The circumstances surrounding her death are unknown—strange, to say the least, considering the number of spectators that were around her armored sedan as she waved to them from her sunroof where seconds later she met her untimely demise. Commonly acknowledged is the fact that a bomb exploded and shots were fired. Beyond that, the cause of her death is lost among myriad possibilities, from the government’s claim that she somehow managed to jam a part of the sunroof into her cranial cavity, to a party representative’s assertion that she was shot with a “laser gun.” Well, futuristic weaponry or plain stupidity aside, the means by which Bhutto was assassinated is thankfully not the topic of this article. This article is about the far more sensible and possibly less entertaining topic of what happens next.
Before this spectacularly morbid event, President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s dictator, was playing a sort of practical joke on the U.S., leveraging its need for Muslim allies in the War on Terror. He’s been talking up what limited extremism exists in Pakistan, pointing at it and using it as an excuse to get away with cruel, undemocratic policies. The U.S. government, aware both of Musharraf’s putative usefulness and its own hypocrisy in supporting this unpopular autocrat, tried to arrange a shotgun wedding between Bhutto and Musharraf for the coming election. This would allow the U.S to claim to support democracy while not abandoning Musharraf, proving the continued efficacy of his sneaky I’m-the-only-thing-keeping-extremists-from-getting-the-nuclear-bomb tactic. Unfortunately for all parties concerned, Bhutto didn’t want to be a puppet and began to derail the plans as Election Day approached. Before Election Day, however, she was killed, destabilizing the country and sending thousands of rioters out on the streets to burn cars and mourn her death in their own violent way. The resulting instability caused the president to postpone the elections until Feb. 18.
The outcome of these elections appears somewhat foreseeable. With or without the prodding of the U.S., Musharraf may enter into talks with his former enemy, the no-longer bald former prime minister and Pakistan Muslim League (N) chairman Nawaz Sharif. If neither of them is killed, there are two possible outcomes. First, amid massive rigging, Sharif becomes the next prime minister. He is then killed or otherwise removed to make Musharraf happy. Second, amid massive rigging the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), Musharraf’s party, wins and appoints some other rich stooge to make the president happy. In either case the status quo will be maintained. From the looks of it, Musharraf won’t be going anywhere soon. And why would anyone want him to leave?
So far, it seems that even though Musharraf can barely hide his identity as lord of the Sith, the U.S. still sees his presence as the most viable option for the War on Terror. None of the American presidential hopefuls are inclined toward a huge shift in foreign policy relating to Pakistan. Even those who speak out against Musharraf (e.g. Hillary Clinton, who blamed the Pakistani government for Bhutto’s assassination) know better than to meddle with a conservative power-funding formula that has helped the U.S. manage the region for decades. If U.S. support for Musharraf wanes, it will be because other figureheads in Pakistan’s military will have shown themselves as preferable alternatives to the slowly depreciating ex-general.
If he stays in power, there is a possibility that Musharraf may evolve into one of two branches of U.S.-supported dictator: He could become “moderate” and repeatedly “re-elected,” like Egypt’s Hasni Mobarak, or go off the deep end and become an enemy of the U.S., like the late megalomaniacal Saddam Hussein.
But don’t worry. Such a transformation will take a long time, and analysts agree that one of three things will have happened before then:
The first discussed possibility is that Musharraf will be removed either through unexpected assassination or a praetorian coup. The military would then resume control with another general. And there will be more articles about democracy in Pakistan and how sad it is that it doesn’t exist.
The second is a public uprising. This is laughable. There are two reasons—besides the sheer laziness of the Pakistani people—why there has never been a revolution in Pakistan. First, the military hegemon du jour colludes with feudal lords, businessmen and bureaucrats to the extent that no person of financial importance stands to gain from a public rule. Second, there’s all the ethnic hatred, disuniting the masses. Which leads us to …
The last possibility: the fragmentation and potential total annihilation of Pakistan.
There are four major ethnicities in Pakistan and the military is composed mainly of one, the Punjabis. Three other ethnicities—Pathans, Balochis and Sindhis—have all seen violent conflicts with the army in their rural areas. These peoples each believe that they would be better off separating from the rest of the country. And I can’t blame them for thinking that really, when Punjab is not only the richest province but also happens to control the rest of Pakistan through both the army and the highest representation in the National Assembly. Recently, there have been so many military operations against alleged extremists in the Northwest that many Balochis and Pathans believe they are taking part in a civil war. Add to that the fact that Bhutto was a Sindhi and Musharraf is Punjabi and one can imagine the violence that threatens Pakistan, made all the scarier by the country’s nuclear stockpile. If Pakistan, in its current state, is left to itself, I’m actually betting on all of these calamities to happen. Violent breakup of the country occurred before, in 1971, when East Pakistan broke off to become Bangladesh. Of course, back then there was no awesome U.S. intervention to save the day, as Pakistan and the world must hope will happen if the situation threatens to get even further out of hand than it already is.