From the Los Angeles Times
Aunt Benazir's false promises
Bhutto's return bodes poorly for Pakistan --
and for democracy there.
By Fatima Bhutto
November 14, 2007
KARACHI —
We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed
for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers
have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief
justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down
all private news channels -- has been drafted.
Perhaps
the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the
democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister,
Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with
Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without
her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the
situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step
down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but
still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.
The reality,
however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from
emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic
parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law.
Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what
does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at
her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were
comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her
garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not
reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very
suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds
of other political activists under real arrest, in real
jails.)
Ms.
Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with
the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to
take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the
growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is
just a guise for dictatorship.
It is widely believed that Ms.
Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She
and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%,"
have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's
treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss
courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and
Spain are ongoing.
It was particularly unappealing of Ms.
Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many
corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating
the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do
so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the
streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the
Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's
too late.
Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that
her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of
activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from
1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When
her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto -- my father -- returned to Pakistan in
1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia's
military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even
though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to
drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the
remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with
confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto's repeated
promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain
credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran
Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government --
making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.
And
I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member
of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was
killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police
assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100
policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the
roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were
shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were
left to bleed on the streets.
My father was Benazir's younger
brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been
adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death
under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could
not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political
authority.
I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms.
Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists
are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that
the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have
been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized
power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for
democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon
agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.
By
supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be
brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be
accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in
my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our
progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are
certain of this.
Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer.
She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in
Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times