her tenure as Prime Minister of Pakistan, Bhutto remained the most popular political challenge for Musharraf, and publicly demanded implementation of democratic values, especially freedom for political parties and civil society. In her blog on Huffington Post she wrote:

It seemed now that the country had an opportunity to peacefully transition to democracy, which is critical for the other war - the war of moderation against extremism -- to succeed.

Unfortunately, Bhutto's assassination greatly diminishes the possibility of democratic change in Pakistan under Musharraf's rule anytime soon. The US has relied on him to help lead the War on Terrorism in the region, despite his increasing fall from popularity. With Bhutto -- the only contender for transitioning Pakistan into a democracy -- out of the picture, the US has no choice but to continue supporting Musharraf's government, given the dangerous flourishing of radical Islamists there.

Musharraf is bound to turn this tragedy into an opportunity to show the West and US, that only a powerful military man can control the country, keep nuclear arsenal out of the terrorists' hands, target extremists, and avoid complete chaos. Unfortunately, the US is caught in a dilemma of supporting a dictator who suppresses its people and civil society. This pattern has been repeatedly appeared in US Middle East foreign policy, from the Shah of Iran, to Saddam Hussein of Iraq, to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and more recently Musharraf of Pakistan: US is once again stuck between a dictator and a hard place.

Despite ample US aid to Pakistan, not only are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda strong as ever, and terrorism in the region rampant, but also signs of democracy and Pakistani civil society are sparse. Musharraf who has been a target of Al-Qaeda himself, is accused of playing a double-game. However, given current security issues in Pakistan, the US faces a challenging choice between supporting Musharraf or following rhetoric of US presidential candidates in the last 48 hours, who are calling for a cut in funding and aid to Musharraf's government.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto will paralyze the political process, weaken the democratic movement and give rise to violence to the political sphere. Musharraf who has hardly been successful in controlling the growth of fundamentalism in Pakistan and beyond its borders with Afghanistan, faces a huge legitimacy crisis, as he is neither popular in Pakistan nor the West.

Imminent questions remain such as will US act more forcefully in its war on terror, who will they support, where is this unstable society headed, can this tragedy revitalize democracy or strengthen extremism, and more importantly, after Musharraf, who will be able to lead the country toward security, peace, and democracy?

Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination

Comments

[Marnie1]

Although General Musharraf has condemned this act of terrorism,..."
What proof does the author have that this was an act of "terrorism" assuming - logically - that an act of terrorism is performed by a "terrorist."

I look first to who benefits most and that is Musharraf and his buddy the Bushette.

I look second at who should have responded with the immediate institution of a thorough investigation and see that Musharraf and his buddy the Bushette are the ones who should have so responded and who have failed totally to do so.

There is also the blindly obvious fact that both dictators gave the same scripted statement blaiming al Queda, within hours of the killing and in total absence of any facts to support the accusation.

[delhigirl]

India did not "transition" to democracy. India has been a democracy since 1947 apart from a few months in 1977 when the country rose up in revolt against Indira Gandhi when she declared emergency.

Pakistan has been an independent country since 1947 as well (a day before India) and has been sporadically "democratic" since then.

The two countries cannot be compared at all in terms of the political system. Despite tremendous hurdles which include an incredible population, abject poverty and a large number of religions and languages, India remains the largest democracy in the world.

[OkieMon]

If we are sincere about disarming iran's nuclear program we should already be moving on the ground to disarm pakistan's nuclear program....far more dangerous with al qaeda and the taliban in the back pocket of musharaff.

[SamThornton]

At the end of World War II, the American foreign policy establishment came together on the idea that the best way to protect our international interests was to promote the adoption of democracy -- specifically, American-style democracy -- throughout the rest of the world.

It seems that this proposition has had sufficient time to work itself out so that it's fair to pose the questions: How is this working out for us, and how is this working out for the rest of the world?

It could be argued that in nations where we've pushed the idea the hardest, we've had the least success. At least in terms of creating societies pliant to our will. Our considerable efforts to unseat democratically elected governments that don't share every jot and tittle of the philosophies espoused by whoever happens to be in charge of the US government at the time offer good examples of the hollowness of our efforts. Chile, Haiti, Venezuela, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority all spring to mind.

So, in answer to the first question, how is this working out for us, it would seem the answer is, "not so much."

Pakistan may prove the poster child for an answer to the second question. The attempts to accede to our demands for democracy there seems to be expressing itself in murderous rounds of factional violence. For Pakistan, at least, our efforts are working for them, not so much.

Maybe it's time for us to pull in our horns, acknowledge the viability of difference, and quit playing perverted nanny to the world.

[Equator180]

I agree fully with the above comment. She was as a polition, a lightweight, pushed by her Mr. 10% husbund and most recently G.W. Dont you think her coming back for another grab at the till was part of the reason? It seems we get so confused with "The Peoples Party," and there are enough uninformed people to believe as well as try to live the dream that theses leaders charging ahead on the road to Democracy are the saviors. Why dont you lsit some of the great Peoples Parties around the world...lets see, there was one in Thailand which involved billions of $, humm why is he in exile, there there are the great democracies in centeral Asia, no bad things happening there right.. get off this stupid idea that this ideology works everywhere and is fair. Oh yes then there are the great democracies in Africa...and lets not forget G.W., who never told a lie that would harm anyone or cost a life...and wasn't there something about a few Texan companies who got a few contracts without bids? This is demoracy...please wake up..most of the people elected on dreams are 100% crooks!

[UCOmid]

I agree with u peterg87. America's consistent support of dictators in the region has been extremely harmful for democracy and peace.

The US and its Western allies, which have been distracted by Iran's nuclear program and Iraq war during the last few years, forgot that what was going on beyound the surface in Pakistan which has become a sanctuary for terrorists in the World. This is not the end of the road though! Very unfortunate!

[peterg76]

You don't think the US pattern of consistently supporting dictators might be part of the problem? Maybe it's time to try a strategy other than "stay the course".

[RDixon]

The Bhutto family were no Gandhis.

And why is it shocking that she was killed?

It would have been more shocking had she not been killed in a country where 90% of the population blames the west and the USA in particular for all their ills, considering how she just 11 months ago was hobnobbing in DC with Bush and his cohorts.

It was like she had a huge U.S.A. C.I.A. tattoo on her forehead and a target on her back.

The plan to turn her into Shah 2.0 ended in the only logical way it could.

Nothing shocking at all about it.