On December 28, democracy was dealt a severe blow when supposed religions fanatics cut short Benazir Bhutto's life. The former prime minister, and the first female head-of-state of an Islamic nation, Ms. Bhutto had come back from self-exile to participate in the upcoming Pakistan democratic presidential elections. Her death is the center of focus, with differing accounts of how exactly she died. But regardless of whether she was felled by a bullet or shrapnel or the lever of the car's sunroof, her death may possibly signal the end of democracy in Pakistan.
Pakistan, a strategic U.S. ally on the war on terror, has come under tremendous scrutiny with recent allegations of mismanagement of billions of dollars of U.S. military aid. And with Gen. Musharraf's crackdown of dissidents by imposing martial law, the current regime has been derided by its own citizens and international organizations. The January election was promised to be the start of legitimate democracy, but now, with the death of Gen. Musharraf's main opposition candidate, the elections appear very much in doubt.
The Bush administration's ideal pursuit of democracy for all is very much flawed. However, continual support for Gen. Musharraf's military regime is even more of a mistake. Despite billions of dollars in military aid flowing into Pakistan, six years of support has done little to prevent Taliban and al Qaeda fighters from finding haven within its own borders. Islamic extremism is rising in Pakistan, buoyed by Gen. Musharraf's dictatorial ways of governing. Six years of blind support is producing exactly what the world does not need, the inflammation of fanaticism.
The U.S. and its allies must press for vigilance on the Pakistani people and government to pursue a democratic movement that'll eliminate the foundation for religious fanaticism. Military crackdown and the violation of human rights will only incur the anger of moderate Muslims and further breed militant jihadists. And as much money is being poured into Pakistan for the elimination of madrassas along the Pakistani-Afghan border, more money must flow into building economic infrastructure and convincing moderate Muslims that the U.S. and its allies are friends to the Islamic faith.
The world cannot leave Pakistan the way the U.S. left a power vacuum in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. The world has a moral responsibility for the future of the Pakistani people and the rest of the world's citizens to promote a stable democracy in order to remove fanatical Islamic sects.
support for a general?
Although the tragic nature of this entire situation cannot be denied, I found it very interesting that the few Pakistani students within my resident hall did not express any condemnation of the general. Interestingly, what these students expressed to me was rather support for the general attributing the relative peace and stability the nation of Pakistan experienced, or at least they had experienced. I wonder thus if this issue then has become a conflict between involving SES, that being the polarization line into dividing Pakistan since all of the students within this hall, as far as I know, are from the same city and high school. No one can deny that it takes enormous funds for an international student to make their way here and study for four years, and so would SES become the new fault line within this society? I don't know enough to say, but I did find these student's comments interesting.
Either way, the recent stand made by Bhutto's son shows a lot of steel on the boy's part. However, I wonder how effective he truly can be being someone who has never set foot in Pakistan and was raised under more Western influences.