Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-12-31 03:48:18 +0000
Does anyone understand Bhutto's death at all?
Why does the Pakistan government say she was killed by a bomb, when she was shot first?
Why did the doctors change their story?
Why would the Pakistani gov want people to think she died a certain way regardless?
Did the shooter and bomber know each other? 1,2,3 gunshots, then BOOM, bomb sounds almost rehearsed to my ears.
Who is investigating the whole murder?
"Clean shaven man in sun glasses"?
Posted by tgl on 2007-12-31 10:51:38 +0000
All interesting questions, but why aren't we more troubled by the suspect election in Kenya?
Posted by tgl on 2007-12-31 11:19:04 +0000
...I say this only because it seems the spread of democracy is hindered more by the hijinks in Kenya rather than the death of a political figure in Pakistan.
Not to be crass, but Bhutto and her party aren't exactly beacons of fairness and accountability. Witness the elevation of her son.
Am I being too neocon, here?
Posted by virtue on 2007-12-31 13:25:03 +0000
Perhaps if you could say more about how the Kenyan elections hinder democracy more than Bhutto's assassination?
Which is to say, I'm not sure that either has any real effect on "the spread of democracy."
Which is, perhaps, really to say that I find our (i.e., Americans) understanding of what democracy means, and neocon's especially, to be problematic. It seems to imply that democracy is only democracy if it's this mirror of an idealized American democracy, as if our own electoral and political processes didn't arise in a specific historical and cultural context, and as if they were/are not themselves fluid.
That said, I would still argue that Kenya *is* less meaningful within the context of American Foreign Policy. In contrasting the Kenyan election results with Bhutto, you seem to suggest that Bhutto's death is not problematic because she is just another corrupt pol. Which seems somewhat irrelevant, given that she represented a distinctly different option from the traditional military/political coziness, which is considered one of the real objects to a "true" democratic Pakistan.
Kenyan unrest, on the other hand, occurs within the context of a close presidential election, a historical tendency for elected leaders to become dictatorial once in office (despite most beginning as opposition candidates), and ethnic tensions that occasional erupt. Kenya is basically doing business as usual, unfortunate but meaningless if we're talking "the spread of democracy."
There's so much more to unpack here, but I don't give up the green until tomorrow, so I'll leave you with this for now. I think entire doctoral dissertations could be written on the comparison of our relative interest and understanding of different foreign election outcomes.
Posted by tgl on 2007-12-31 14:39:00 +0000
I see more media attention on Pakistan, which is ruled by a military dictator (aside: all the Bush talk about not dealing with terrorists has always been just that, talk), over Kenya which has a functioning democratically elected government and free press, at least 'till yesterday. That's all. If Bhutto hadn't been killed and won in the elections, the US would still be in a heap of trouble vis-a-vis Pakistan. So, I see the death of a personality much less important than a close presidential election that would seem to have been rigged.
I didn't mean to imply that American democracy is the one true democracy. Maybe I should be talking about fair elections and responsible government (which took a bigger blow in Kenya than in Pakistan this week).
Posted by Miriam on 2007-12-31 15:42:13 +0000
Um, didn't we put the military leader of Pakistan in power?