Of the dead, say nothing but what is good.

That hasn’t quite been the order of the day in the mainstream reporting of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Amid the eulogies of her bravery, her support for democracy, and, well, for just being such a nice sort of person, and despair at the number of nasty people who may have been responsible for her undeserved death, it has been mentioned, in passing, that she was thrown out of office twice for corruption.
 

Was she brave? Undoubtedly there were serious risks in plunging back into Pakistani politics, even if she was only doing it because US had managed to stitch up a deal between her and President Musharraf. And she must have known what these risks were after the bomb blast on her arrival in Karachi in October.

But bravery is a virtue only if it is in pursuit of virtuous goals. So was she virtuous?

She talked a good talk. She was once very vocal on the subject of women’s rights, which do need some taking about in Pakistan. Two women in 3 are illiterate, so-called ‘honour killings’ are common, and horrors such as the revenge rape of Mukhtaran Bibi in 2002 seem to be condoned by some parts of Pakistani society.

Bhutto had campaigned for election with promises of dealing with discrimination against women. She would bring in women’s courts, women’s banks, and so. But when she was elected and had the power to do something about these things, nothing happened. She was also going to remove discriminatory laws, but waited until she was back in opposition before trying to achieve this (and, predictably, failing).

And then there are the multiple corruption cases. The immediate response of Bhutto apologists is to say either that she was never convicted (and you know how easy it is to make false allegations in a corrupt legal system), or that it was really her husband, Asif Ali Zardari.

The problem is that this just won’t wash. Apart from the charges brought in Pakistan (neatly wiped clean in that US-brokered Bhutto-Musharraf deal), which you might want to take with a healthy pinch of salt, both husband and wife have been found guilty of money laundering in a Swiss court, although they have appealed the verdict. They have also been the target of corruption investigations in France, Poland and the UK.

The UK case is especially interesting since much of the action happened while Zardari was sitting in jail in Pakistan. 3 front companies registered in the tax haven of the Isle of Man bought a 10-bedroom mansion in 360 acres in Surrey for £4 million. Mr and Mrs ordered extensive renovations, but forgot to pay. The Pakistani government claimed the money used to buy the pile was the proceeds of corruption and filed a court case about it. The Bhuttos repeatedly disclaimed all knowledge of ownership. Then the 3 front companies folded with the builders still out of pocket. The courts ordered the property liquidated with the proceeds put to paying off these debts. Suddenly, after years of claiming he wasn’t the owner, Zardari’s memory undergoes a miraculous recovery. The house was his, after all. So he should get the money.

And then there is the question of allegiance to the cause of democracy.

Now we may or may not totally agree with President Bush that the Taliban are one of the world’s greatest threats to democracy. But certainly nobody’s going to give them a medal. And it should be remembered that the Taliban were nurtured, supported and supplied by the Pakistani intelligence agencies (and still are, according to some analysts) and that they took control of Afghanistan in 1996 after Bhutto had been in power for 3 years. It is argued that in this she was merely doing the bidding of US, but, willing or not, she was complicit in installing a profoundly undemocratic government.

And then there is the nasty business of the assassination of her own brother, Murtaza, while she was Prime Minister. There was a falling out between him and Zardari and the upshot was that he and 6 others were shot in a police ambush outside his home and left to bleed to death with 70 to 100 police in attendance. Murtaza’s daughter seems convinced that Auntie Benazir was involved, but then you might expect that. But a judicial inquiry also came to the conclusion that the killings (which later included inconvenient eye witnesses) could not have happened without the approval of a ‘much higher’ authority.

And finally, there is the astoundingly aristocratic, feudal, and dynastic decision about the next leader of the Pakistani People’s Party. Now there are PPP members who seem to have principles, who have been steadfast in opposing military rule and who have served time in prison for their pains. But, purely on the say-so of Benazir Bhutto’s will, leadership of the party passes, quite undemocratically, to a 19-year-old university freshman whose sole qualification appears to be his name.
I’m trying not to think that the general reaction in the media has been blinded by an eloquence in English, a Hermes head scarf and glasses by Gucci. I’m trying, but not succeeding.