Benazir Bhutto's assassination, al-Qaeda and a lesson for South Africa

Regular readers of my blog will be aware of my close affinity with the people of Pakistan, which initially arose from my contact with their cricket fans. What started as a fascination with their sporting prowess grew into an intense interest in all things concerning their country and the region.

As a South African I’ve relived a “state of emergency” (remember ours during apartheid) and the assassination of a high-profile politician prior to a historic election. In our case we tend to forget how close we ourselves came to implosion after the death of Chris Hani.

Yet sitting here and trying to put some sort of positive spin on the events unfolding in Pakistan, I realise just how hard it must be for them right now.

I’ve read about members of the cricket forum who live 10 minutes drive from the place where the rally took place while others are reporting riots, loss of electricity and even fears of an all-out war.

Whatever their leanings most agree that the suicide bombing was a disgraceful act.

Internationally there is concern that Pakistan, a nuclear power, is currently on the brink. Bhutto, the former prime minister who had returned as a force for democracy, was now no longer there.

Many Pakistanis would, however, remind you why Benazir Bhutto left Pakistan in the first place and express the belief that her return, while supported by America and Britain, was as an opportunist who saw the uncertainty and general displeasure with General Musharraf and military rule as an opening.

This of course refers back to her removal from office twice over in the face of corruption charges, which drove her into exile. When these charges were lifted it paved the way for her return to Pakistan.

That she risked her life to do so is beyond question.

Initially her return was to form an alliance with Musharraf, but this was to fall apart. She was the target for a previous attempt on her life, which failed only for the events of yesterday to unfold.

The youngest ever female prime minister of a Muslim country was no more.

This leaves the question of the election hanging — President Musharraf has told the nation that it was a barbaric act and the country would observe three days of mourning. He has not confirmed whether the election will go ahead as planned. (The acting prime minister has confirmed that at this stage there are no plans to alter the date)

The opposition leaders, and in particular Nawaz Sharif, have spoken about boycotting the election and called upon Musharraf to resign.

Whether or not this turns out to be the case is another story. International leaders are presently coming out in favour of the election to strengthen the push for democracy and bring about stability.

In light of the information emanating from Pakistan, that is a very simplistic way of looking at it.

In this regard members of Bhutto’s party appear to be blaming the establishment rather than “extremists” for the assassination. (Extremists and the definition thereof is a source of great anger to many Muslims for a variety of reasons, not least of which, is the equation of a Muslim per se as an extremist)

Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the suicide bomber, citing Bhutto’s link to America as the reason, the decision to kill her coming from Ayman al-Dhawahiri, the al-Qeada number two.

Whether anyone is capable of holding a meaningful election whose result would be acceptable to the majority of Pakistanis, in light thereof, on January 8 is highly debatable.

Regardless thereof the situation appears highly volatile and in a permanent state of flux.

Whether it was al-Qeada, in order to destabilise the elections and throw the country into disarray, or a member of the establishment to ensure the continuation of military rule, which carried out the act, the only thing that is certain right now, is that nobody can claim to know in which direction Pakistan is headed.

As a result of nuclear warheads there could be foreign intervention; martial law would suit the government and plain anarchy would suit al-Qaeda.

Nobody can claim to know where this is going.

And this is where the ANC and the NPA must give serious consideration to the Jacob Zuma matter.

At present the decision on the president of the ANC awaits the return of the minister of justice from leave.

There can be no doubting the popularity of JZ and any attempt to waive that aside, in the interests of justice and ensuring confidence is restored with overseas investors, is somewhat simplistic.

To the masses on the ground it will be perceived as a witch hunt by interest groups, including the president and whites who are nervous of Zuma. Regardless of our views on this it is a material factor that needs consideration.

It means that IF the NPA do decide to proceed against Jacob Zuma then the reasons must be made clear to the masses on the ground. They must go to great lengths to set out the basis thereof — that the prosecution, the forum, the judge/s and every aspect of the procedure are beyond reproach — so that any hint of using our courts for political, or even economic, gains is excluded.

As we are seeing in Pakistan, when someone opens Pandora’s Box, for whatever reason, even they can’t guarantee that they can bring the masses around to their way of thinking. The masses become fluid and their direction sometimes (often?) takes a path that nobody can anticipate in advance.

South Africa is a young democracy and, if anything, Polokwane has taught us that the majority of people of this country will have their say no matter how much ink we expend on the niceties of politics, economic realities and what we believe to be in their best interests.

It is better to start with what they believe to be the best way and work your thinking around that. When you know where people want to be you can then advise them of the best way to get there.

Ignore that at your peril.