This situation is so common I'm at a loss as to how to reply. In the absence of a free press, and especially given the nature of poverty (no access to information), how do you think the citizenry could possibly inform itself? And this is, of course, to give too much credit to a free press --after all, ours is presenting Bhutto as a martyred force for good when she was really just a crook and a narcissist.
Didn't every living American president attend Nixon's funeral and eulogize him for his alleged great qualities? I'm sorry to be cynical, but the facts on the ground demand it. We wanted Bhutto to share power with Musharraf because neither would rock our boat and both care(d) only for themselves.
Bhutto could be a crook and a narcissist, but die as a martyr. I don't think the writers, lawyers and judges who were silenced and imprisoned by Mushareff do not have access to a newspaper, tv or the internet. The citizenry isn't informed? That's why they are marching for Bhutto?
Perhaps the fact that people are living in fear of fundamentalists and under a Mushareff ordered police state, means that they are less worried about Bhutto's history of corruption, and more concerned with getting a democratic, secular govt that will restore civil rights, freedoms.
Again, Bhutto is not the universally loved figure the American press would have you believe. Nawaz Sharif, an old nemesis, was leading in the polls last week.
If Aitzaz Ahsan or Imran Khan -both in prison now for opposing Musharraf's dissolution of the Supreme Court (something Bhutto did only after two days -and after first blaming the Chief Justice for being too provocative!!)- could run for PM, who knows what would happen? Imran Khan could win simply because he was such an amazing cricket player!
Bottom line, Bhutto was not a democrat. During her tenures as PM she concentrated all power in herself, killed thousands of innocent civilians, stole more money than any PM before her (sending most of it to Dubai) and declared herself "chairperson for life" of the PPP. NOT a democrat.
Not even getting into her father (Or how he died) and her family background. I have to say she either had a great love of her country or she was crazy to go back there, when she must have surely known people would be trying to kill her any chance they had.
In any case. Assassination is NAGL.
Like her or dislike her. It's not helping things in the region at all.
This situation is so common I'm at a loss as to how to reply. In the absence of a free press, and especially given the nature of poverty (no access to information), how do you think the citizenry could possibly inform itself? And this is, of course, to give too much credit to a free press --after all, ours is presenting Bhutto as a martyred force for good when she was really just a crook and a narcissist.
Didn't every living American president attend Nixon's funeral and eulogize him for his alleged great qualities? I'm sorry to be cynical, but the facts on the ground demand it. We wanted Bhutto to share power with Musharraf because neither would rock our boat and both care(d) only for themselves.
Bhutto could be a crook and a narcissist, but die as a martyr. I don't think the writers, lawyers and judges who were silenced and imprisoned by Mushareff do not have access to a newspaper, tv or the internet. The citizenry isn't informed? That's why they are marching for Bhutto?
Perhaps the fact that people are living in fear of fundamentalists and under a Mushareff ordered police state, means that they are less worried about Bhutto's history of corruption, and more concerned with getting a democratic, secular govt that will restore civil rights, freedoms.
Again, Bhutto is not the well-loved figure the American press would have you believe. Nawaz Sharif, an old nemesis, was leading in the polls last week.
If Aitzaz Ahsan or Imran Khan -both in prison now for opposing Musharraf's dissolution of the Supreme Court (something Bhutto did only after two days -and after first blaming the Chief Justice for being too provocative!!)- could run for PM, who knows what would happen? Imran Khan could win simply because he was such an amazing cricket player!
Sharif was a political opponent, but they were more on the same page, then Musharraf. Also, Bhutto's party, to my knowledge, is the only secular democratic party.
Nobody disputes that Bhutto had a checkered past, but i don't get what your point is here. The people's best political choice was in Bhutto's party, correct? So how is she not a martyr for getting out their message, voicing dissent to Musharref's police state, and risking her life for her party?
This situation is so common I'm at a loss as to how to reply. In the absence of a free press, and especially given the nature of poverty (no access to information), how do you think the citizenry could possibly inform itself? And this is, of course, to give too much credit to a free press --after all, ours is presenting Bhutto as a martyred force for good when she was really just a crook and a narcissist.
Didn't every living American president attend Nixon's funeral and eulogize him for his alleged great qualities? I'm sorry to be cynical, but the facts on the ground demand it. We wanted Bhutto to share power with Musharraf because neither would rock our boat and both care(d) only for themselves.
Bhutto could be a crook and a narcissist, but die as a martyr. I don't think the writers, lawyers and judges who were silenced and imprisoned by Mushareff do not have access to a newspaper, tv or the internet. The citizenry isn't informed? That's why they are marching for Bhutto?
Perhaps the fact that people are living in fear of fundamentalists and under a Mushareff ordered police state, means that they are less worried about Bhutto's history of corruption, and more concerned with getting a democratic, secular govt that will restore civil rights, freedoms.
Again, Bhutto is not the well-loved figure the American press would have you believe. Nawaz Sharif, an old nemesis, was leading in the polls last week.
If Aitzaz Ahsan or Imran Khan -both in prison now for opposing Musharraf's dissolution of the Supreme Court (something Bhutto did only after two days -and after first blaming the Chief Justice for being too provocative!!)- could run for PM, who knows what would happen? Imran Khan could win simply because he was such an amazing cricket player!
Sharif was a political opponent, but they were more on the same page, then Musharraf. Also, Bhutto's party, to my knowledge, is the only secular democratic party.
Nobody disputes that Bhutto had a checkered past, but i don't get what your point is here. The people's best political choice was in Bhutto's party, correct? So how is she not a martyr for getting out their message, voicing dissent to Musharref's police state, and risking her life for her party?
See my lengthened reply above. Bhutto was not a democrat. Why you believe her to be one, in the face of a multitude of facts, is between you and your God, I guess... Her party was HER party. "It's my party and I'll kill if I want to, kill if I want to, kill if I want to..."
wow. Pakistan related threads make it to page three.
Bhuttos return was kind of suicidal and she was certainly not the saviour of the country. Her assassination is a tragic event, but it doesn??t mean chaos. The military ruled, rules and will rule in Pakistan. However, I feel really bad about the recent developments, I met a lot of interesting people there this summer and what I hear from them these days is quite disappointing. They want a quiet and peaceful life, but the weirdos cause trouble, the military doesn??t want to give up power and the US foreign policy towards Pakistan is
I won??t give up hope. Pakistan is a great place with great people (and has raers for days btw).
Bush did not want her in power, he has always been for Musharif.
Why do you want Musharif in power?
About 2 weeks ago I read the Bhutto entry in wikipedia. I do not recall seeing anything about her killing opponents. Nor do I recall her rewriting the constitution ala Musharif.
She was democratically elected twice.
She stole money according the French and Swiss (or is it Switerland governments). According to them she could have lived the life of a billionair in exile. Instead she chose to return home and fight for democracy.
Her assassination is a tragic event, but it doesn??t mean chaos. The military ruled, rules and will rule in Pakistan.
Yes, the country will be headed by some sort of government, but rioting in the streets, police shooting into crowds, 20 deaths and postponed elections sounds a little chaotic to me.
Yes, the country will be headed by some sort of government, but rioting in the streets, police shooting into crowds, 20 deaths and postponed elections sounds a little chaotic to me.
not by pakistani standards. nothing but turmoil out there. assassinations, coups, secessions and chaos.jesus christ.
been reading some less than favorable things about bhutto over the last few days. still, balanced by equally favorable qualities. no way for anyone to go out, though. and the lady had a lot of courage to go back.
I'm curious - does this mean we are supposed to assume her millions of supporters within Pakistan and abroad are completely misguided or have been hoodwinked? I don't dispute what you are saying, but I don't think she can be so easily dismissed as having been completely without purpose or merit in the representation of her people.
It's worth pointing out that one could substitute our current American president in here with this defense. It's dangerous to conflate populism into righteousness, especially with someone as divisive as Bhutto. I think it's terrible she got assassinated but I'm thinking more about the 20 people blown up as well yesterday, not to mention the 100+ massacred when they tried to kill her upon her return. I'm not blaming Bhutto for that but that larger tragedy is worth pointing out, especially as the Western press seems hell bent on beatifying her as a martyr.
If you think that, then you took the media's portrayal of her as the face of Pakistani democracy hook, line, and sinker. You should read about what laws were passed to allow her to come back.
If you think that, then you took the media's portrayal of her as the face of Pakistani democracy hook, line, and sinker. You should read about what laws were passed to allow her to come back.
I think the point here is that Bhutto knew she was marked for assassination and came back anyway.
Hey I have a novel idea. Lets actually blame the crazy islamists that go around blowing people up and cutting their heads off for all the deaths caused by people getting blown up and their heads cut off?
Hey I have a novel idea. Lets actually blame the crazy islamists that go around blowing people up and cutting their heads off for all the deaths caused by people getting blown up and their heads cut off?
Oh, Saba, you had your best moment with the Tatiana quip. Why ruin all that?
I'm sorry that you were completely had by this professional con-artist. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Please show me the part where I sang her praises.
I am not cutting on monster-m's information or knowledge, but a few posts on SStrut do not cover the depth of this situation. It's one day after her death, do you honestly believe we know all there is to know about this?
Hey I have a novel idea. Lets actually blame the crazy islamists that go around blowing people up and cutting their heads off for all the deaths caused by people getting blown up and their heads cut off?
Oh, Saba, you had your best moment with the Tatiana quip. Why ruin all that?
You're right, its much more politically expedient to somehow blame American foreign policy. And, of course there's the added bonus that if you criticize the American government they wont send somebody out to saw your head off.
I'm sorry that you were completely had by this professional con-artist. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Please show me the part where I sang her praises.
I am not cutting on monster-m's information or knowledge, but a few posts on SStrut do not cover the depth of this situation. It's one day after her death, do you honestly believe we know all there is to know about this?
Let's be sincere. While you didn't sing her praises, you certainly were reluctant to believe the naysayers at first. Your "...maybe she would have been good this time..." illustrates that.
The depth of the situation? What depth? She's been around for a few decades with a public record that goes back as far. There's nothing left in the sand concerning the past or what led up to this. Who killed her is the only mystery to me.
If you think that, then you took the media's portrayal of her as the face of Pakistani democracy hook, line, and sinker. You should read about what laws were passed to allow her to come back.
I think the point here is that Bhutto knew she was marked for assassination and came back anyway.
I'm sorry that you were completely had by this professional con-artist. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Please show me the part where I sang her praises.
I am not cutting on monster-m's information or knowledge, but a few posts on SStrut do not cover the depth of this situation. It's one day after her death, do you honestly believe we know all there is to know about this?
Let's be sincere. While you didn't sing her praises, you certainly were reluctant to believe the naysayers at first. Your "...maybe she would have been good this time..." illustrates that.
The depth of the situation? What depth? She's been around for a few decades with a public record that goes back as far. There's nothing left in the sand concerning the past or what led up to this. Who killed her is the only mystery to me.
Your mind-reading powers are very impressive. I was "reluctant to believe her nay-sayers at first"? Do you think I heard about Bhutto for the first time on SStrut? I still stand by what I said - the woman deserved to go through elections, and if she won, be given a chance to prove herself as opposed to getting shot down in the street. If according to you that means I'm being fooled and calls for me to feel ashamed, then so be it. Unfortunately, this is getting into territory that has nothing to do with the thread, so I'm going to stop.
Seemed like a courageous move to return to Pakistan and stand for a (possibly in name only) moderate governmental option. There are certainly few virgins in politics and in a country like Pakistan... ruling with an iron fist seems to be the only way to rule at all. Calling her popularity a consequence of popular misinformation and simplicity of thought reeks of condescension, particularly considering our current administration. Of course, there are folks on here who say most Americans are stupid and misinformed.
I am sorry that I started this thread, as it seems most people's sentiment is "good riddance". I don't personally feel that way...
the woman deserved to go through elections, and if she won, be given a chance to prove herself as opposed to getting shot down in the street.
The only reason she had a chance to return was because she co-authored the National Reconciliation Ordinance with Musharraf, which was a document that breathed new political life into both of them.
While monstermolasses certainly SEEMS reputable, I generally prefer to get my news from slightly more reputable sources (and yes, that would include wikipedia).
Anyone got a link to some decent, balanced reporting about her life? I want to know the REAL story, and please no chemtrail websites...
What's the real story is a loaded question! Tariq Ali who was mentioned earlier, is a critic of hers and he has a piece in today's Guardian which might be a decent place to start.
__________________________________
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto heaps despair upon Pakistan. Now her party must be democratically rebuilt
Tariq Ali Friday December 28, 2007 The Guardian
Even those of us sharply critical of Benazir Bhutto's behaviour and policies - both while she was in office and more recently - are stunned and angered by her death. Indignation and fear stalk the country once again.
An odd coexistence of military despotism and anarchy created the conditions leading to her assassination in Rawalpindi yesterday. In the past, military rule was designed to preserve order - and did so for a few years. No longer. Today it creates disorder and promotes lawlessness. How else can one explain the sacking of the chief justice and eight other judges of the country's supreme court for attempting to hold the government's intelligence agencies and the police accountable to courts of law? Their replacements lack the backbone to do anything, let alone conduct a proper inquest into the misdeeds of the agencies to uncover the truth behind the carefully organised killing of a major political leader.
How can Pakistan today be anything but a conflagration of despair? It is assumed that the killers were jihadi fanatics. This may well be true, but were they acting on their own?
Benazir, according to those close to her, had been tempted to boycott the fake elections, but she lacked the political courage to defy Washington. She had plenty of physical courage, and refused to be cowed by threats from local opponents. She had been addressing an election rally in Liaquat Bagh. This is a popular space named after the country's first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was killed by an assassin in 1953. The killer, Said Akbar, was immediately shot dead on the orders of a police officer involved in the plot. Not far from here, there once stood a colonial structure where nationalists were imprisoned. This was Rawalpindi jail. It was here that Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was hanged in April 1979. The military tyrant responsible for his judicial murder made sure the site of the tragedy was destroyed as well.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's death poisoned relations between his Pakistan People's party and the army. Party activists, particularly in the province of Sind, were brutally tortured, humiliated and, sometimes, disappeared or killed.
Pakistan's turbulent history, a result of continuous military rule and unpopular global alliances, confronts the ruling elite now with serious choices. They appear to have no positive aims. The overwhelming majority of the country disapproves of the government's foreign policy. They are angered by its lack of a serious domestic policy except for further enriching a callous and greedy elite that includes a swollen, parasitic military. Now they watch helplessly as politicians are shot dead in front of them.
Benazir had survived the bomb blast yesterday but was felled by bullets fired at her car. The assassins, mindful of their failure in Karachi a month ago, had taken out a double insurance this time. They wanted her dead. It is impossible for even a rigged election to take place now. It will have to be postponed, and the military high command is no doubt contemplating another dose of army rule if the situation gets worse, which could easily happen.
What has happened is a multilayered tragedy. It's a tragedy for a country on a road to more disasters. Torrents and foaming cataracts lie ahead. And it is a personal tragedy. The house of Bhutto has lost another member. Father, two sons and now a daughter have all died unnatural deaths.
I first met Benazir at her father's house in Karachi when she was a fun-loving teenager, and later at Oxford. She was not a natural politician and had always wanted to be a diplomat, but history and personal tragedy pushed in the other direction. Her father's death transformed her. She had become a new person, determined to take on the military dictator of that time. She had moved to a tiny flat in London, where we would endlessly discuss the future of the country. She would agree that land reforms, mass education programmes, a health service and an independent foreign policy were positive constructive aims and crucial if the country was to be saved from the vultures in and out of uniform. Her constituency was the poor, and she was proud of the fact.
She changed again after becoming prime minister. In the early days, we would argue and in response to my numerous complaints - all she would say was that the world had changed. She couldn't be on the "wrong side" of history. And so, like many others, she made her peace with Washington. It was this that finally led to the deal with Musharraf and her return home after more than a decade in exile. On a number of occasions she told me that she did not fear death. It was one of the dangers of playing politics in Pakistan.
It is difficult to imagine any good coming out of this tragedy, but there is one possibility. Pakistan desperately needs a political party that can speak for the social needs of a bulk of the people. The People's party founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was built by the activists of the only popular mass movement the country has known: students, peasants and workers who fought for three months in 1968-69 to topple the country's first military dictator. They saw it as their party, and that feeling persists in some parts of the country to this day, despite everything.
Benazir's horrific death should give her colleagues pause for reflection. To be dependent on a person or a family may be necessary at certain times, but it is a structural weakness, not a strength for a political organisation. The People's party needs to be refounded as a modern and democratic organisation, open to honest debate and discussion, defending social and human rights, uniting the many disparate groups and individuals in Pakistan desperate for any halfway decent alternative, and coming forward with concrete proposals to stabilise occupied and war-torn Afghanistan. This can and should be done. The Bhutto family should not be asked for any more sacrifices.
Comments
Again, Bhutto is not the universally loved figure the American press would have you believe. Nawaz Sharif, an old nemesis, was leading in the polls last week.
If Aitzaz Ahsan or Imran Khan -both in prison now for opposing Musharraf's dissolution of the Supreme Court (something Bhutto did only after two days -and after first blaming the Chief Justice for being too provocative!!)- could run for PM, who knows what would happen? Imran Khan could win simply because he was such an amazing cricket player!
Bottom line, Bhutto was not a democrat. During her tenures as PM she concentrated all power in herself, killed thousands of innocent civilians, stole more money than any PM before her (sending most of it to Dubai) and declared herself "chairperson for life" of the PPP. NOT a democrat.
Not even getting into her father (Or how he died) and her family background. I have to say she either had a great love of her country or she was crazy to go back there, when she must have surely known people would be trying to kill her any chance they had.
In any case. Assassination is NAGL.
Like her or dislike her. It's not helping things in the region at all.
Sharif was a political opponent, but they were more on the same page, then Musharraf. Also, Bhutto's party, to my knowledge, is the only secular democratic party.
Nobody disputes that Bhutto had a checkered past, but i don't get what your point is here. The people's best political choice was in Bhutto's party, correct? So how is she not a martyr for getting out their message, voicing dissent to Musharref's police state, and risking her life for her party?
See my lengthened reply above. Bhutto was not a democrat. Why you believe her to be one, in the face of a multitude of facts, is between you and your God, I guess... Her party was HER party. "It's my party and I'll kill if I want to, kill if I want to, kill if I want to..."
They have TV and Internet access in Mushareff's prisons??
Wow
And flavored condoms!
Bhuttos return was kind of suicidal and she was certainly not the saviour of the country. Her assassination is a tragic event, but it doesn??t mean chaos. The military ruled, rules and will rule in Pakistan.
However, I feel really bad about the recent developments, I met a lot of interesting people there this summer and what I hear from them these days is quite disappointing. They want a quiet and peaceful life, but the weirdos cause trouble, the military doesn??t want to give up power and the US foreign policy towards Pakistan is
I won??t give up hope. Pakistan is a great place with great people (and has raers for days btw).
Do you mean Bush?
Bush did not want her in power, he has always been for Musharif.
Why do you want Musharif in power?
About 2 weeks ago I read the Bhutto entry in wikipedia. I do not recall seeing anything about her killing opponents. Nor do I recall her rewriting the constitution ala Musharif.
She was democratically elected twice.
She stole money according the French and Swiss (or is it Switerland governments). According to them she could have lived the life of a billionair in exile. Instead she chose to return home and fight for democracy.
RIP
Now that's comedy!
Yes, the country will be headed by some sort of government, but rioting in the streets, police shooting into crowds, 20 deaths and postponed elections sounds a little chaotic to me.
not by pakistani standards. nothing but turmoil out there. assassinations, coups, secessions and chaos.jesus christ.
been reading some less than favorable things about bhutto over the last few days. still, balanced by equally favorable qualities. no way for anyone to go out, though. and the lady had a lot of courage to go back.
It's worth pointing out that one could substitute our current American president in here with this defense. It's dangerous to conflate populism into righteousness, especially with someone as divisive as Bhutto. I think it's terrible she got assassinated but I'm thinking more about the 20 people blown up as well yesterday, not to mention the 100+ massacred when they tried to kill her upon her return. I'm not blaming Bhutto for that but that larger tragedy is worth pointing out, especially as the Western press seems hell bent on beatifying her as a martyr.
I'm sorry that you were completely had by this professional con-artist. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
If you think that, then you took the media's portrayal of her as the face of Pakistani democracy hook, line, and sinker. You should read about what laws were passed to allow her to come back.
I think the point here is that Bhutto knew she was marked for assassination and came back anyway.
Oh, Saba, you had your best moment with the Tatiana quip. Why ruin all that?
Please show me the part where I sang her praises.
I am not cutting on monster-m's information or knowledge, but a few posts on SStrut do not cover the depth of this situation. It's one day after her death, do you honestly believe we know all there is to know about this?
You're right, its much more politically expedient to somehow blame American foreign policy. And, of course there's the added bonus that if you criticize the American government they wont send somebody out to saw your head off.
Let's be sincere. While you didn't sing her praises, you certainly were reluctant to believe the naysayers at first. Your "...maybe she would have been good this time..." illustrates that.
The depth of the situation? What depth? She's been around for a few decades with a public record that goes back as far. There's nothing left in the sand concerning the past or what led up to this. Who killed her is the only mystery to me.
Sorry, that's not courage, it's stupidity.
I prefer Elvis impersonators.
Your mind-reading powers are very impressive. I was "reluctant to believe her nay-sayers at first"? Do you think I heard about Bhutto for the first time on SStrut?
I still stand by what I said - the woman deserved to go through elections, and if she won, be given a chance to prove herself as opposed to getting shot down in the street. If according to you that means I'm being fooled and calls for me to feel ashamed, then so be it. Unfortunately, this is getting into territory that has nothing to do with the thread, so I'm going to stop.
Cool - you know all you need to know.
I am sorry that I started this thread, as it seems most people's sentiment is "good riddance". I don't personally feel that way...
The only reason she had a chance to return was because she co-authored the National Reconciliation Ordinance with Musharraf, which was a document that breathed new political life into both of them.
Anyone got a link to some decent, balanced reporting about her life? I want to know the REAL story, and please no chemtrail websites...
__________________________________
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto heaps despair upon Pakistan. Now her party must be democratically rebuilt
Tariq Ali
Friday December 28, 2007
The Guardian
Even those of us sharply critical of Benazir Bhutto's behaviour and policies - both while she was in office and more recently - are stunned and angered by her death. Indignation and fear stalk the country once again.
An odd coexistence of military despotism and anarchy created the conditions leading to her assassination in Rawalpindi yesterday. In the past, military rule was designed to preserve order - and did so for a few years. No longer. Today it creates disorder and promotes lawlessness. How else can one explain the sacking of the chief justice and eight other judges of the country's supreme court for attempting to hold the government's intelligence agencies and the police accountable to courts of law? Their replacements lack the backbone to do anything, let alone conduct a proper inquest into the misdeeds of the agencies to uncover the truth behind the carefully organised killing of a major political leader.
How can Pakistan today be anything but a conflagration of despair? It is assumed that the killers were jihadi fanatics. This may well be true, but were they acting on their own?
Benazir, according to those close to her, had been tempted to boycott the fake elections, but she lacked the political courage to defy Washington. She had plenty of physical courage, and refused to be cowed by threats from local opponents. She had been addressing an election rally in Liaquat Bagh. This is a popular space named after the country's first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was killed by an assassin in 1953. The killer, Said Akbar, was immediately shot dead on the orders of a police officer involved in the plot. Not far from here, there once stood a colonial structure where nationalists were imprisoned. This was Rawalpindi jail. It was here that Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was hanged in April 1979. The military tyrant responsible for his judicial murder made sure the site of the tragedy was destroyed as well.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's death poisoned relations between his Pakistan People's party and the army. Party activists, particularly in the province of Sind, were brutally tortured, humiliated and, sometimes, disappeared or killed.
Pakistan's turbulent history, a result of continuous military rule and unpopular global alliances, confronts the ruling elite now with serious choices. They appear to have no positive aims. The overwhelming majority of the country disapproves of the government's foreign policy. They are angered by its lack of a serious domestic policy except for further enriching a callous and greedy elite that includes a swollen, parasitic military. Now they watch helplessly as politicians are shot dead in front of them.
Benazir had survived the bomb blast yesterday but was felled by bullets fired at her car. The assassins, mindful of their failure in Karachi a month ago, had taken out a double insurance this time. They wanted her dead. It is impossible for even a rigged election to take place now. It will have to be postponed, and the military high command is no doubt contemplating another dose of army rule if the situation gets worse, which could easily happen.
What has happened is a multilayered tragedy. It's a tragedy for a country on a road to more disasters. Torrents and foaming cataracts lie ahead. And it is a personal tragedy. The house of Bhutto has lost another member. Father, two sons and now a daughter have all died unnatural deaths.
I first met Benazir at her father's house in Karachi when she was a fun-loving teenager, and later at Oxford. She was not a natural politician and had always wanted to be a diplomat, but history and personal tragedy pushed in the other direction. Her father's death transformed her. She had become a new person, determined to take on the military dictator of that time. She had moved to a tiny flat in London, where we would endlessly discuss the future of the country. She would agree that land reforms, mass education programmes, a health service and an independent foreign policy were positive constructive aims and crucial if the country was to be saved from the vultures in and out of uniform. Her constituency was the poor, and she was proud of the fact.
She changed again after becoming prime minister. In the early days, we would argue and in response to my numerous complaints - all she would say was that the world had changed. She couldn't be on the "wrong side" of history. And so, like many others, she made her peace with Washington. It was this that finally led to the deal with Musharraf and her return home after more than a decade in exile. On a number of occasions she told me that she did not fear death. It was one of the dangers of playing politics in Pakistan.
It is difficult to imagine any good coming out of this tragedy, but there is one possibility. Pakistan desperately needs a political party that can speak for the social needs of a bulk of the people. The People's party founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was built by the activists of the only popular mass movement the country has known: students, peasants and workers who fought for three months in 1968-69 to topple the country's first military dictator. They saw it as their party, and that feeling persists in some parts of the country to this day, despite everything.
Benazir's horrific death should give her colleagues pause for reflection. To be dependent on a person or a family may be necessary at certain times, but it is a structural weakness, not a strength for a political organisation. The People's party needs to be refounded as a modern and democratic organisation, open to honest debate and discussion, defending social and human rights, uniting the many disparate groups and individuals in Pakistan desperate for any halfway decent alternative, and coming forward with concrete proposals to stabilise occupied and war-torn Afghanistan. This can and should be done. The Bhutto family should not be asked for any more sacrifices.