h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought to maybe start a thread here about what this means politically, because the Ask thread is a R.I.P. thing.

I really hope that we in the West don't rush to certain conclusions and panic from our cultural perspective. I've seen a few things in the last months about Pakistan on tv that suggests that the vast majority of people want democracy. Yes there are extremists that we tend to hear about a lot, but they are no means representative of the majority.

She obviously was a powerful symbol of her party which was very pro democracy. Her father was executed and her brother also assassinated. She was educated at Harvard and Oxford. She obviously was perceived as a huge threat to the anti democratic extremists.

What do others think about what this means politically, in Pakistan, and what reaction the West might have to it?

"I really hope that we in the West don't rush to certain conclusions and panic from our cultural perspective. "

Well my personal perspective says that supporters of the dictatorship assassinating a moderate would-be leader is a bad thing. Although that could be my pathetic materialistic Western perspective clouding the issue.

I'll go out on a limb here and say "Oh. That's not good."

It shows that there are elements who will resist democracy if it means other people than the people they want in control.

It sheds a different light on Musharafas house arrest for lawyers and politicians. not a totally benevolent one but it shows that he was over estimating the potential for trouble.

Obvioulsy violence of this kind is going to colour the outcome of elections which might be delayed now as the case of marshall law is pretty strong now.

One thing is for certain is that we need to think about in the short term is that we have to stop people willing to kill their opponents and themselves from getting their hands on pwer in nuclear states. In the longer term we have to really think about *constructive* ways of dealing with extremists and not fall back on counterproductive ones.

Yes it's clearly a very complex issue. Just been watching the BBC news on telly. They were saying that she herself and her husband in the past were accused of a lot of corruption. And the Bhutto family had become a kind of dynasty.

The UN security council are in session to consider an appropriate response, as nobody can be sure of the implications of what might happen in Pakistan, because the inevitability of an immense emotional reaction.

If execution was the direct consequence of corruption, we'd soon run out of politicians...... wait a minute, perhaps I have something there.

As far as the current government there, a uniform does not a military dictatorship make- just as losing it doesn't legitimise it.

>>Well my personal perspective says that supporters of the dictatorship assassinating a moderate would-be leader is a bad thing. Although that could be my pathetic materialistic Western perspective clouding the issue.

I'll go out on a limb here and say "Oh. That's not good."<<

What's your point Psycorp603?

That goes without saying. My *personal* perspective is that its a bad thing. Much like the assasination of any political person such as the Kennedys and Luther-King in the US in the sixties.

I didn't start this thread for people to give just a personal reaction, but to think about issues for the whole world and what this means. I'm sure the bods in the UN security council feel similarly as individuals as you and me, but that's no use in terms of taking a considered reaction to the event in a pragmatic sense.

Christ the politicos in Britain weren't expecting the hoo ha over Diana's death. Do you really think the Western countries all coming together and, just saying, 'Oh that's not good' will mean FA to the *reality* of the situation and the possible implications for the world?

Just saw an interesting discussion on C4. Tariq Ali made the point at the end that the US/West basically would prefer the continuance of a military administration at present, because of the concerns over Al Queda and their proximity and influence in Afghanistan. A democracy led by Bhuto, had she won the upcoming elections, might have been a concern. And of course there are the worries of the nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of extremists. The point was made that at present, the military government has a strong control over the nukes.

For some reason I just made a connection between C4 and cyclotrimethylene trinitramine.

I can see the practical reasons for the assassination, I just fear that in the future (2084?) some democracies will be more equal than others. I mean, the push for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is supported by it's suppression in a neighbour state? It takes the moral teeth out of so many arguments.

"Just saw an interesting discussion on C4. Tariq Ali made the point at the end that the US/West basically would prefer the continuance of a military administration at present, because of the concerns over Al Queda and their proximity and influence in Afghanistan. A democracy led by Bhuto, had she won the upcoming elections, might have been a concern. And of course there are the worries of the nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of extremists. The point was made that at present, the military government has a strong control over the nukes"

Except the reality is the opposite. The West (notably the US) *wants* democracy in Pakistan and has been pushing for it. In fact the current President has been criticised by Washington for continually backsliding on it. Additionally, Al-Quaida (who seem to have claimed responsibility for the assassination) have said they regarded Bhutto as an American asset which is why she was targetted.

Tariq Ali *wants* the West to support dictatorship because he needs them to be the black-hat-wearing Big Bad so he's invented some half-baked theory in order to avoid the ugly grey area of the Americans wanting democracy in Pakistan in order to keep it out of his pristine black-white worldview. Personally, I've long since stopped paying attention to anything he says. Channel 4 News should do the same.

I've been following the Muslim boards discussing this topic, where there are a lot of Pakistanis making comments. The most alarming comments seem to come from British Muslims who appear to be celebrating her death. Our media always portrayed her as a modern secularist who would be a force for good in Pakistan, but it appears she was deeply disliked by many in Pakistan itself. Never mind the Islamists, she had no shortage of enemies. It's reported here that she had faced corruption charges, but this is rather glossed over. In fact she faced charges of extortion, conspiracy to murder (including being implicated in the murder of her own brothers), kidnap, corruption ($750m syphoned into her own accounts) etc etc.

However, she did hold out hope of uniting the provinces of Pakistan. With her death, the separatist movements in places like Balochistan will agitate for independence again.

There is a feeling that the Americans may step in to "aid stability". Certainly the US has long sought access to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border areas and have been resisted by Musharaf.

The BBC are carrying the views of Pakistanis here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7162478.stm

More opinion - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=624&Itemid=59

It rather strengthens Musharaf's position - the Americans will have to back him now.

<>

Interesting in itself!

Vicky

So her 19 year old son has been appointed leader of the party. "Democracy is the best defence", quoth he

Yeah, like the democratic process behind his selection I suppose.

Happy Hogmanay, SWL

Here's an interesting twist.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4121

According to this article, the Bush administration in the US basically talked her into returning to Pakistan with the knowledge that she would almost certainly be killed.

I have to wonder if they were hoping she would live or counting on her death? Historicaly, the US has no problem with dictators, as long as they're "our" dictators.

The Bush administration also ignored warnings from the CIA that the Sunnis and Shi'ites might not keep the peace if the dictatorship in Iraq was removed. I think it's more likely that the Bush administration ignores warnings rather than that they concocted some plan to kill her by encouraging her to return to Pakistan. Apart from anything else, Bhutto wasn't some idiot who did things according to what George Bush suggested. She knew she was in danger if she returned and yet she did so anyway.

"I have to wonder if they were hoping she would live or counting on her death? Historicaly, the US has no problem with dictators, as long as they're "our" dictators."

I think if the USA really wanted the current dicatorship in Pakistan to continue they'd go about it rather differently than pressing for elections and the restoration of democracy in the country, don't you?

I can't believe they've shot Bhutto.

Basically, how can the Bush administration be the most incompetent in the history of western civilization and yet mastermind the death of Bhuto using reverse psychology?