Say what you want about Benazir Bhutto, but she lacked not for courage. She most certainly knew the dangers of returning to her country from exile, and that she would probably be martyred in her quest to relieve Pakistan from the likes of Pervez Musharraf.
He, of course, is a dictator. Benezir, like her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, like her fellow opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, were all duly elected by the people. All of these were also removed from power (either by legal means, by the President using Pakistan’s constitution, or by fiat, as Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf have).
Corruption is a recurring theme; not one Prime Minister in the recent past has not been tainted by the brush.
One can certainly see (and almost excuse) the corruption boat coming from a kilometer away. In a desperately poor country, one in which tribal affiliations run strongly and run deep, what a desire it must be to achieve some sort of financial stability for one’s family and for one’s clan. Ascendancy to the Prime Ministership pretty well guarantees this.
Recognizing that Pakistan is a poor, impoverished, and sometimes (many times?) backward nation, as regards development and education, goes part off the way towards explaining what on in the country. But Pakistan also has a strong western tradition of jurisprudence and governance, thanks to having been colonized. It is a continuing battle, not only here, but also in India, South Africa… pretty well anywhere Great Britain has set up colonial shop.
And yet, assassinations and suicide bombings are commonplace. And the life expectancy of those who publicly present a modern, liberal, educated wordview of Islam is brutally short.
Benazir Bhutto, for all of her faults – for her largesse and bombast, for her naive and idealistic outlook, for her inexperience hard-headed zeal – was one of these people. And it seems that some in Pakistani society do not appreciate them.
I, for one (for many, no doubt), do not know what to make of the situation. I am not particularly knowledgeable about Pakistani life and politics, have never travelled anywhere near the region, and have no friends from thereabouts (although I used to, in school – big deal, same difference).
Am I barred from making some observations and asking some pointed questions then? I’ll go out on a limb and say “no!”. Emphatically.
Why is it that when a tragedy like this happens, that there is mass rioting and looting and violence? What use is it to set ablaze your own buses and public buildings? How does one rationalize mourning the deaths of a leader and 20 (or 30) supporters by the deaths of score more people? How is it that police can attack lawyers with bamboo canes for peacefully protesting anything?
We in the west sit back, slack jawed, shaking our heads at the news footage. And I daresay the word that will come to the lips of some, perhaps many, but which will remain unuttered for the sake of correctness, cultural sensitivity, or simply fear.
Barbarians.
It is barbaric that some of the first reactions of violence is to accede to further violence. It is uncultured and uncivilized. Yes, it is uncivilized.
We in the west have experienced periods like this as well. Centuries ago. We had our growing pains, and by no means do I think that our parliamentary system here in Canada, circa 1880s, was particularly democaratic, or corruption free. But that was a century ago.
And yes, we too (we, of the western world) do loot and set fire to things and do violence to each other when things get a bit hairy. Think Katrina. Or Montreal, 1993.
Oh wait, the Habs won the cup. At least here in Calgary, all that happens when we make the finals is that girls flash their boobs.
Moral equivalencies. We’re all capable of violence or nasty deeds, right?
It is, of course, not as simple as this. I believe that some cultures are simply not ready for the western notion of democracy. And the more that the enlightened west (please note the implied sarcasm here) tries to impose this notion on countries that aren’t ready for it, the more failures we will see.
Alfred North Whitehead, in his book Adventures of Ideas (no, I have not read it, but it is now on my new year’s reading list), wrote this:
The creation of the world — said Plato — is the victory of persuasion over force… Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals…
“Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.
This comes from Mark Skousen’s essay, Persuasion vs. Force. It betray’s my Western bias, and even perhaps a non-PC ethnocentrism. I learned in university that ethnocentrism is bad, and they tried to learn me that there is thing called moral relativism.
I don’t subscribe to all that Skousen expounds, but I do believe this: the triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society.
A society that kills its political opponents and set alight it’s cities is simply not civilized. And that’s a shame because there are many educated and civilised people in Pakistan. Lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers. And even a few politicians.
In the meantime, perhaps the devil that we know as Pervez Musharraf is a better alternative to an imperfect democracy. Yes, Canada (the third oldest democracy on the planet) has had its political growing pains, and perhaps we wouldn’t be as strong a democracy now if not for them. But we didn’t have nukes back then, and the ability to destabilize a hemisphere. A planet.
However blemished, however imperfect Bhutto might have been, she was the model of an educated, enlightened, moderate, and liberal Muslim. The kind we need more of in the world. Her ideas of how to democratize Pakistan and of how to quell the backwards tribalism that supports fanatical Islamism may have been naive, but at least she was talking. The same cannot be said of Sharif. More pragmatic he may be, but pragmatism without vision and courage doesn’t get you very far these days.
Unfortunately, courage and the best of intentions doesn’t seem to be enough, either. The uncivilised have won this battle.
I welcome emails (which will be published, if relevant) that expand on my thoughts, or which want to set me straight on things. calgaryted at gmail.