Many things that are true, less true and downright untrue are said when a politician of Benazir Bhutto’s stature is assassinated. And among the untruths, reiterated countlessly since the tragedy, is the claim that the purpose of her return to Pakistan was to promote democracy, stability and peace. It suited the community of politicians in Pakistan and elsewhere to share this fantasy, as it might be called with Bhutto and Pakistan’s mainline parties.

Yet nothing was more transparently ludicrous than the presumption that what was and is still called the “democratic process” would reduce the level of chaos that already prevails in India’s neighbour and bring peace to the entire region.

This ugly reality was underlined soon after her arrival at the cost of many lives and was further reconfirmed by Benazir’s assassination. So the question that immediately surfaces is why so patently unrealistic a thing was done in support of the chimera called the “democratic process?”

The irresistible return of Bhutto

The answer, known to everyone participating in this charade, is the idiotic idea of pushing democracy or the American conception of it, in the Islamic world. In trying to do this Bush has tied himself into many knots.

Sometimes Musharraf is a loyal ally. Sometimes his role is suspect. Pakistan is now a haven for terrorists as a result of US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet Musharraf is criticised for not cleaning up this political and law-and-order mess.

Bhutto and Sharif’s spells in office were neither efficient nor clean. Yet their return was hyped as an essential element in guaranteeing Pakistan’s democratic future. Musharraf was called upon to ensure everyone’s security while at the same time America was also insisting on an “election” that provoked violence and instability. Shortly before the assassination he was warned against banning election rallies “as a rationale” for “security concerns”.

Incredibly in this upside-down situation America chose to believe or pretend to believe that Musharraf sweetened by an association with Bhutto would push the “democratic process” forward.

Instead she was brutally killed. So the second question arises. Why, despite being fully aware of the utter impossibility of a honeymoon with Musharraf, did she agree to a “deal” with him? And, obviously the answer is transparent as the question: like all politicians her appetite for power, the more compulsive for her years in voluntary exile, was irresistible.

Manufacturing a reality

Someone called “Daughter of the East” then became a “Daughter of the West”. If she was a product of Harvard and Oxford Pakistan itself remained untouched by these admirable institutions and the values they embody. In the book she finished writing just before she was killed she wrote about the “cultural gap between the Islamic world which is becoming increasingly radicalised and the West”. By implication her message was that the gap could and should be closed and also that she could play a role in achieving this. But why should anyone want this gap to be closed? And if it is to be narrowed why should it be done with a bias for the West?

Musharraf apart there are many powerful players in Pakistan including the army, the ISI, the parties, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, the Jehadi terrorists, survivors of the Zia group, and the many as yet unidentified factions. The confusion, real or manufactured, over who, and how the assassination was, carried out is indicative of how reality in Pakistan has retreated well behind what appears on the stage. Yet Bush, with a straight face, asked us to swallow the story that Bhutto would “moderate” these various players into committed advocates of the sacred “democratic process”.

Pre-empting people’s writ

Bush knows, as do many others, that a genuine election, for whatever it is worth, could burden Pakistan with a Hamas-like result. So the unspoken assumption must be that “steps” will be taken to ensure against that unscheduled outcome. The idea is, as a report says, to “give a democratic face to a key military ally”.

Is it any surprise that, despite the billions in US aid, Musharraf remains prickly and restive? That he tries to impose a limit on Pakistan’s role in the campaign against “terror”, that he manoeuvres carefully between the contending pressures from America and his fellow players in Pakistan, and that whenever he can, he advertises his contempt for the “democracy” the West is trying to impose on the Islamic world?

He has stood firm against A Q Khan being questioned by the Americans on his nuclear salesmanship. He has rejected US offers to probe the Benazir assassination. And he has opposed US attempts to either check security arrangements for Islamabad’s nuclear weapons or to take part in protecting them. Whether anyone likes it or not bringing stability back from chaos demands authoritarianism. Yet Bush denounces this. Musharraf is accused of a lack of credibility and is constantly warned that aid, military and monetary, will be suspended.

The abuse of democracy

One conclusion is that elections, whether held or not, are irrelevant. The other is that “democracy” in the prevailing political vocabulary is one of the most degraded and debased words in the English language. It is sad, though understandable, that both Advani and the PM used it in their messages of condolence, a tribute to America’s soft power.