Bhutto killing: Last best hope for Pakistan democracy assassinated?

Ms Bhutto was Pakistan's prime minister twice. The first term of office between 1988 and 1990 coincided with the latter years of UK PM Margaret Thatcher's rule.

In our Comparative Politics text book, Chip Hauss lists the Crtieria for Democracy:

"There is no single uniformly accepted set of criteria in determining whether a country is democratic. Of the five that follow, however, the first three are on every list:

• Basic Freedoms


• The rule of law


• Competitive, fair and free elections


• A strong civil society and civic culture


• Capitalism and affluence

There was no question in the eight years Benizar Bhutto -- the first woman ever elected to office (she was prime minister twice) in a Muslim country -- was exciled, her country had become less democratic than it had been.

In fact, Pakistan ranked 113 out of 167 countries in The Economist's 2007 Democracy Index.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

Pakistan ranked scored a 3.92 (the most democratic country, Sweden, was 9.88). Its highest ranking for political participation probably gave Bhutto hope. Its lowest scores came in functioning of govenment and civil liberties -- categories that she promised to rise if elected president, and the polls indicated she was on her way to victory.

By comparision with our countires of study, Pakistan ranked ahead of Nigeria (124th; 3.52; low functionig of govt), China (138th; 2.97 0.00 for electoral process and pluralism); and Iran (139th; 2.93; 0.08 for electoral process and pluralism), and below Russia (102nd; 5.02; low political participation), Mexico (53rd; 6.67; ranked as a flawed democracy) the UK (23rd; 8.08; low political participation) and the U.S. (17th; 8.22; low political participation).

http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438

But that did not keep Bhutto from going back to keep working for democracy. Her assassination is felt around the globe and can be another starting point of the challenges of democratization in a globalized world with factions. After reading the BBC link and viewing the BBC interview, consider whether Bhutto was a last best hope for democracy in Pakistan. She says in the BBC interview, "Unfortunately, Pakistan has become one of the most dangerous places in the world,'' she said.

"We have to restore the Rule of Law in the country. . .I am a threat to Dictatorship, I am a threat to Extremists, I am not a threat to any Democrat. There is a strong moderate middle that needs to be mobilized. The forces of freedom and moderation need to be strengthened in my country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7160000/newsid_7162100/7162107.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1

Consider various factors on this major event in world politics:

Can Democracy Work in Islamic Countries?

Will scheduled elections of Jan. 8 go on (Bhutto was expcted to win the Presidency)? What effect will elections have on true democracy in Pakistan (or Russia, earlier)

What should the U.S. government do about a Pakistan president who has recieived $11 billion in aid as an ally on the war on terror, but could not keep a security detail on is opposition political rival?

And, how will this tragedy effect the U.S. presidential caucus in Iowa and early primaries. (ie: will we be looking for a more experienced commander-in-chief type -- McCain, Biden...Hillary instead of a more hopeful outsider -- Obama, Huckabee.) ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7162194.stm

The L Word

Hauss explains that American students are often confussed by the word liberal. In the U.S., it refers to people who support an interventionist government (or at least promoted as weak by Fair and Balanced News Channels). Everywhere else in the world, however, it has almost the opposite connotation -- opposition to government interference in the economy or other areas where individuals can freely make decisions for themselves.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes that the Harvard-educated Bhutto was a true voice for liberalism, tolerance, and change:

"She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change.

"She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change.

"A less determined person would have backed off when her conservative Muslim enemies tried to kill her after she returned home in October. But Bhutto had crossed that bridge a long time ago. She was a person who, for all her breeding and cultivation, ran headlong at life. Her father and two brothers had died for their vision of a country where Islam and the modern world made an accommodation. Her only real fear, I think, was that she might fail in her mission.

Her assassination was, as President Bush said yesterday, a "cowardly act." It was a defining act of the politics of murder -- a phenomenon that we see from Lebanon to Iraq to Pakistan. If we forget, with the passage of time, the face of the Muslim extremism responsible for Sept. 11, 2001, here is a reminder: Bhutto's killers targeted her because she was modern, liberal and unafraid. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701479.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

In 1997, Fareed Zakaria wrote about the rise of illiberal democracies:

"It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. As the political scientist Philippe Schmitter has pointed out, "Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice." Today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western political fabric, are coming apart in the rest of the world. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not."

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html

As the events in Pakistan point out, the challenge of democracy is not getting any easier.