The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27 is more than just a tragedy. It is a disaster infused with the kind of political threats that could ignite a religious and secular war with serious implications for Pakistanis and Westerners alike.
While campaigning as a representative for the Pakistani People's Party in preparation for the planned January election, Bhutto was shot twice, once in the neck and once in the chest. Although the exact cause of her death is still under investigation, it is alleged that after the gun shots were fired, Bhutto was sent to her grave by the blast of a suicide bomber.
The Dec. 27 shooting and bombing constitute the second assassination attempt on Bhutto's life in the last two months -- the most notable event in what has become a violent wave of attacks against "unfavorable" government officials who adopt moderate, Western-sympathizing political values.
The public response to Bhutto's assassination turned to grief at the loss of a charismatic, humane political figure; grief turned immediately to looting, arson and violence. And in the West, where the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom had collaborated to sponsor the return of the democratic Bhutto, recriminations began in earnest over who was to blame for allowing or even encouraging her return without adequate security protection.
Born into a Pakistani family that supported political fairness and freedom of speech, Bhutto was exposed to Western ideals, which she paid for with her life. But it was what she learned through experiences such as being president of a prestigious debating society that solidified her faith in democratic ideals.
During her two terms as Pakistani Prime Minister (from 1988-1990 and 1993-1996 respectively), Bhutto put her Western political beliefs to the test, demonstrating a remarkable political sense of reason and a much-needed enlightened secularism. Emerging as a distinguished, strong, globally respected leader, Bhutto painted a picture of Pakistan that appeared bright and hopeful.
The tragedy, therefore, does not only signify the death of a great woman and a great political leader. Her death may also symbolize the end of a period of hope for a politically just and peaceful Pakistan. As the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on the day of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, "this is a sad day for democracy." Former Pakistani Prime Minister and political opponent Nawaz Sharif declared it "the saddest day" in the nation's history and threatened to boycott the upcoming January elections. The importance of Bhutto's death in and beyond Pakistan must not be underestimated.
Bhutto presented herself as the only viable opposition to the military-backed reign of current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (a man who has defied the democratic ideals he claims to espouse by constantly postponing parliamentary elections and refusing to dismantle his military dictatorship). Her position was threatening to many who disliked her emphasis on Western values, however.
Was the assassination of Benazir Bhutto an example of direct, state-sponsored terrorism? Or was Bhutto's death the result of deliberate negligence on the part of the ruling elite who refused to provide her with the security protection she so desperately needed? And is there any point in making a distinction?
In the Western world, it is understood that the "risk" of speaking openly is legally protected by the internal security forces. Bhutto's death proves that Pakistan does not protect the same rights. Unfortunately, the country has yet to resolve the struggle between secularism and militant, extreme Islamism, despite its faade of increasing modernization and democratization. The death of Benazir Bhutto reminds us once again of the depth of the gulf that separates our world from theirs. What we must hope for now is that someone will step up and assume the courageous role that Benazir Bhutto once, and all too briefly, filled.
But the Western world cannot simply stand back and look smugly down upon Pakistan from a distance. It is not in our interests, let alone the interests of the Pakistani people, to have a nuclear power run by a militaristic despot collapse into civil war. In acquiring the rights of a nuclear power, Pakistan now has to take on the responsibilities that go with it.
