[Peace-discuss] Ali's latest on Pakistan

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I like the suggestion that Ms. Bhutto is dead because she didn't have 
Blackwater to protect her... And it seems to me that the following 
description of Bhutto's party could be applied to one closer to home, in 
an age of Bushes and Clintons: "That most of the PPP inner circle 
consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy 
lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party 
democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and 
principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. 
Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength."  --CGE]

	My heart bleeds for Pakistan.
	It deserves better than this grotesque feudal charade
	By Tariq Ali, Pakistan-born writer, broadcaster and commentator
	Published: 31 December 2007

Six hours before she was executed, Mary, Queen of Scots wrote to her 
brother-in-law, Henry III of France: "...As for my son, I commend him to 
you in so far as he deserves, for I cannot answer for him." The year was 
1587.

On 30 December 2007, a conclave of feudal potentates gathered in the 
home of the slain Benazir Bhutto to hear her last will and testament 
being read out and its contents subsequently announced to the world 
media. Where Mary was tentative, her modern-day equivalent left no room 
for doubt. She could certainly answer for her son.

A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most 
venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing 
corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run 
the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will 
then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his 
children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less 
grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family 
heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.

Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party 
supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.

Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its 
predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own 
life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to 
the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, 
decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been 
alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.

How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat 
their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their 
courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince 
and his future.

That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers 
leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be 
transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny 
layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but 
they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not 
strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but 
chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big 
money, was not the instrument of any one family.

The issue of democracy is enormously important in a country that has 
been governed by the military for over half of its life. Pakistan is not 
a "failed state" in the sense of the Congo or Rwanda. It is a 
dysfunctional state and has been in this situation for almost four decades.

At the heart of this dysfunctionality is the domination by the army and 
each period of military rule has made things worse. It is this that has 
prevented political stability and the emergence of stable institutions. 
Here the US bears direct responsibility, since it has always regarded 
the military as the only institution it can do business with and, 
unfortunately, still does so. This is the rock that has focused choppy 
waters into a headlong torrent.

The military's weaknesses are well known and have been amply documented. 
But the politicians are not in a position to cast stones. After all, Mr 
Musharraf did not pioneer the assault on the judiciary so conveniently 
overlooked by the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, and the 
Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The first attack on the Supreme Court 
was mounted by Nawaz Sharif's goons who physically assaulted judges 
because they were angered by a decision that ran counter to their 
master's interests when he was prime minister.

Some of us had hoped that, with her death, the People's Party might 
start a new chapter. After all, one of its main leaders, Aitzaz Ahsan, 
president of the Bar Association, played a heroic role in the popular 
movement against the dismissal of the chief justice. Mr Ahsan was 
arrested during the emergency and kept in solitary confinement. He is 
still under house arrest in Lahore. Had Benazir been capable of thinking 
beyond family and faction she should have appointed him chairperson 
pending elections within the party. No such luck.

The result almost certainly will be a split in the party sooner rather 
than later. Mr Zardari was loathed by many activists and held 
responsible for his wife's downfall. Once emotions have subsided, the 
horror of the succession will hit the many traditional PPP followers 
except for its most reactionary segment: bandwagon careerists desperate 
to make a fortune.

All this could have been avoided, but the deadly angel who guided her 
when she was alive was, alas, not too concerned with democracy. And now 
he is in effect leader of the party.

Meanwhile there is a country in crisis. Having succeeded in saving his 
own political skin by imposing a state of emergency, Mr Musharraf still 
lacks legitimacy. Even a rigged election is no longer possible on 8 
January despite the stern admonitions of President George Bush and his 
unconvincing Downing Street adjutant. What is clear is that the official 
consensus on who killed Benazir is breaking down, except on BBC 
television. It has now been made public that, when Benazir asked the US 
for a Karzai-style phalanx of privately contracted former US Marine 
bodyguards, the suggestion was contemptuously rejected by the Pakistan 
government, which saw it as a breach of sovereignty.

Now both Hillary Clinton and Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are pinning the convict's badge on 
Mr Musharraf and not al-Qa'ida for the murder, a sure sign that sections 
of the US establishment are thinking of dumping the President.

Their problem is that, with Benazir dead, the only other alternative for 
them is General Ashraf Kiyani, head of the army. Nawaz Sharif is seen as 
a Saudi poodle and hence unreliable, though, given the US-Saudi 
alliance, poor Mr Sharif is puzzled as to why this should be the case. 
For his part, he is ready to do Washington's bidding but would prefer 
the Saudi King rather than Mr Musharraf to be the imperial message-boy.

A solution to the crisis is available. This would require Mr Musharraf's 
replacement by a less contentious figure, an all-party government of 
unity to prepare the basis for genuine elections within six months, and 
the reinstatement of the sacked Supreme Court judges to investigate 
Benazir's murder without fear or favour. It would be a start.



	###