[Marxism] Alan Wood on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto

[gary.maclennan at gmail.com]

I am far from being an expert on Pakistan, and so much of the detail that is
necessary for a full understanding of that country is missing.  Howe ver in
general terms the assassination of Benaizir Bhutto might be worth commenting
on.  To begin with the question of "who did it?" has to be left aside.  There
is simply no way someone like me could ever solve that particular conundrum,
and truly I do not want to even think about it. I do however agree with the
criticism that it is overly simple to say "The Mullahs did it"

What I feel is at work however is the central struggle between the two
varieties of modernity – socialist or capitalist. Briefly and very
schematically I am inclined to read history of the 20th C  as the struggle
by the USA, the avatars of capitalist modernity, to defeat the very
possibility of socialist modernity represented primarily if imperfectly by
the Soviet Union.  To accomplish their victory the USA had to enlist the
forces of anti-modernity eg The Catholic Church and of course reactionary
Islamic elements.  Having overcome the possibility of socialist modernity,
the task then emerged of winding back those elements who had been crucial to
the victory.  In some ways that can be seen as the central struggle of the
21st century.  It is also known as the "war on terror". Why the need though
to take on the former allies?  Well of course it is precisely because they
do not fit the profile needed for the spread of a thorough going capitalist
modernity.  The Manifesto is quite brilliant here in its description of the
radical and revolutionary nature of capitalism and how it profanes all that
is sacred etc. So in many ways following the collapse of socialist
modernity, what we are seeing is business as usual.

Now where does poor Benazir come into all this?  Well and here I will
confess to being far from certain of my ground, the central contradiction of
Pakistan is that the social base of the military dictatorship is precisely
those reactionary forces who were once useful if distasteful allies in the
struggle against socialist modernity and now stand in the way of capitalist
modernity.  The other side of the contradiction is of course that the
military dictatorship has been the loyal ally of the USA. So people like
Musharaff are trapped.  They are facing demands from their American bosses
to comply with the imperatives of capitalist modernity, while their support
base is screaming out against this.



This is where Beanzir came in.  Someone in Washington hatched the brilliant
plan of trying a cedar/purple/green/whatever revolution in Pakistan.  These
had been successful in the former Soviet arena.  However to do so they had
to find a figure who mobilize the social forces that would pour onto the
streets in support of democracy (ie capitalist modernity by any other name).
Bhutto was the obvious choice here and she was more than willing to be as
she put it to Tariq Ali on the "right side of history".

Between the Americans, the Military and Bhutto was an agreement to provide
the secular revolution that was to clip the wings of the traditional
Islamicists and former allies in Pakistan. Benazir was to provide the foot
soldiers for the revolution.  The Military were there to supply any muscle
that might be needed and also to make sure the secularists did not get out
of control.



In effect Bhutto had agreed to a partnership, but it was one that she had
trouble is selling to her base. Especially when her supposed partners used
the state of emergency to smash the very forces that were to power the
secular revolution that was to rein in the traditionalists. True at the same
time the military invaded the Red Mosque to provide a bit of balance.

So we had then a three way deal – the USA, the Military Dictatorship and
Benazir Bhutto. My guess and it is only a guess that of the three partners
to this deal only Benazir was totally committed.  I can understand the
ambivalences of the Musharraf camp.  Benazir's base consists of their class
enemies and of course they wanted to cling to power.  But it is more
difficult to analyse the ambiguities underlying the American approach.  It
is very tempting to resort to the category of "stupid" to describe
everything the Bush camp does. However I am inclined to think that elements
within the Bush side truly feared the forces that might be unleashed by a
successful secular revolution; after all the Americans have spent a good 60
years fighting secular forces in Islamic countries. That also meant among
other things that they did not provide the security needed to protect
Bhutto.  Contrast their approach to guarding Karzai!
In any case the deal is now off. Those in the Bush camp that wanted to build
some kind of secular revolution to hold back "Islamic extremism" have had a
severe defeat.

regards

Gary