It comes as no surprise, reading analysis about the legacy of Benazir Bhutto after her assassination. Of particular interest to me is the romantic idealism that the West associated with her, that she's the icon of democracy and hope for her country, and as a champion for women's rights in Pakistan.
It rings particularly true, in the statement that Bhutto, like the other female leaders in that region (and there're more in the region of South Asia than most anywhere in the world), is more a throwback from their male relatives than someone who's elected on their own right. In Bhutto, of course, it's due to her father. And now, her family is going to continue the grip, through her son and husband, who's mired in corruption scandals.
Even in America, when Hilary Clinton being a smart and capable woman, she's hardly being taken seriously enough as a presidential candidate on her own right, than being her close association to her ever popular husband, Bill Clinton. And she'll forever live in the afterglow of Bill Clinton, even if she does brilliantly in the White House.
Perhaps, rarely does anyone compare to the true Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who rose to power and ruled UK for a tumultuous but glamorous decade. To me, she's one of the few women who truly stands on her own, define and chart her course without living under anyone else's shadow in the world of politics.
While electing a woman (like Hilary) or minority (like Obama) to the White House can be important symbolically, one should not too naive to think that that's going to change the way things are. In fact, there's much talk about Obama being "not black enough." It is perhaps a good and bad thing, but that's how things are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If Clinton wins, it will mean two families have run the most powerful 'deomcracy' on the planet since 1988. When it's dynastic, none of it counts.
It is indeed not a good thing, for any family or clan to continue ruling any country or sovereign without regard to the underlying democracy. As to Hilary Clinton, it is no sure thing that she'll win, and given the Iowa Caucus result, she's looking shakier by the day. But one should not be define by only his/her name. If s/he is capable enough and garners enough vote in a fair election, then yes, s/he will rule. As much as I dislike/despise George W Bush (he's a decent person but he's way too incompetent to be a president of the most powerful country in the world), that's what happens. And that's how democracy goes.
Post a Comment