« Guest Voice: Benazir Bhutto Not All That The Media Claimed She Was
Is A Ron Paul Double-Digit Surprise In New Hampshire’s Future? »
Benazir Bhutto’s Successor is Her Son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari
Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) on Sunday chose her 19-year-old son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as her successor and appointed him as Chairman of the party. (Interestingly, Benazir Bhutto became chief of the PPP at the age of 31 following the assassination of her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto).
While Bhutto’s husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was appointed co-chairman of the PPP. These decisions were taken by the party’s Central Executive Committee in a closed-door meeting. The PPP has decided to participate in the forthcoming elections in Pakistan.
“It catapults Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, an Oxford University student with no political experience, to the center of Pakistan’s tumultuous public life. Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari, 51, is powerbroker in the party who served as environment minister in her second government.” More here…
The Time magazine says: “The young (Bilawal) Bhutto, Benazir’s only son, knows the dangers of the job he might be about to take on. Last year Benazir told a reporter that she hoped her three children would choose a different career. ‘My children have told me they are very worried about my safety,’ she said. ‘I understand those fears. But they are Bhuttos and we have to face the future with courage, whatever it brings’.”
(Photo of Benazir Bhutto and baby Bilawal on the cover of an old magazine)
10 Responses to “Benazir Bhutto’s Successor is Her Son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari”
And this woman was supposed to help bring Pakistan back towards democracy. So, Bhutto’s son is more qualified (by decree of will) than someone like Aitzaz Ahsan. Maybe the Unity ticket in 2012 will include Jenna Bush and Patrick Kennedey.
The situation in Pakistan is the Europeon and American writers discussed things in terms of tribalism. ethnicity, and family connections instead of seeing political parties in the Muslim world as the same thing as political parties in the Western World.
Unless someone looks at how family and tribal relations affect the Pakistan People’s Party, then it is impossible to understand politics.
Point of fact: Bhutto’s father was not “assassinated.” He was executed after being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by the Pakistani Supreme Court. Yes, he may very well have been framed, but he was tried, sentenced, and executed under the law. By definition that’s not assassination.
“Murder,” “assassination,” and “execution” are frequently mis-substituted by the uninformed and by sensationalists, as well as by those opposed to the death penalty.
[...] you imagine what happened after Bhutto’s death happening here? A (nineteen year old) son annointed leader by virtue [...]
I am not at all surprised that there are people in the world who believe that even under a military dictator difference should be made between the above mentioned words. Yes, these words acquire different meaning in a democracy.
There has to be some limit to an individual’s naivette. If one says that the Supreme Court ordered the ‘hanging’ of Bhutto’s father, the question is were there independent judges under the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq?
Why did Pervez Musharraf change the Supreme Court judges and brought in compliant judges? Elementary my dear chaps…But maybe those who live in a different world and different culture have no clue about different systems/countries, including dictatorships.
Swaraaj, I was making a clarification as well as a statement of fact (about something we observe here in a democratic country, when it comes to misuse of language). In no way does that imply, much less indicate, naivete’.
Agreed DLS. And a Very Happy New Year to you and everyone else…
LMAO. Echo DLS, both comments.
The words mean different things in the English language, Swaraaj. Bhutto’s father was executed after being convicted of a crime. His daughter was assassinated. If you are truly unclear as to the difference, the Merriam-Webster dictionary can be found online here. Check the transitive verbs “assassinate” (defn. #2) and “execute” (defn. #3) for clarification.
It’s not naivete to use precise language, rather than corrupting and conflating language for rhetorical purposes. Nor is it even remotely naive to note such corruption and conflation of language being used for rhetorical purposes. Quite the opposite–the naive would accept such corrupt and conflationary usage without ever noting the distinction.
Yes, as I noted quite clearly in my comment, Bhutto’s father may well have been framed of a crime of which he was innocent, wrongfully accused and convicted for political or other purposes. I don’t know if he was in truth guilty or innocent of that accusation, and I sincerely doubt if you do either. The deck was certainly stacked against him regardless of his actual guilt or innocence.
But he was not assassinated. He was executed.
We are familiar with “show trials” (and consider what Bush-haters have said about the trial of Hussein and of his execution), as well as other misuses of formal processes (Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and his rubber-stamp parliament).
Happy Holidays yourself from frigid Iowa.