[ontheroad]

What a shock! This is a sad day for democracy in Pakistan. If there is such a thing. She was a courageous woman. I can't believe they would do this!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/...re_as/pakistan

[Crocodile]

Yes, it is sad. The Pakistan people need to stand up and be counted in their elections. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months. I believe she was a good person for the country, with a lot of loyal followers, and was trying to unite her country again.

But you are in "shock" and you "can't believe they would do this"? This has been tried before (more than once) and even she acknowledged that her life was in immediate danger and the very real possibility that this would happen sooner rather than later. The Taliban, al-Qaida and other jihadi groups have all (reportedly) been after her. She had even raised questions regarding the dedication of the Pakistani police force.

A sad day for democracy indeed.

[KnowItAll]

Ok, its sad and all that someone had to die the way they did.. but shock... I don't get.

Pakistan? What democracy?

Lets also not kid our selves about the ways in which the Bhutto clan has ruled Pakistan, just like the ways in which the Gandhi clan rule(d) India.

[PDLM]

Ah yes, but anything's better than having Brits running the place and giving you laws, railways and functional stuff like that...

[ontheroad]

Originally Posted by KnowItAll

Lets also not kid our selves about the ways in which the Bhutto clan has ruled Pakistan, just like the ways in which the Gandhi clan rule(d) India.

Yes but it's still way better than having military rule don't you think?

[KnowItAll]

Brits running the place and giving you laws, railways and functional stuff like that...

And shoot people like they were on a Fox Hunt.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_massacre

I bet they made a tidy profit .. it was NOT all that benevolent as you neo-colonialists might make it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor

[KnowItAll]

Yes but it's still way better than having military rule don't you think?

Problem is .. military folks often seize power because of patriotic reasons. These reasons might be better (for the nation) then a politician's reasons for taking a seat of power. Unfortunately after staying in rule for a while, military leaders turn into politicians.

[KnowItAll]

PDLM - here's a good look back at history (and its not even the Indian view of what the Brits did) when it comes to the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/a...3-1/meyer.html

By the way .. here's how we Indians tend to look at the gifts of the Raj.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...807649,00.html

[PDLM]

That's a typical Guardian piece of rubbish I'm afraid. Trying to bring race into this just shows that the argument is weak.

There are plenty of places where the country's whole political culture is simply broken beyond the point where "organic" development is going to fix it in any reasonable time, and it is the mass of the population that suffer as a result. Examples in Asia include: Pakistan, Bangladesh, The Philippines, and Indonesia.

As an aside, one obvious common factor is the insidious role of religion in those countries. As someone once astutely observed "religion is the opium of the masses" - and it certainly still seems to perform that role of keeping the masses down and happy with their huge underachievements. It seems to me that getting religion out of public life entirely has a very strong correlation with the well-being of the people (consider how the USA has started to go backwards as religious forces have strengthened).

All of those countries would, in my view, benefit hugely from a limited period of benevolent rule by a more developed political culture. Singapore would be an excellent candidate to try to drag The Philippines or Indonesia out of the mire. Pakistan & Bangladesh are trickier problems, but if we don't (in the interests of the world as a whole) want Pakistan in 2050 to look like Afghanistan in 2000 then something needs to be done.

If a whole country is too big a step then how about a smaller trial: Singapore could be offered a 50 year lease on a province or two of The Philippines or Indonesia on suitable terms to be agreed, with a view to transforming them in the way that Singapore has been. At the end of the 50 year lease the provinces are handed back to the host country unless the people wished to remain under the Singapore system (anyone care to bet?).

But in any case, the whole concept of "countries" in the current sense of the word is a very transient thing in the long term view - none of the 4 countries listed existed in anything like the current form 150 years ago, and so appeals to "patriotism" are misplaced. The current concept of nations will evolve into something else within a century or two as populations become truly global. Eventually people will stop trying to define themselves as, say, "Indian-American, but with a bit of Scottish, and some Chinese" and travel documents will be simply that, without trying to pigeonhole people with increasingly meaningless terms.

Once the concept of race loses its power as people interbreed more or less randomly throughout the world and everybody is just a slightly different shade of coffee colour and everybody speaks one common tongue (albeit with other local tongues used locally) then government should be just like any other field of competence - the successful systems (i.e. the ones that most people "buy") will naturally bubble to the top.

Obviously, there are a number of major issues to consider here, but it isn't helpful to keep dragging up historical actions which have no real relevance in a world is a very different place and is continuing to evolve rapidly.

[shilo507]

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was indeed a heinous act but I am surprised people are shocked.

Pakistan is a failed state on the verge of civil war and is arguably one of the most dangerous countries in the world. It is politically unstable, probably home to Al-Qaeda's top personnel and has a nuclear capability.

Why the shock?