Benezir Bhutto Dies in Attack!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like the fact that Aggie thinks any leader in Pakistan has clean hands. Like LOTM said, petty corruption (and not just the petty kind) is widespread in the 3rd world and especially a country like Pakistan, where the social norm is pay-for-play.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Petty corruption is widespread in the 3rd world. If youre gonna wait for a leader with perfectly clean hands, youre gonna wait a long time. And again, from everything I can gather, the Pakistani electorate was quite aware of that as well. Oh, and her PPP was about as strong a voice for social democracy, IIUC, as existed in Pakistan.

Maybe she wasnt fit to be elected. If so, the people of Pakistan had the right to decide that for themselves.

I expect that what will follow now will be no better, and probably worse.

Taking a couple of thousand pounds or a golf trip to look the other way on a government construction contract is petty corruption. Siphoning millions of pounds through secret bank accounts is not.

I agree that the Pakstanis have the right to elect a brutal, corrupt, dictatorial thief if they so choose. That doesn't mean I have to be sad because she got whacked. Musharraf is in some ways worse, but in a proper democracy, neither of them would get anywhere near government.

If completely ****ed up countries like Bolivia and Venezuela can manage to eventually elect governments that are properly representative, there's no reason the Pakistanis can't either. Pseudo politicians like Bhutto and Musharraf are the ones preventing that.

[LordShiva]

Still, teh Lashkar-e-Taiba, launched and funded with Benazir's blessings, is as extremist as any of teh fundamentalist outfits Benazir was supposed to act against upon being elected.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I like the fact that Aggie thinks any leader in Pakistan has clean hands.

I specifically said the opposite. I can't think of any decent political figure in that country, with the possible exception of Imran Khan, who was, among other things, a fine cricketer.

It's a country that could do with some sort of revolution to marginalize the current elites, since they are largely the cause of the problems.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Ok then,

who did it- wild speculation only please

the ISI.

[germanos]

It's a sad event.

What is worse that it is being labeled by many western heads of state as a blow to Pakistan's democracy, while in fact her murder shows that Pakistan is FAR from being a democracy, let alone that the rule of law is existant there.

I guess the outcome of this whole affair is a de facto legimatizion (sp?) of Musharaf's militairy regime, and the bastard will be hailed as the defender of democracy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Still, teh Lashkar-e-Taiba, launched and funded with Benazir's blessings, is as extremist as any of teh fundamentalist outfits Benazir was supposed to act against upon being elected.

But they werent out of hand then.

Fact is, the Pakistani fundies have been fighting her tooth and nail, and may have just killed her. They didnt seem to think of her as a friend, despite her past.

Folks change, both personally, and because of changed political conditions. Whether its a Sadat, a Sharon, or a Bhutto.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos
It's a sad event.

What is worse that it is being labeled by many western heads of state as a blow to Pakistan's democracy, while in fact her murder shows that Pakistan is FAR from being a democracy, let alone that the rule of law is existant there.

Ive seen it more stated as a blow to Pakistans chances of getting democracy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


If completely ****ed up countries like Bolivia and Venezuela can manage to eventually elect governments that are properly representative, there's no reason the Pakistanis can't either. Pseudo politicians like Bhutto and Musharraf are the ones preventing that.

thanks for the touch of humor.

Unfortunately (or not) Pakistan doesnt have the oil wealth for a Bolivaran revolution. Theyve had to develop the old fashioned way, with foreign investment. low wage textile industry, etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Whoha

the ISI.

Bingo.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

thanks for the touch of humor.

Unfortunately (or not) Pakistan doesnt have the oil wealth for a Bolivaran revolution. Theyve had to develop the old fashioned way, with foreign investment. low wage textile industry, etc.

And once again you are the king of assumptions. Bolivarian revolutions are irrelevant to my point. It really doesn't matter what sort of policy Pakistan follows. They could vote in the Gay Liberation Front for all I care, as long as the elections were free and fair and the traditional elites that attempt to overturn or otherwise distort them were prevented from doing so. As Chavez himself has said, what matters most is that everyone feels it is worth voting and that the result is respected and not distorted or undermined by anti-democratic centres of power. So far, he gets an A+ for putting that over his personal political program.

Bhutto was the wrong person to do that, since she was an anti-democratic centre of power. The PPP isn't even a real political party. It's just her family's party and serves no independent political function as, say, the Republican Party does in the US.

[Riesstiu IV]

lol. Benezir got Bhuttowned.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon

Bhutto was the wrong person to do that, since she was an anti-democratic centre of power.

And again, theres no evidence that that is a fair charecterization the last few years.

The PPP isn't even a real political party. It's just her family's party and serves no independent political function as, say, the Republican Party does in the US.

In fact it had a secularist, and moderately socialist agenda for some time. Yes, it was also a dynastic vehicle - so?

For all the attacks you make on the Venezualan elite, they did run a constitutional polity with multiple parties and no coups for several decades. thats the political culture Chavez walked into. Pakistan doesnt have that.

[Zkribbler]

Geo TV quoted her husband saying the politician had died following a bullet wound in the neck.

Do we know what kind of bullet??

If it's a sniper's bullet, one set of presumptions arises.
If it's an army bullet, another set.
If it's a pistol bullet, yet a third set.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact it had a secularist, and moderately socialist agenda for some time. Yes, it was also a dynastic vehicle - so?

For all the attacks you make on the Venezualan elite, they did run a constitutional polity with multiple parties and no coups for several decades. thats the political culture Chavez walked into. Pakistan doesnt have that.

Bingo. I mean we are talking about a country that has had military rule just about the same amount of time as democracy. Where the populace really doesn't see a coup as anything that alarming anymore. Now, maybe if Bhutto's father was able to remain in power, we'd have the proper groundwork for a democracy, but he wasn't and they don't.

It's a contrast to India, which also has corruption on a decent scale, but has a healthy democratic process.