Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

The Son Also Rises

Filed under: Pakistan

benazirfamilieif3.png

Slate has a great roundup of blogger viewpoints on the announcement that Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (that's him above on the right, in happier times) will take a figurehead position at the top of his heroic mother's Pakistan Peoples Party. Zardari boldly declared to the nation:

"Democracy is the best revenge."

It's the remark of a statesman, though he has every legitimate reason in the world to seek revenge of a different kind. Who among us can say that we would forgo such vengeance if we stood in his shoes?

Some bloggers complain that the PPP is keeping things in the family. It's great that they should alert Pakistan to the problems of nepotism, but America wasn't ruined by John Quincy Adams, now was it? Hillary Clinton is being given serious consideration to follow her husband, isn't she? America's "democrats" seem to be fine with that. Many criticize George Bush on many grounds, but I've never heard anybody attribute any alleged policy failing of his to the fact that he is the son of a former president. As one blogger writes: "There is no democracy outside of the party, no reason for it to exist within." Is it really Bhutto's fault that her country continues down the path of authoritarianism? What more can we ask of her in seeking to prevent that than to lay down her life? How many of us can say we've even risked such a possibility on behalf of our countries?

Moreover, how can the PPP not make a firm statement to those who murdered its leader that they will not succeed in banishing Bhutto's spirit or pro-American ideals from their party? What so many of Benazir's critics always fail to answer is a simple question: If not her, then who? If not her son, who? Attack her if you like, she is a giant historical figure far beyond your slings and arrows, but where is your support for what you believe is a "better" option for Pakistan. Always, silence is the answer.

Some narrow-minded fools persist on accusing Bhutto of "corruption." She wasn't perfect, that's for sure. Neither were slave owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Nor was court-packing, term-grabbing, gulag-building Frankenstein Roosevelt (yet for some reason we still have his ghoulish image on our dime). And not one of them laid down their life for their country. Another blogger writes: "My advise to him - not that he asked - is that he should listen always to his heart and mind, well before he listens to anyone around him. Let him follow that which was best in Benazir Bhutto and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and avoid their follies."

She stood with America, with our values, at a time and in a place where they are most imperiled, within a stone's throw of one of our most mortal enemies -- who may well have been responsible for her murder. If we can't manage to support someone like that, while of course recognizing their faults and working for improvement, then we deserve atrocities like 9/11.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


Cody says:

Wow. You seem to not be able to view Bhutto in any other way other than through rose tinted glasses. The woman was flawed. It's a fact. And her presidency would not have changed Pakistan's nor our predicament one iota.


Ruth says:

I think your take is too naive. You do not seem to take into consideration the feudal/tribal set-up of Pakistan (show me the US parallels?!).


La Russophobe says:

RUTH:

The fact that the political environment in Pakistan presents obstacles that the U.S. doesn't and never did is only MORE reason for us to expect less-than-perfect leaders to emerge from its cauldron, not less. Beggars can't be choosers. When we see any leader come forward with a basic understanding of democratic values and a willingness to speak out in their defense, we ought to support that person. If we wait for perfection that will never come, we destroy our chances of making Pakistan a civilized state.


Jeha says:

May she rest in peace.

The fact remains, however, that her past record leaves a lot to be desired; she was no great champion of democracy and women's rights.


La Russophobe says:

JEHA: The fact remains that you can't name a greater champion of democracy or women's rights in the Muslim world -- granted, a sad commentary on the state of affairs in that part of the globe.

The sad fact is that, though you may have other motives, the foes of democracy and women's rights are saying exactly what you are about her in an effort to utterly destroy both. Don't get caught in their trap.


Ruth says:

Kim,

I do not suggest waiting for perfect leaders. However, a less enthusiastic view seems to be called for.

Bhutto may have had a basic understanding of democracy and a willingness to out in its defense. However, you will agree that the same could be said at a time about Putin. The question should be whether there is any indication that the flirt with democracy is more than just another means to get to or remain in power.

It is quite easy to name greater champions of democracy and women's rights in the Muslim world, unless you wish to specify that they must be female former prime ministers. Why should that be any condition though?

How about Nawal El Saadawi?


Jeha says:

La Russophobe:

I Understand your concerns, but this does not obviate the fact that we need to be demanding of democracy champions, and maybe focus on lesser known figures who are really trying to make a difference.

An example is the coverage of Iran's Ahmadinejad and his excesses. Rather than inviting him to speak at Columbia, why not invite him to debate someone like Mrs. Ebadi? Those who believe in democracy and freedom need to focus more on actions with long term "staying power" than on personalities. Only rarely do the two coincide, as with the founder of the Gramin Bank, and his social impact on empowering women and the poor.

Distraction with personalities hides the real fact that large portions of Pakistan's society remain socially and economically stuck in the Dark Ages. As long as this state of affairs endures, no ballot box can change anything, and the country will remain a dictatorship for the foreseeable future. The only way to understand and help is to focus on real persons who try to make a difference.

In the Pakistani context, those persons can only be unglamorous, doing only incremental deeds with limited immediate effect, but whose cumulative impact may be far higher.



Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/570