Pronouncing Democracy

It would be hyperbolic to say that, when Benazir Bhutto was pronounced dead at that Rawalpindi hospital at 8:16 (EDT) yesterday morning, democracy in Pakistan was similarly pronounced. However, it was put on life support and is currently in stasis. If George W. Bush is to make any New Year’s resolutions, it ought to be to not attempt to install democracy anywhere in the world for the next 13 months.

The Bhutto tragedy, if nothing else, is focusing the world’s attention back to terrorism and its still-potent ability to change world history. It doesn’t even matter, for now, whether terrorists or other extremists are responsible for this cowardly, shocking act of murderous misogynism. We are at least for the moment refocused on terrorism as we ought to be.

Yet, Ms. Bhutto’s violent murder makes some of us also focus on the Bush administration’s infallible instinct for disaster in both combating terrorism and in trying to install democracies in some of the most violent and unstable nations on earth.

Professor Juan Cole reminded us yesterday that the Bush administration was more proactive in Ms. Bhutto’s attempted comeback than we may remember. As Prof. Cole summed it up,

US Secretary of State Condi Rice tried to fix Musharraf's subsequent dwindling legitimacy by arranging for Benazir to return to Pakistan to run for prime minister, with Musharraf agreeing to resign from the military and become a civilian president. When the supreme court seemed likely to interfere with his remaining president, he arrested the justices, dismissed them, and replaced them with more pliant jurists. This move threatened to scuttle the Rice Plan, since Benazir now faced the prospect of serving a dictator as his grand vizier, rather than being a proper prime minister.

It can’t be said that the former prime minister’s arm was twisted by George W. Bush or Condoleezza Rice. Ms. Bhutto was 54 years-old, a big girl old enough to make up her own mind and was very well aware of the dangers that faced her everywhere she went. Her love and concern for Pakistan and its fate, it must be noted, was her biggest impetus for flying back to Karachi those ten short weeks ago.

Yet, with the seal of approval from the Bush administration and Rice State Dept., is it unreasonable to speculate that American backing played a significant role in her decision to end her exile?

However, there’s one troubling aspect to this Bush/Rice backing of Bhutto: One would assume that if our government truly had Ms. Bhutto’s best interests at heart, wouldn’t they have been more proactive regarding her security? The Bush administration is infamous for this: Making proposals ranging from bold to idiotic then adopting a hands-off attitude. Since Musharraf’s Pakistan is such a huge ally in the war on terror, would Pakistan’s president squawk too much if we’d sent along a few troops to safeguard Ms. Bhutto’s life? But doing so would’ve tipped our hand at how deeply distrustful the Bush administration has to be of Musharraf’s government.

Or would it have looked too imperialistic? Heaven forbid we should ever give off that impression. Even if the State Dept. had handed Blackwater USA another multimillion dollar contract to guard Bhutto (and, you have to give the Devil his due- Blackwater’s main claim to fame is that not one charge of theirs has ever been killed under their protection), it still would’ve been preferable to yesterday’s outcome.

The attempted re-installation of Benazir Bhutto, I’m confident, will remain as the Bush administration’s and its State Department’s best and most sincere effort to implement a peaceful working democracy in a foreign land (Ironically making the diplomacy-loving Barack Obama’s calls for pre-emptive air strikes into Pakistan seem almost cartoonishly hawkish and neocon-sounding by conspicuous relief).

Whether through intelligent design, serendipity or sheer dumb luck, the Bush administration would’ve been hard-pressed to find a more fertile and willing environment in which to midwife a democracy:

We’re seeing in Pakistan, as we have historically in Latin America and elsewhere, a level of political passion and involvement that easily puts our own on its best day to shame. Consider that when Benazir Bhutto arrived in Karachi on October 18th, an estimated three million people showed up to greet her.

Since we’re talking about a nation of 165,000,000, or just over half our population, that would be like 5-6 million people thronging Andrews AFB to cheer Al Gore. Which has to make you wonder which people are more deserving of democracy: They or we? The bombs and the hundreds killed beginning with Bhutto’s Karachi arrival only made their passion, and Bhutto’s, even more determined.

The administration’s understandable concern for the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and for the long-term stability of neighboring Afghanistan and India notwithstanding, the Bush/Rice courting of a popular, charismatic and experienced world leader such as Ms. Bhutto was a dramatic and welcome departure from the mindless, brutal regime change that we’ve inflicted on Iraq with no follow-through.

Unfortunately, with its infallible and unerring magnetism to failure and disaster, even this administration’s seemingly transparent and honest effort at stabilizing Pakistan through peace, democracy and perhaps even gradual regime change had figuratively blown up in George W. Bush’s face.

And, literally, in Benazir Bhutto’s.