THE year 2007 ended tragically with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, former premier of Pakistan and one of the most influential figures in Pakistani politics and the global arena.
The assassination, which took place during one of her election rallies, also killed more than 20 others. The impact and aftershock of the murder sent Pakistan into turmoil. Violent public protests, mainly by supporters of Benazir’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), erupted.
Although the group responsible for the crime has yet to be identified, President Pervez Musharraf was quick to point his finger at “terrorist groups” trying to sabotage his efforts towards the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
Pakistan’s past history of democracy has been awash with bloodshed and tragedy. Benazir’s father, the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was executed by the military regime that wrested power from him.
The coup leader General Zia ul-Haq was later killed in a mysterious air disaster that also claimed the lives of several American diplomats.
Following that, Benazir became the first women to lead a Muslim nation as Prime Minister, before she was deposed amid allegations of graft. Then, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was toppled by another military coup d’etat, which brought Musharraf to power.
The irony is, each of those leaders spoke about bringing peace and harmony to the country by the restoration of democracy. How far is that true? History is our best record.
Will acts of terror really lead to democracy? And will democracy really lead a country towards peace, harmony and prosperity? How can one who topples democracy, either by coup d’etat, corruption or by damaging institutions of democracy have any hope of restoring democracy? How can the same hands awash with blood claim to erase bloodshed?
Each time a legitimate leader is ousted (through the military or by force), the successor immediately discloses a plan to introduce democracy and restore public order.
This was also the case prior to the events leading to Benazir’s murder.
Musharraf, under pressure both internally and from the international arena, has embarked on the process of restoring democracy in Pakistan. His aim is clear, to legitimise his self-proclaimed rule.
The process towards democracy however, is rather confusing.
First came the declaration of emergency law, then refusing entry to Nawaz Sharif (during his first attempt to return home from exile).
Benazir’s return from Britain was greeted with a violent attack, which led to widespread demonstrations and mob attacks throughout Pakistan, aimed at military rule.
At the climax of those events, Musharraf announced that an election would be conducted in January this year. (It has since been put off to February following Benazir’s assassination.)
Will these series of events really lead Pakistan towards democracy? And we have not mentioned the list of attacks by the so-called “terrorist groups” trying to derail the democracy process. Is Pakistan on the right track towards peace and stability?
The aims and objectives of a small group of people (namely, the military, political leaders and extremists) are to cling to power through their brand of “restoring democracy”.
This has brought more harm than benefit to the nation. The unfortunate people of Pakistan have to bear the cost of corrupt leadership, and endure unjust acts of extremism, all in the name of democracy.
What a tragic way to begin the new year.