Bhutto Failed to Modernize Pakistan

[PhiGam]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...ary/index.html

While far more liberal and democratic than Gen. Musharraf, Bhutto disappointed moderate, modern Pakistanis with her adherence to feudal politics.

For example, during Bhutto's time in office, Pakistan didn't defy the anti-female rape and adultery laws. Those notorious ordinances, known as Hudood, took their inspiration from tribal politics masquerading as Islam.

Phenomenal article, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Benzgirl]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Phenomenal article, couldn't have said it better myself.

Are you a journalist?

[DSTCHAOS]

Thanks for the article, PhiGam.

Can someone tell me how long she was in office?

I ask because there is debate regarding how quick the process of change is supposed to happen. Changle is a slow process. Having women in office who challenge the system to some degree doesn't mean that the longstanding system of inequality will end.

[Benzgirl]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Thanks for the article, PhiGam.

Can someone tell me how long she was in office?

I ask because there is debate regarding how quick the process of change is supposed to happen. Changle is a slow process. Having women in office who challenge the system to some degree doesn't mean that the longstanding system of inequality will end.

December 2, 1988 through 1990, then reelected in 1993 through 1996

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Benzgirl

December 2, 1988 through 1990, then reelected in 1993 through 1996

Thanks.

So a total of 5 years with a 3 year break in between.

Is this supposed to be enough time for substantial change?

[Benzgirl]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Thanks.

So a total of 5 years with a 3 year break in between.

Is this supposed to be enough time for substantial change?

Not in the land of religious extremists. It could take hundreds of years.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Thanks.

So a total of 5 years with a 3 year break in between.

Is this supposed to be enough time for substantial change?

I would think the same thing... 5 years with a 3 year break is not enough time to change systems that have been put in place for several decades if not more.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Thanks.
So a total of 5 years with a 3 year break in between.
Is this supposed to be enough time for substantial change?

Not in anyones wildest dream.

Five years is not even a blip in time when trying to effect social change.

Even if that weren't true, though, it doesn't justify assassination.

On the other hand, it is fair to understand that even all of her accomplishments do not make her bigger than life -- and it seems she was far from perfect.

Brave though.

[DSTCHAOS]

I agree. I hope no one made her seem perfect.

So is this article another attempt at discrediting her and telling her mourners (I'm not one of them--it's sad that she got assassinated though) that she wasn't such a great loss of life because she wasn't a truly great leader?

[Benzgirl]

Fratty seems to bask in the happiness of women kissing his feet. He believes we belong in the kitchen, attached to the stove, barefoot and pregnant. He tries to discredit women, even those with degrees from Radcliffe and Oxford, as failures.

What he has failed to realize is the more he posts, the more narrow-minded he appears. The next thing he will probably want to justify is the "good" that David Duke did for women (and Americans) when he published Finders-Keepers and the other trash he publishes.

[DSTCHAOS]

Benzgirl, how about you get over PhiGam?

Stop following him around the board and finding something to type to him or about him. You couldn't even leave him alone in that % in GLOs thread he created. Good grief already.

[Drolefille]

The one thing I keep hearing about Bhutto is that Pakistan was peaceful under her, and that would have been quite a bit better than what's going on there now.

There's also a difference between "didn't" change and "didn't want to" change.

[DSTCHAOS]

I agree and that goes back to change being a slow process that doesn't instantly happen because there is a "progressive" woman in office.

[Drolefille]

So now apparently the group that the government claims is responsible for the attacks denies having anything to do with it. People are crying cover up, and Bhutto's party isn't sure if they'll sit out the election in protest.

In my limited experience with terrorist groups (the news) if they do something, they want to take responsibility for it. Sometimes they're happy to take responsibility for things they didn't do, such as that one Palestinian (I think) group on September 11th. Some terrorist said "oh yeah we did that" and then his boss slapped him and said "you dumbass we don't want this shit" and they denied the whole thing.

Why would the terrorist group deny killing Bhutto when Pakistan could hardly keep them under control in the first place...

Oh also, they'd like no foreign help figuring this out. I mean when their own government is implicated, you wouldn't want someone to help clear your name, would you?

[DeltAlum]

It's pretty common in a big crime like this for "the authorties" to point at someone or group immediately -- sometimes to deflect scrutiny.

Often it's a smokescreen.

I wonder if we will ever know who is really behind this.

In the international quagmire in that part of the world, nothing should surprise us.