Whatever Benazir Bhutto may or may not have achieved during her lifetime, her murder on the streets of Rawalpindi has set in motion a process that hopefully ends with the exit of General Pervez Musharraf and a dilution of the military’s grip on the country’s politics.
   Musharraf’s cronies claim he has been unfairly vilified and that he is innocent of playing any role in Benazir’s death. They say that normality is returning to Pakistan’s streets and elections will go ahead as scheduled.
   Pakistan, however, is tense, divided, and volatile. Much depends upon whether the new army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, heeds the national mood and summons up the courage to ask Musharraf to leave. If historical precedents are anything to go by, a similar slump in public confidence led to the enforced resignations of General Ayub Khan in 1969 and General Yahya Khan in 1971.
   Long before Musharraf sacked the Chief Justice, Benazir was described as the real thorn in Musharraf’s side. The likely return to power of this charismatic, grassroots politician threatened his political survival.
   There is no hard evidence to prove that Musharraf personally authorised and orchestrated Benazir’s murder, but he is at the very least culpable of gross negligence. As the man in charge of governing Pakistan, pending the outcome of January’s elections, it was his duty to provide adequate security for a former prime minister hotly tipped to return to power.
   Yet government-provided security for Benazir was woefully inadequate. Repeated requests by her assistants for proper police escorts and jamming devices to stop explosives were ignored by the authorities. Benazir herself was convinced that key supporters of the military regime – and she identified them by name – were determined to liquidate her. In a recent email sent to one of her representatives in Washington, she wrote how if she was harmed in Pakistan, ‘I wld (would) hold Musharaf (sic) responsible,’ adding, ‘I have been made to feel insecure by his minions.’
   For the outside world there may be no visible alternative to Musharraf as he tries to face down the insistent clamour from his domestic critics to take the honourable way out by stepping down. Given his temperament — not all that different from other military dictators — he is likely to cling on to power until he is pushed out. As he considers his options, Musharraf would do well to ponder the letter that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote to his daughter before he was executed in 1979 on the orders of an earlier military tyrant, General Zia Ul Haq.
   Tin pot dictators have ravaged Asia, Latin America and Africa.... They are the worst tyrants of the post colonial period’, Bhutto senior wrote. ‘They have destroyed time honoured institutions and treated their people like animals. They have caused internal divisions and external confusions. The dictator is the one animal who needs to be caged. He betrays his profession and his constitution. He betrays the people and destroys human values. He destroys culture. He binds the youth and makes the structure collapse. He rules by fluke and freak. He is the upstart who is devoid of ideals and ideology. Not a single one of them has made a moment’s contribution to history.’

top