December 28, 2007

Bhutto Killed, Democracy Uncertain


From Christian Science MonitorYesterday's murder of Benazir Bhutto continues the mess we know as the Middle East. So much death, and to what end? Right—it has no end. OK, death is life, I guess, and it's easier to be philosophical than to have tightly educated positions on the region. Being Juan Cole is just too hard, so I become a jaded noir anti-hero instead.

Anyway, it's sad to see someone die when they represent hope. While the US government has used an ideological script in its military hobbies in the region, that of encouraging democracy as an antidote to terrorism, they openly back Musharraf's military rule and the repression of democratic behavior. Bhutto was putting democratic pressure on Musharraf's dictatorship at the time of her murder.

Actual martyrs die in the middle of righteous lives; I don't think Bhutto qualifies as a martyr—but that's just me. One of Bhutto's relatives took a position close to this before the fact, suggesting that Bhutto was as ambitious and eager to exploit situations as any other politician. Indeed, Bhutto was just another faction leader that would rule Pakistan as a dynasty. Not to speak ill of Bhutto, mind you—only to suggest that her death is less martyrdom than maybe a stereotype of politics.

So who killed her and why? I'm guessing it was Musharraf, or at least done for him. Guys like Musharraf don't dwell on the niceties of secret politics: they order people killed. Only a short time ago, he declared a state of emergency as a popular movement of democratic action strengthened. With room to make an entry, Bhutto re-emerged and took the side of popular democracy. Musharraf had her locked up and world pressure led him to ease restrictions—at least enough to satisfy the current administration of torturers in Washington. Bhutto had been encouraged by Washington, turns out, as a crowbar to Musharraf.

From Christian Science MonitorSo Musharraf relents to pressure, but is the clear favorite of the Cheney White House. He backs away enough to avert the world's gaze, then whacks his rival who was put there by his sponsors. He blames al-Qaida, which is who you blame for anything (especially when it's likely true), and Presto!—problem gone, for both Musharraf and Washington. That is, no opponent for Musharraf, and a helpless shrug from the White House. ("We work for democracy and terr-ists do evil. We have to back the only guy we got!")

Here's where you roll your eyes about conspiracy theories. Au contraire, however: such is the way of realpolitik, a way of running the world that, well, gets rid of problems. The US has long been a practitioner, as have most empires. (See this list, and this one. They're damned strident, and I apologize, but the timelines are good.) I myself won't judge Bush-era realpolitik here, because you can find people who do it so much better than I. Also, I see things historically; that is, constituting a continuum of events that are influenced by what came before. Sadly, realpolitik is just another way of doing the business of society, for all its amorality; both as deadly as eugenics and as bland as delivering heating oil. I can't hold it to tougher standards than, say, killing your opponents.

But I can express sadness, that someone who stood for something our leaders supposedly stand for, was killed and it benefits these same men in the short run. Pakistan has our fingerprints on it, and Bhutto was killed there. The terror that killed her was prompted in part by Bush failures in the Middle East, failures done in my name as an American. Bhutto died in a shameful way, at the hands of shameful people, in a shameful Age. I mourn her.


No comments: