What is the Future of the Pakistan People's Party?

There's no question about it now. Political parties that truly try to bring the best out in people and promote the very essence of freedom are starting to slowly disappear. Even the two-party system in the United States has lost many elements of what used to define the best tenets of democracy. I guess it isn't that much of a shock then when other potential democratized countries (namely Pakistan) long-ago develop a party that brings actual educated and freedom-minded candidates for President--and it runs into almost impossible roadblocks to progress its cause. Benazir Bhutto was obviously comparable to a Robert Kennedy of Pakistan under the Pakistan People's Party her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, started almost exactly 40 years ago. At the same time, it ended up with as many nervous breakdowns from Bhutto's supporters over her death as Kennedy's supporters had in 1968 over his assassination. And those nervous breakdowns and individuals with squashed hopes will probably continue to seethe for decades over what happened. But is it really the end of all hope for the Pakistan People's Party? The press really isn't reporting enough that there's at least two other successors (males) who could be equally as great as Benazir Bhutto may have been.

The most important question is: Will they survive the wrath of those who obviously don't want the PPP to thrive in the region? The gender role of being President in Pakistan doesn't seem to matter how safe you are. Being in a party that uses the stigmatized word "Socialist" in their mission statement, too, seems to be equally as dangerous.

It's quite clear in polls from the region that the majority of the people in Pakistan want an educated person in their presumed upcoming President. All of the alternative parties attempting to get dibs in the (as of this writing) still up-in-the-air Presidential election don't have candidates who have legal or other high-end professional backgrounds. The Bhuttos were a highly-educated family--and the potential successors in line also have strong legal educations, plus former employment in Pakistani governmental roles. According to reports, that first successor could be Aitzaz Ahsan. Get used to hearing more of that name, because he could be the next President of Pakistan if he survives that long and the people still get a fair election. The good news is that there's apparently a long string of other successors in the very popular PPP who have outstanding educational and governmental backgrounds.

Ahsan studied law and is President of the Pakistini Supreme Court Bar Association at the moment--despite reports that Pervez Musharraf is basically in a political (and maybe personal) war against the man. That's because Musharraf dumped Pakistan's former Constitution in favor of his own and got rid of the Supreme Court Justice (Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry) who Ahsan has been fighting to get restored for several years. We don't seem to know everything that's going in Musharraf's inner governmental world--which has prompted rumors that Ahsan may be held captive right now with the fear by Musharraf's camp he could be Bhutto's logical successor. The unfortunate word "torture" has been bantered around, too, in what they may be doing to Ahsan. But that has to be considered unfounded until we see Ahsan himself if he gets the opportunity to become the new leader of the PPP. If Ahsan can manage to prove he was tortured by thugs on the Musharraf payroll--then Musharraf will probably fall in the election, despite that likely happening anyway.

It also seems that Ahsan is truly in the mold of Bhutto to go about restoring democracy in Pakistan via peaceful (which means risky) means. If he's being held by Musharraf's government and unable to serve--then the PPP reports another man, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, will take over. Fahim isn't quite as adamant in fighting against Musharraf directly (yet high credentials in Pakistani government and education once again), so he may be a better and safer choice. A first name with the word "doom" in it, though, just seems to blow open another hole in the irony balloon.

The PPP has always fought an uphill battle...despite seven years of living on Cloud Nine...

It's almost apropos that the PPP started in 1967--when it eerily resembles the same fights in America happening around the same time period. The PPP had to fight a repressive dictatorship formed by Ayub Khan that PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto fearlessly resisted. There's no doubt that the senior Bhutto was also likely aware of the political climate in the United States in 1967. Riots were everywhere, our President was beaten into the ground over pressures in an unpopular war and one lone voice running for President that fall and winter hoped to restore a sense of pride and peace again in the Land of the Free. When Robert Kennedy was planning on bringing the Democratic Party to a new level of humanity--it meant going against the grain of forces who wanted to keep a status quo in this country for social and economic control. Anybody who wants the PPP's slogan of "Power to the People" (i.e. equality of every gender, race and income bracket) just is going to make enemies at the top pretty fast...as much as we try to turn off that reality.

Of course, when Kennedy was shot and killed at the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel in June of 1968--the senior Bhutto probably realized the realities that his own life (as well as any of his family or non-related successors) were in real danger of having a similar fate as his party started to gain strength. Fighting for equality in all people had officially become a worldwide war against forces that you couldn't see. That meant someone with a developed and brilliant strategy had to be at the helm in order to stay afloat. And, yes, the senior Bhutto was a very brilliant guy along with his daughter later.

That brilliance enabled him to conquer the repressive Khan regime in 1970 and gave Pakistan true freedom and prosperity for at least seven years. Eventually, when the military attempted a coup against the government he helped establish--he ultimately died by their sword in 1979 after falsely being accused of a murder plot. His daughter was the only hope to restoration (much like a Kennedy family tree)--and, as we know, she at least succeeded in rebuilding the party that resumed in the mid-1980's. But, in retrospect to Benazir's assassination, she still seemed to be in somewhat of denial about how most governments seem to have factions working independently from the President...

What does the President know--and does he really know anything?

As frightening as that above subtitle may be--I think we've all learned from observation and deduction over the years that a lot of internal departments in a President's cabinet or inner circle can potentially work toward things independently without the President even knowing about any of it. Such is the case in Pakistan where internal officials in Musharraf government obviously have colluded with Al Qaeda and just didn't want the idea of the Pakistan People's Party dominating again let alone having a woman as President. That's not to say Musharraf wasn't privy to the same sentiments or even part of the collusion. From all indications, however, it seems too obvious, and he probably has no real control over what his cabinet thinks or does. While controversial, that's the very structure that was said to be behind the John F. Kennedy (and probably Robert Kennedy) assassinations.

Some accurate to dubious accounts of the JFK assassination had Vice President Johnson and other internal sources in the CIA and FBI working all together throughout 1963 on a plot without President Kennedy knowing a thing. The same could probably be said of any Presidential administration in our country's history--right up to President Bush's cabinet. Much of the Bush Administration policies are quite obviously from independent thinkers who just so happen to have a cushy job where they can exert influence and get an idea to snowball (with the President's pen in some cases). This means that if you get a job in a President's cabinet--you can possibly have as much power as the President himself has...depending on your contacts and networking.

Is that a real scenario in the Pakistani government and how Benazir Bhutto ultimately ended up assassinated? We know Bhutto demanded better security and didn't get it. Yet, she also said in that security email sent to Wolf Blitzer at CNN (of all people) that she'd hold the Pakistani government directly responsible if killed--not necessarily Musharraf. In that regard, maybe she did understand that the President is just a front guy and has to depend too much on internal departments to get things done that might be resisted by individual philosophy. Of course, the President then has to take the blame in place of those guys as evidenced here in America.

Musharraf is obviously going to pay for all this, of course, if the elections are held fairly. If the Pakistan People's Party ultimately ends up winning anyway with a male successor--we'll only assume that their own internal structure is better if they go back to ruling prominence. We shouldn't assume that either, though, when the Middle East is filled with so many divergent thoughts from internal governmental aides on who to side with. You'd think it would be a simple black and white issue when it comes to either backing good or evil from Al Qaeda and other militant groups. This just shows the dangerously evil pull from extremists and somehow convincing otherwise good Muslims that rebelling against democratic thought and all its (admittedly imperfect) freedoms is a justifiable way to live.