Another Bhutto dead

I really can't come up with anything when I ask myself what the halcyon days of Pakistani politics have been. It's pathetic watching the television relaying images of people crying their hearts out, destroying public property, automobiles, human lives and of course... Musharaff's support groups.

What were these people crying for? what were they angry with? with the extinguished flame of the "last" hope for democracy in Pakistan? I'm sure there are people who are devastated by this. But, would it drive them to mindless vandalism?

Around 30 people were killed by the suicide bomber. Another 30 were killed by rampaging mobs after the incident. I am tempted to ask myself... which is the greater evil?

Imran Khan seems to have his nuts and bolts in the right place when he says that though this is a devastating loss, there are steps that must be taken from here to continue the movement towards democracy. It starts with Musharraf relinquishing power and an independent judiciary conducting a detailed inquiry into this matter followed by elections as scheduled.

Compare this to Nawaz Sharif who appears sullen and (almost) weeping on the television declaring that this is the worst day in the history of Pakistani Politics (I wouldn't attest to that!) and that he will boycott the elections.

I ask people such as him... Is that in the spirit of a struggle towards democracy? Is that what is called for to transform Pakistan from a dictatorial regime of an inefficient General to a robust democracy?

However, the mobs don't really care much about a dictatorship or a democracy or anything productive for that matter. They seem to be driven by a single minded desire to destroy anything holding a promise to progress simply because it is beautiful... simply because it stands for all that is great in this world.

Democracy, in my opinion, is not the most efficient political framework for a nation. I prefer a dictatorial regime with regard to power over the protection and sustenance of civil society and a purely capitalistic and democratic model to the operation of the economy.

However, I have a stipulation that negates the efficacy of this model in most real-world scenarios. The dictator must be a woman or man of intelligence, courage and integrity. To be honest, Putin gets the closest (though not anywhere near being close enough) to these requirements amongst most dictators that exist today.

"Benazir Bhutto, the Martyr!" people will cry...
and the few that truly understand
will only crack their knuckles and sigh.

Peace at gunpoint

I've been asked several times... What drives people to killing an innocent human in cold blood? The question to ask is... What does this man FEEL while killing another? Does he feel anything at all? What should be done when such a man has an innocent man, woman or child at gunpoint? Negotiate?

This is the primary function of the UN peacekeeping forces, keeping peace at gunpoint. Using the gun when there is no other way. But, if we think about putting an essentially supra-national humanitarian peacekeeping force that steps in to stop all forms of violence inflicted on innocent people, we cannot possibly think of putting this force under the control of an organization that derives its legitimacy from its member states. These member states have a complex mesh of national political interests at stake that prevents them from taking purely global humanitarian decisions.

So what is the ideal solution?

Creating an armed peacekeeping group not controlled by any nation but by a single truly supra-national organization. What will be required for legitimate intervention is endorsement by nations, especially the government of the nation that is a becoming a victim to mindless violence. Now, what if the government in question is either the cause of the problem or defunct? What becomes necessary in this case is circumventing the system.

Though unfortunate, the reality is this... To be effective in humanitarian intervention, states must be circumvented. The condition of sovereignty stands valid only if the state is effectively responding to violence being inflicted upon it's innocent citizens. So, logically speaking, circumvention is justified. Realistically speaking, such an organization would quickly become illegal... some might even label it as a terrorist group forcing it to go underground.

So this peacekeeping group will need funds. Where will that come from? Governments are out. Private sources are the only solution apart from self-sustaining projects. It will definitely require a huge fund base to fight maniacs with guns and politicians with words.