Wherein lies the tragedy of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination?
Common wisdom holds that the implications surrounding the demise of one of Pakistan’s major democratic leaders are tragic. Others hold that her killing reveals the sinister confluence of wicked forces at work in Pakistan.
Others hold that that the tragedy lies in the fact that she comes from a family that has lost far too many of its sons and daughters. Others hold that the tragedy lies in the loss that will be felt by her young children.
But what if we simply refused to assign any form of tragedy to Bhutto’s killing? What if we said: it is tragic that another human being has been killed, and that is all I have to say.
Why should I exalt the tragedy of Bhutto’s death, when I rarely exalt the tragedy of anyone else’s death? Why does she get this preferential treatment? Simply because she was involved in politics?
Nietzsche said that most ancient Greeks didn’t care about politics. They believed that they were utterly incapable of affecting the decision-making in which the powerful engaged, opting, therefore, to busy themselves with other things: things upon which they could have direct influence, namely art.
Why do we modern people think that politics have changed?
The major candidates for the American presidency, from men victimized by war (McCain) to progressives (Edwards) voted for the War in Iraq. The one candidate who holds himself out for as anti-war (Obama) votes, when it comes to issues such as healthcare and economics, with conservatives and hawks a great majority of time, and the only time he doesn’t do so is when he abstains (so that he doesn’t have to take a stand).
Is Gordon Brown better or worse than Blair? Is Sarkozy America’s poodle or Olmert? Is Musharraf more of an autocrat because he uses the military than was Nawaz Sharif who also imposed emergency rule and used the troops to quell political opponents? Was Bhutto really Pakistan’s true hope, when during her watch the Taliban were promoted and her husband ripped out antique doors at heritage sites for personal use?
In light of all that, I suppose one could say that we participate in politics, not because we like to, but because we have to.
Yet, if that is the case, why don’t we engage in a politics that would rid us of politics? Why don’t we say to our leaders: “give us enough so that we can sustain our preferred levels of comfort, and you can have this parade of assassinations, economic exploitation, monetary savagery and hypocrisy.” They would be only too happy to strike this deal.
I believe we don’t strike this bargain because we are venal and vain. Secretly, many of us cannot help but entertain the possibility that at some level, we, or someone from among “us”, will be able to climb the ladders of politics, and as a result, we will be famous, we will be rich, we will be powerful.
So that when we die, people will not just say that a human being has died, but that a tragedy has occurred.
Ali Eteraz is right. We overuse the word “tragedy” to the extent that it loses its power. It’s sad when anyone is murdered for any reason, but Ms Bhutto’s recent assasination in Pakistan was not a tragedy.
Ms Bhutto was anything but a democrat ( small “d” ). She and her family are one of the Great Families of Pakistan. Old, rich, powerful, corrupt, arrogant. Both her previous tours of duty were stained with rigged contracts, bribes and Byzantine conspiracies. So no tears for her, other than the tears we should shed for anyone who dies. The bell really does toll for us.
First, a great post in because it raises great questions about the “value” or people in social settings and the value of politics. It is definitely not right to put one person’s life above or below the next in the grand scheme. Everyone is someone’s daughter, brother, son, sister, etc. And each individual loss to each individual family is just as painful as the next. No matter how many people the dying person may affect.
A great example that happened in the US which really bothered me was the death of Pat Tillman. Pat Tillman was a professional football (American style) player who left his job as a professional athlete to go to Iraq. He was killed in Iraq (by friendly fire if I remember correctly) and there was a media blitz of how brave, honorable, and selfless he was to give up his millions to fight for his country. Also, the lies and deception from the Armed forces trying to cover up his accidental death was cause for an all out investigation. (An investigation that i doubt any other solider would receive in the same scenario). In this case, I thought it was a slap in the face to every other solider who left their job/life and gave their life because their sacrifice was seen as less “tragic” than that of Pat Tillman’s.
However, it would be hard for me say that the death of Martin Luther King was not more tragic than that of another person fighting for civil rights during the time. I say this because the social change caused by his incredible leadership, vision, and tenacity is unmatched and infinite.
And in this example, MLK changed an entire government in its laws and policy. And while I have so little hope in politics, they are not going away. When we live in a world where we must interact with each other and share space, it is inevitable that leaders will evolve, people will follow, and rules will be set. So i must keep hope that new leaders will come about that encompass a message that will bring people together that is greater than one. Unfortunately, this is the antithesis to the general American emphasis, individuality. So we need a lot of changes.
Personally, I agree that government should scale back and allow more independence on its citizens. I think this would mean lots of decentralization and allow for a capitalistic approach in many fields, now predominantly controlled by government. One example being space exploration and, i think, education. However, we must have policies, rules, and some regulations at a high level for infrastructure, law, trade, and practices that allow a fluid and fair monetary and social economy.
Sorry for the long response. I hope it makes sense. This is my first attempt at jumping in the debate and i would like to sharpen my tongue and i hope for some critical feedback. this is no disclaimer but an invitation to help me learn and think.