He discusses Pakistani politics. You might not recognize it given the post-Bhutto assassination talking points that put a halo around Bhutto:
The legend cultivated by Pakistani politicians like Ms. Bhutto and her principal civilian rival, Nawaz Sharif, cast the generals as the main villains in stifling democracy, emerging from their barracks to grab power out of Napoleonic ambition and contempt for the will of ordinary Pakistanis. It is a version of history calculated to appeal strongly to Western opinion. But it has been carefully drawn to excuse the role the politicians themselves have played in undermining democracy, by using mandates won at the polls to establish governments that rarely amounted to much more than vehicles for personal enrichment, or for pursuing vendettas against political foes.
William Dalrymple, a British author who has written widely about India and Pakistan, put it bluntly in an article for Britain’s left-of-center Guardian newspaper in 2005. “As Pakistan shows, rigid, corrupt, unrepresentative and flawed democracies without the strong independent institutions of a civil society — a free press, an independent judiciary, an empowered election commission — can foster governments that are every bit as tyrannical as any dictatorship,” he wrote. “Justice and democracy are not necessarily synonymous.”
I respect his writing and take him very seriously. Rule of law and process are key. I hoped Bhutto would help move Pakistan toward this objective. But let's not make her a saint in death who was destined to achieve these goals until her death. And let's not forget that elections and rule of law are still our objective in Pakistan to gut the appeal of the jihadis to people who are tired of military rule and political corruption in equal measure.
And never forget, Pakistan is the ultimate result of foreign policy realism in action. Be careful what you wish for. Enjoy the reality.
