Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAnother Bhutto for Pakistan doesn't bode well for democracy; would another Clinton for the U.S.?
As the U.S. election season shifts creakily into higher gear, our leaders are enthusiastically lionizing slain Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. The former prime minister "returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy," noted Hillary Clinton. "The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event ... for democracy," mourned Rudy Giuliani. Meanwhile, President Bush urged Pakistanis "to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life."
Hold on! Bhutto was a courageous and compelling figure, but hardly a martyr to democracy. The daughter of a prime minister, Bhutto took over the leadership of the Pakistan People's Party from her mother, who herself inherited party leadership from Bhutto's father. Bhutto's own two terms as Pakistan's prime minister were marred by corruption scandals and allegations of involvement in still darker activities, including the 1996 murder of her own brother, a party rival.
Her policies didn't always further democracy either. Bhutto actively supported the Taliban's military takeover of Afghanistan, for instance. She was willing to help empower the most extremist and repressive Islamic organization the world has so far seen in exchange for the imagined strategic advantage an entrenched Taliban government in Afghanistan would give Pakistan in its unending power struggle with India.
After disgrace and exile, Bhutto returned to Pakistan in the fall of 2007 on a self-styled mission to rescue Pakistan from chaos, and she loudly demanded the restoration of democracy. Pakistan could use some genuine democracy -- but Bhutto, an eternally polarizing figure, was hardly the woman to usher in a new era of democratic stability, regardless of the Bush administration's hopes.
Bhutto's tragic death itself underlines the limits of her commitment to democracy. In her will, she named her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as her successor as chair of the Pakistan People's Party, appointing her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as co-chair and quasi-regent until Bilawal comes of age. To Bhutto, political power was something one could inherit, something to be passed along from spouse to spouse and from parent to child, like grandmother's pearls or grandfather's favorite chair -- or like the infamous Swiss bank accounts that led to corruption charges against her in several countries.
And who knows? Maybe Bilawal's not such a bad choice for the Pakistan People's Party. A history student at Oxford, he already has a constituency -- at least on Facebook, where someone has established a new fan group called "Let's not assassinate Bilawal Bhutto because he's hot, OK?" Bilawal's own Facebook profile is fairly modest: "I am not a politician or a great thinker. I'm merely a student. I do the things that students do like make mistakes, eat junk food ... but most importantly of all ... learn." Still, "My time to lead will come."
What's weirdest about all this is that not very many people here in the U.S. seem to have noticed that this is all pretty weird. A champion of democracy passes along political leadership in her will, leaving it to her husband and son? That's dynastic politics, not democratic politics.
Kings and queens pass along their political positions to their children. Paragons of democracy do not. But you won't find even a hint of this in the reactions of the leading presidential contenders from either party, or from the White House, or from most leading U.S. media commentators.
There is, of course, an obvious and depressing explanation for why so few people in the U.S. seem to have registered this as jarring: We're perilously close to becoming a dynastic state ourselves. Our current president, George W. Bush, is the son of our former president, George H.W. Bush. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is struggling today to hold on to her position as Democratic Party front-runner, is married to former President Clinton.
You can't blame the heirs of political dynasties for their fortunes. Nineteen-year-old Bilawal is a pawn in a deadly game; so far, he hasn't had much control over his life. Benazir Bhutto didn't have much either: In September, she wrote, rather poignantly, "I didn't choose this life. It chose me." Similarly, George W. Bush didn't choose his father, and it's not Hillary Clinton's fault that the young law professor she married later became president.
All the same, there's something awfully creepy about the dynastic trend in American politics. If Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008, by 2012 the U.S. presidency will have been controlled for 24 years by only two families. More families have divvied up the political spoils in Pakistan in the last 24 years.
The U.S. isn't Pakistan, thank goodness. But as voters in Iowa's caucuses kick off the 2008 presidential season, we'd do well to think about what makes the U.S. and Pakistan different -- and about what values we Americans need to nurture if we're going to remain a true democracy and not sink into our own brand of corrupt dynastic politics.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
38 Comments so far
Show All>> horrified January 3rd, 2008 4:27 pm
>> Gyptian,
>> She supported the creation of the Taliban? how did that make her a vocal >> critic of the jihadist? Just because she says so now?? Did you read the >> link I posted?
Dear horrified. So is dictator musharraf, whom most American MSM media had affectionately called him "Presedent Musharraf", though he was never one & lately changed the beat to call him "General Musharraf". General Mushy, as you probably know, was in bed with Islamic terrorists of all hues before the 9/11 aftermath had pegged him to support the war on terror. It is only lately, for reasons yet to be enlightened to the discerning public, that the American govt and MSM have begun crying wolf that "Mushy is not doing a good job of fighting terrorism, ...". Terror & Islamic militancy have been the staple diet of every government that ruled Pakistan, irrespective their strategic alliances with other nations. Many in the US, & perhahps also in the CD, would forget that the Pakistani army, under the leadership of antoher military general called Yahya Khan, went & butchered a million of their supposed fellow Muslims in Bangladesh, then called as "East Pakisan" during the late 60's to early 70's.
All Pakistani rulers have played a russian roulette with domestically nurtured terror export, Islamic fundametalism, pandering to american strategic interests & suppressing domestic revolts for greater autonomy. Needless to say, the game is dangerous, if played too many times. Losers are the people of Pakistan & its neigbouring countries.
At last, some Commondreams commentary on Bhutto that puts her in a proper perspective. I've been nauseated by the "Martyr for Democracy" and "Sister in Feminism" crap here on this forum. The Bhutto dynasty continues. Ridiculous, isn't it? Let's hope the USA can break out of dynastic politics this year.
WE NEED NEW ROYAL FAMILIES, and,
If they're in, vote 'em out
Return congress to the People
Thank you for writing on this issue about Bhutto. I thought of it immediately when she named her son "successor." The Bhuttos have never had anything to do with democracy, and never will. But, then, I doubt if Pakistan ever will either, regardless of who is in charge.
Democracy is still in it's experimental stage. I know that no American likes to admit this, since it might mean that we actually are not #1 and we may not have all the answers (blasphemy!).
Not long ago, along came the revolutionary idea that we don't need kings and princes and popes, that a citizen should be judged and rewarded on their merit and not their heritage. We hopefully integrated the knowledge that sometimes we turn to strong leaders out of fear or anger, that we don't always need them... and the wealth we give them to protect us is really commonwealth and comes from our labor and should be returned to us when our needs change.
This is the root of class structure, and why those who control the commonwealth do not desire peace, do not desire alleviation of fear or anger and thus their own power and justification.
Well I better get back to dynasty! As we consolidate power, as we grow our fears and consolidate our leaders that deal with them, as we concentrate only on fear or anger, then we are simply reinstating our King, and our revolution is on the path to failure. Democracy has been called the great experiment for a long time, mostly because we know it is easier to follow a leader, to give into fear, than it is to have courage as an individual, to govern ourselves with concensus.
Ah the Dark Side of the Force!
Websters says democracy is "government by the people", not government by the corporations! Its all an alaborate illusion to keep the multitudes in line.
Dennis Kucinich will be on the Bill Moyers Journal program on Public Television on Friday, Jan 4.
One of the topics will be candidates that have not received much media attention.
a voice apart ,if you are an outsider,maybe you did not hear dick cheney say that barak obama is his eighth cousin ?
ezeflyer, you mean like brittany spears or al gore ?
a voice apart, yes,even one eighth dick cheney blood ,is one eighth, too much. scary.....obomba
As an outsider looking in to American politics, I have to ask: have most Americans ever looked at the political portrait of your "leaders" at all levels? They are all reruns. Kennedys, Rockefellers, Bushes, etc. even when the linkage to their last names is not immediately evident due to the loss of maternal maiden names after marriage. It appears that there is definitely a dynastic vein in American politics that is rare in other "developed" democratic societies and extremely rare in dictatorial countries ruled through military coups. The US and Pakistan are unique in this (any others? I am open to learning).
DEAR GAIL,WHY AM I NOT THE SLIGHTEST BIT SURPRISED ? never heard even what the results were for ron paul tonite.he was not mentioned at all.about a month ago some jehovah witness zealot,told me that barak obama was the anti-christ.i laughed about it,whoa..maybe not so funny.
CoMarc and gyptian yup and this is why there is no loved lost between Afghans and Pakistanis.
the winners are=the man who wants to homogenize church and state huckabee and the man that wants to power america with nuclear plants obama. evil and eviler.
Thanks for a great article. I also don't like the fact that the United States now has its political dynasties: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. It seems you must have a famous political name to become president here now.
That's undemocratic. It's also very third-worldish, such as we see in Pakistan.
Moreover, I don't like Hillary very much as a candidate. I want a real Democratic candidate, but Hillary is more of a Republican-light.
One thing is for sure, the Taliban are already in control of a large swath of Afghanistan and its only a matter of time before Kabul falls. Its classic guerilla warfare which NATO or the U.S. doesnt have the stomach for. Musharraf will continue to dominate Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan in reality will help Pakistans strategic interests in terms of dominating Afghanistan and creating hell for India. Pakistan as a State needs to be dismantled ... its the only way the Pakistani people can survive.
Is our problem simply that the corporate puppets placed every 4 years to rule us are related? I think not.
The only reason the same people keep showing up over the decades in power is because there aren't that many evil people in the US willing to destroy our environment, oppress our people and kill millions others around the world in furtherance of corporate profits.
At least, I'd like to think so.
Well, "willybill" has a good idea, however I don't thing we can petition our way back to freedom and democracy.
Rosa Brooks'"dynasty" problem is only part of it: there's the jerrymandering, the congressional "earmarks", the revolving doors,the electronic voting machines that manipulate winners, the private standing armies under Reagan and now Bush.
We're in trouble folks.
And then there's global warming, nuclear weapons,over population and resourse shortages, too.
But, by all means, let's stop the dynasty surge.
In this interview Bhutto states that OBL is dead and names his murderer.
http://brasschecktv.com/page/242.html
"Her policies didn’t always further democracy either. Bhutto actively supported the Taliban’s military takeover of Afghanistan, for instance. She was willing to help empower the most extremist and repressive Islamic organization the world has so far seen in exchange for the imagined strategic advantage an entrenched Taliban government in Afghanistan would give Pakistan in its unending power struggle with India".
Thanks Rosa for telling the truth about this. Seems like few writers featured on commondreams have highlighted Bhutto's connections to the Taliban. Sick how this woman became Prime Minister while supporting a regime in Kabul that didn't allow women to walk down the street without a man! Not to mention all the other oppression the Taliban metted out to Afghan men, women, and children. Its incessed me to no end how many people in the West keep calling Bhutto a Feminist.
Yeah she supported the creation of the Taliban when they were a ragtag bunch of religious students. They did not have the same stature they have now nor did they unveil their grand visions of an ultra-fundamentalist Islamic state till they were well entrenched in power. She is not the only one who supported the Taliban. Our very own great leaders supported and funded the Taliban and yet we elected him twice in a row. She was the only one with the balls to openly defy the Jihadists and well they got their revenge ...
The issue is the plight of the Pakistani people. Ofcourse we want them to have the most shining, bright, incorruptible leader possible but what they had was Musharraf/Benazir/Sharif etc thanks to our persistent efforts for 60 years in supporting the oppressive Pakistani military. Given this context Benazir would have actually won the sham elections and probably done a little bit more than Musharraf has ever done. She offered the Pakistanis some sort of hope which none of these current crop is capable of and thats my point, dynasty or not.
Another fairy tale told by the press
Don't forget, the next heir apparent in the Bush Generations is part Hispanic. That is why Bush has such an appeal amongst the Hispanics, even though openly disparages them.
"The Taliban was largely supported by the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) and the Pakistani military."
This is the holy truth. They supported and created the Taliban. The ISI and Military run Pakistan and have been for the last 60 years with our active and insidious support. The brief, periodical stints by elected leaders like the Bhuttos and Sharif etc was actually a bright spot. What that says about Pakistan is any body's guess.
The people always vote for celebrities. The Dems could use a Sreisand and the Greens need a Robert Redford.
I wonder if Bill and Hillary are bequeathing the leadership of the Democratic party to Chelsea?
At least we still have the symbolic step of voting before the computers name the winner.
The Taliban was largely supported by the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency) and the Pakistani military. Benazir didn't oppose it. But I'm not sure a PM in Pakistan could have opposed the ISI and the military on that if they'd wanted to.
Of course, that's also back when the US supported the Taliban as a good alternative to the warlords who were closer to Russia and Iran. You can find some good quotes from the State Dept podium about being happy to see the Taliban take power if I remember correctly.
A NWO PRIMER /living with the masters of war..... chapter one;dealing with the interrogator- interrogator question 1.; are you a 'good' person ? answer 1.; no,of course not,not one interrogator question 2.;what is the most valuable item you own or possess ? answer 2.; nothing,i am a squatter and everything is on loan or borrowed. interrogator question 3.; are you christian,muslim,buddhist or atheist ? answer 3.; i am a musician.
here is another good read on Benazir Bhutto:
http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0801-3477
There is no Clinton "dynasty." One got in, the other doesn't have a shot, and even if she did, said non-dynasty would end there. No blood hand-off, no dynasty.
The Bushies, on the other hand, they go way way back, and they were greedy, murdering traitors from the get-go, mafia style. Now that they're the apex and their immediate gene pool has been watered down to the submoron level, it's their loyal capos, their front men and women, and their supplicants tasked with maintaining the dynasty we'll have to worry about for generations to come.
the despots practice nepotism,like no other.gyptian,i just told on another thread,that the niece of ex-cia director,richard helms(laila helms is an agent of the taliban,it is well-known the relationship between helms,bushsr,.osama bin laden and the carlyle group.bhutto was very much a valued and long standing insider, connected with the carlyle group.bush,bhutto,binladen,helms and numerous more for mention,at the moment.