|
|
Vixerunt, the Romans would say. They didn't like to speak ill of the dead,  so they said, "They have lived." It is no accident that I waited until January 3rd to respond to MCBias's request to comment on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Today is the birthday of a man some consider to be the finest orator in western history. In 106 BC, Cicero was born. He would rise, despite the unfortunate circumstance of not being born a patrician, to the office of Consul, the highest office in Republican Rome. His career as a politician would span decades of service and his legend as an author and orator would survive through the ages. After Antony and Octavian defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, Cicero's days were numbered. Though a popular man, beloved and respected by many in the Senate, he lacked the military power or influence to preserve his own life and once Antony and Octavian began to eliminate their political opponents, Cicero could not escape. He was beheaded on December 7, 43 BC on or near the Appian Way as he attempted to escape to sea near modern day Naples. His hands were cut off, and they (along with his head) were displayed on the Rostra. With that, everyone had to face the fact that the Caesarions were now the sole power in Rome and even the affluent and powerful were helpless to stop them.
Scroll Down to Continue Reading
|
|
 I could speak for hours about how political assassination has shaped the world. I could start naming those who have fallen to it. We did it at work today and just stopped at 40 or so names. We didn't run out, we just got tired and depressed. The reality of political life is that it is really dangerous. The reality of power is that it corrupts and that corruption pisses people off. I don't hide the fact that I am a blue-collar kind of fellow. I don't claim to be an expert on any particular topic that I will address in this post. I was, however, asked for a stance on an issue by a MCBias who writes a blog I read everyday. Whenever asked for something on this blog I have tried very hard to deliver and that is what I am doing right now. When asked by bloggers who seem to be worth a crap I have tried a little harder. Beyond that, I am a social scientist with a social studies degree from a very capable liberal arts university and I specialized in Roman history and American politics.
Benazir Bhutto was not a saint. Though she held firmly to the stance   that the corruption cases against her were the result of political scheming on the part of her opponents, there seems to be overwhelming evidence in several countries that indicate she was laundering money into personal accounts and using kickbacks for the guarantee of government contracts to fill her own pockets. I found a couple estimates that claim the final tally may be in the billions. The most substantial case claimed that she had promised contracts to French aviation company Dassault for replinishing the Pakistani air force with fighters in exchange for 5 percent of the contract. Dassault makes the Mirage and the newer Rafale. Regardless, Interpol issued warrants for her arrest and she was convicted of several of the charges in European courts while she was serving her self-imposed exile in Dubai. Bhutto did have several things going for her, though. She was beloved by the people and the people believed her to be a better option than they are presently faced with.
To determine a solid grasp on my opinion of he situation let me present it like this:
-A widely popular political personality whose family has been in the business of politics in a highly tribal country is elected Prime Minister two times.
-Both times they are removed from office because of corruption charges widely reported on.
-Despite their popularity they move into a self imposed exile to avoid incarceration at the hands of political opponents.
- MCBias, who happens to be in charge of the army, starts a war with a neighbor without the approval of the civilian government and gets his but kicked. MCBias doesn't want to take the fall so he waits until the civilian government orders the retreat of the army from the region. MCBias says he had it all under control and the guys in suits pulled out too early and it is their fault.
-MCBias takes a vacation.
-The civilian government decides to fire MCBias while he is out of town but the guys in the army like the old MC because he is nice to them and makes sure they have lots of bullets and lets them shoot up people they don't like. The guys in the army tell the civilian government to get bent (presumably because MCBias asked them to because he likes his job).
-By the time MCBias gets back home the army has dissolved the government (Palpatine style) and MCBias is running the show. Its called a coup d'etat.
-The courts ask MCBias to hold an election legitimizing his control. He "holds" his "election" and wins by a healthy margin which is supposed to keep him in power for 5 years.
-MCBias receives cursory support from the big kids on the block because they think he will keep his trouble-making neighbors in line and they hope his support will make him an ally.
-MCBias becomes an "ally".
-Did I mention that MCBias's country had been an "ally" in the past when one big kid was bustin up one of MCBias's neighbors and we gave them money to take shots at the big kid we didn't like? Yeah, it was like that, and then after they got nukes we walked out the door and they TOLD us that they were going to sell them to these crazy-ass meth heads down the block and that is exactly what they did.
-Where were we? Oh yeah, MCBias is our "ally" but he is also giving guns to some of our "enemies". So, with his government propped up by our support he is obliged to be nice. Popular support is still with other people, though, so he tries to ensure that his opponents won't return from their exile. His government marches on without the consent of the people but with the consent of the army.
-Some of MCBias rivals want to come back and run for Prim Minister in the next election, he says no and gets run through the wringer by his international "allies". He tries to allow them to come back after the election, but they aren't having any of that and every moment he stands against them they are getting more popular with his "allies".
-Against MCBias's wishes, his "allies" help negotiate a situation where his opponents will return and be allowed to participate in the election. His "allies" tell him that if they win he must enter into some form of power sharing relationship with them. In short, he must publicly acknowledge a rival who holds vast popular support and allow them to become part of the government.
-With the election getting closer, MCBias's opponents are receiving lots of international coverage in world media and lots of support by foreign governments.
-With the elections days away, MCBias's opponent has a huge support structure and is out front in early predictions. It appears more evident that MCBias may be unable to avoid sharing power with his rival.
-MCBias's rival is killed after a political rally where she was under the protection of MCBias's army...
 By now you ought to be able to get the picture. I think Pervez Musharraf had Benazir Bhutto killed. I think it may have even been partially organized by the Pakistani military. I think the notion that terrorists were primarily responsible is lunacy. Involved perhaps, but they didn't make the call. The groups associated with terrorism may have some motives, but they also would have to realize that the removal of an individual with so much support will attract the attention of the US and that their "ally" who has been so kind to the groups in the past will be on thin ice. Not only that, but she was in charge of Pakistan when the Taliban moved in next door and she was supportive of their efforts. It is entirely plausible to assume that Musharraf viewed the US support of a Bhutto-involved election as the US changing its horse and deciding to back away from the unpopular dictator in favor of someone more popular with the people with fewer embarrassing terrorism ties. He just clipped the opposition and now will go ahead with elections with Bhutto gone and Sharif running for his life. I don't even think Musharraf is doing a good job hiding it. The faster he can get himself another bought election the better, his opposition will have less time to reorganize and mobilize.
How history will remember Bhutto? It is tough to say. Bhutto was popular despite being dirty. She moved in a world of global and religious politics that is very "oriental" and complex. Often victims of political assassination are lionized and held up as heroes despite their shortcomings. Bhutto had the mandate of the people and she fought someone who had the mandate of the army. It is easy to like someone like that, and admirable that they did it. Martyrdom is a logical step for Bhutto if you can compare it to our domestic cases of political assassination.
Does that dismiss her failures? Bhutto was never clean but she was popular. In our modern history, we look at Abe Lincoln as an American hero. That is widely held, I am willing to say it is overwhelmingly held. Still, there are those who consider him our worst President. Often, Libertarians speak about Lincoln in acidic terms. They claim he ended the Constitution and instigated a war on his own people. To a degree, they are right. These people are often quickly shouted down by throngs of Lincoln-lovers and many times they are immediately accused of being racists or un-patriotic as if disagreeing with a common sentiment is the same as lynching a person or espionage. John F. Kennedy has held a particular fascination in modern society as a victim of assassination. He is universally loved for his behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Yes, I know what that is) and as a savior to the poor of America. It is difficult for historians to objectively comment on his presidency because of his status in the lexicon of American heroes. Still, he was an ugly character behind bedroom doors, he had back-room dealings with organized crime syndicates, attempted to perpetuate a welfare state, and was instrumental in the escalation of one of the largest military debacles in the last century. How clean were JFK's hands? How much of Kennedy's legacy is held highly because he was young, handsome, and admired and how much of it was because of the quality of his term? Sure, you want to say it was because of the quality of the term and the hope he provided for a future, but this is the country that turns away from politicians when they don't look "Presidential" and they judge a politician's wife as if she were running for office herself.
I think Bhutto's death was a shame, not because I cared for her intentions, but because I am sympathetic to the people that had hopes for a future she was expected to provide. They seem to really want a fair shake, and I doubt, given their geographic, economic, and political situation will ever give them an opportunity to have it. I also believe that dying for a country is a man's job, and hate the idea of a woman being killed is such a grizzly manner. What is up next? I can't say. I think that with the family and Sharif factions screaming for UN involvement and the UN being traditionally worthless, the US could potentially become involved in another problem. Unfortunately, our government doesn't always help the democratic process when it becomes involved and I am talking about more than Iraq. I am talking about history. In addition to that, the light of truth rarely shines on the perpetrators of such crimes. Surely the dupes meet their ends, but the men behind them rarely do. Some may act alone, but I believe that most don't.
History remembers Cicero as a man of ideals, who believed in the Republic and its ability to provide liberty. He was these things, but he was a politician. Cicero's Republic was a government of exclusive men. It was an oligarchy that he helped raise from Sulla's ashes back into the tyranny of dictators. Cicero himself was a minor knight in standing, not even a patrician and he regretted it his whole life. He regretted it because he believed that the government belonged to the patricians, and that somehow statesmanship like the kind he had developed was bred into these men. He was proven wrong. These men were hungry for power and used law to ensure that the power of government was exclusive to them.
Statesmanship is not built into governing, nor does the holding of an office legitimize its actions. A person may show up wanting the best things and claiming to have the ability to provide them but the truth will find them out. Bhutto had had two shots at giving Pakistan what it wanted but couldn't get the job done. That is one more shot than most of us ever get. Could she have gotten them lined out? Probably not, but some son of a bitch robbed the glimmer of hope that a whole mess of folks were praying to see and he did it at the tip of a sword. That doesn't work for me. It is my hope that Musharraf gets beat and takes the hint. He probably won't, he seems to have crossed the Rubicon on that issue. Freedom from fear is something folks deserve to have. As an American, I believe that one king dying of natural causes is one too many, sic semper tyrannus.
|
3 Comments
|
|
|
2008 Cubs Preview
Bruce Paine, first, thanks for taking up my offer to write about Benazir. Good backstory as to how Musharraf got in charge; I hadn't ever heard that part.
There's an episode of "Red Dwarf" about them going back in time and stopping JFK's assassination...so his lustful, mafia-loving ways cause him to get impeached in 1965. When JFK, who they meet, finds out his choices (die now and be forever loved, or be disgraced), he climbs behind the grassy knoll and executes himself. I know it doesn't make sense, but it did if you saw it.
Anyway, that's the weird part for me; why did Benazir come back? She at least married a corrupt husband, if she wasn't directly corrupt herself.(The press here was a little too fond of her, quite honestly; just because she was trained here, was female, and looks like us a bit shouldn't bias coverage). I have to admit, I respect her for that. She may have been a paper candidate (good on paper, but bad at actual governance), but she at least seemed to believe in her country.
As for Pervez's involvement in the assassination--I don't think it was an act of comisssion, but it definitely could be an act of omission. Who knows?
I totally get the JFK thing.
I do think that a lot of Bhutto's popularity stemmed from the fact that she was attractive and eloquent, but more importantly the notion that she was somehow less "oriental" or less "eastern" in her appearance and communication. The amalgamation gave her qualities that other governments, particularly western governments, could hitch themselves to.
i think she came back because the stage was set. The people were properly disgruntled (motivated) and her popularity was never higher. She understood the dangers, but ignored them because the opportunity to regain power was too great to resist. I can't say if it was because she desired more personal wealth, more status, or from a legit desire to help, but I believe she went back because she thought Pakistan was ripe. She thought that the military would be mores restrained with western pressure and the US military next door. She thought Musharraf would be more willing to move aside with those pressure and the people at his throat. I believe she underestimated his resolve to maintain his hold.
Oh, and I was talking to the editor of the newspaper I used to work for about the topic and he mentioned something really close to what you said about her and the press. He said she, "is the Middle East's version of Jackie" and he was right. He said in early October, right before she returned, just about 1 of 4 AP stories coming across the wire were about Bhutto, and the ones originating out of the US used pictures from her first term as Prime Minister (late 80's) when she was in her mid 30's instead of current stuff. I have no doubt that it was because, at 35 or so, she was a really attractive gal. She had that quality some broads get when they are old enough to clearly be a "woman" and they wear their age with grace and dignity but are still attractive enough to be a sexual object. Unfortunately, I know from experience, that that is the exact sort of thing that goes through an editors mind when they are putting together their media.