Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

December 31, 2007

Benazir Bhutto’s Killers Prove They’re Scared of Democracy

The now-martyred Benazir Bhutto was far from perfect in her two stints a Pakistan’s prime minister, and she would probably have been far from perfect had she served a third.

But she didn’t need to be perfect. Bhutto was the only person who represented the serious hope of a democratic Pakistan, and that’s why those most threatened by democracy murdered her.

Bhutto had the political capital to move Pakistan toward democracy, even if the first step had only been a power-sharing arrangement with the decidedly undemocratic President Pervez Musharraf. How effectively she would have used the power of the prime ministership in the service of democracy, we will never know. But she could have.

And whether she was killed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, rogue forces in the Pakistani armed forces or some combination of the above, we see again how threatening democracy is to radical Islamists. We also see, predictably but nonetheless maddeningly, how backwards the American left has it. The early storyline from them is that this proves how wrong it has been for the Bush administration to prop up Musharraf, and how wrong it has been to try to fight terrorism by promoting democracy.

This prompts two simple questions: 

1. If Musharraf, for all his flaws, were not now in control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, who would be?
2. If democracy is not a powerful force in the battle against terrorism, why are terrorists trying so hard to prevent it from happening everywhere they can?

Pakistan is the big prize for radical Islamists, and the prospect of their gaining power there should horrify the free world. We can prevent a nuclear Iran if we have to by bombing the hell out of its nuclear facilities. But it’s too late to stop a nuclear Pakistan. The only question there is who will be in control.

The neoconservative doctrine of promoting democracy abroad is more pragmatic than its disingenuous critics would have you believe. Contrary to the notion the America is “imposing democracy at the barrel of a gun,” we are mostly providing quiet support for democratic movements.

The American left, along with most of the center and much of the right, doesn’t really care about promoting democracy as a way of battling terrorism. But that doesn’t stop them from attacking President Bush for what they think is his biggest hypocrisy – propping up the military dictator Musharraf.

Promoting democracy everywhere you can is the right policy. Taking a different approach everywhere is the right implementation of the policy, because every nation is at a different stage of readiness. And while the foreign policy “realists” of the past were cynical in favoring “stability” over freedom, stability is mandatory in a nuclear nation where the collapse of the incumbent regime could bring murderous, radical extremists to power.

The Bush administration has attempted a difficult balancing act with Pakistan. It has tried to keep Musharraf viable – even forgoing an operation into Pakistan that might have netted Osama bin Laden – while brokering Bhutto’s return and nudging Musharraf toward real elections and the loosening of his simultaneous grip on both the government and the military.

It was about as aggressively as the U.S. could afford to push democracy in a nation with so much potential for chaos, with the real possibility of nuclear consequences. As bad as Musharraf is, the fact that he remains in power today should be a huge relief to anyone who realizes the risks of a nuclear nation under the control of mad men.

Perhaps a third stint as prime minister for Bhutto would have been her coming of age – a departure from the corruption and equivocation of her first two shots at the job. Perhaps, with the wisdom of age and experience, she would have benevolently consolidated her power, seized the opportunity and deftly guided the nation to a place of true liberty and stability. She was skillful enough. I’m not sure she was sincere enough, but in Pakistan, skill for such a challenge is the hardest thing to come by.

That made her too much of a threat for those who lose everything if democracy takes hold. Just as they have done in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, radical Islamists stop at nothing to keep democracy at bay, because it is an environment in which they cannot operate.

Pakistan is now in crisis because the one person who seemed most capable of moving democracy forward got very close to getting the chance – too close for freedom’s enemies. And every time these people commit murder, mayhem and havoc to stop democracy in its tracks, it proves just how threatening democracy is to them – and why the United States is right to promote it.

And in a nuclear powder keg like Pakistan, the delicate balance between the long-term pursuit of democracy and the short-term strengthening of a dictator has never been more necessary.

This is Column # DC139.  Request permission to publish here.