This movie is a biography of both the woman and the country, beginning with Pakistan's partition from India in 1947, and Benazir's birth shortly thereafter.
The history of Pakistan is short but thorny. The country has suffered through most of the afflictions that accompany political power struggle: poverty, lack of education, political instability, disenfranchisement.
Powerful leaders often make powerful countries, and Pakistan - largely because of its armed conflict with India - has become one. But powerful leaders are often despotic and unstable, and Pakistan suffered that fate as well. I'll spare you all most of the political history, save to say that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir's father, served as president then prime minister of Pakistan in the 1970s, and was the founder of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). Zulfikar Bhutto was eventually accused of rigging elections, and a military coup installed General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq as "Chief Martial Law Administrator," though he eventually took over as president of Pakistan. The head of the Bhutto clan was arrested on charges of masterminding a murder, and was hanged in 1979.
So there's some Pakistani history, although take it with a grain of salt. My knowledge is limited extremely limited.
Back to Benazir. She spent a lot of time abroad beginning in her teens and early in her father's political career. She attended Harvard and Oxford Universities, and was progressive by the standards of her home country, both politically and socially. She came home to assist her father, but lived in exile for some time after his death. She took over as the leader of the PPP, and was elected prime minister in 1988, making her the youngest person and first female leader elected as PM of a Muslim country. She was reelected five years later.
The movie lauds her as a tireless worker for democracy, and she is to be commended for that. She modernized the country, supported women, and sought to improve living conditions. But my biggest criticism of the film is that it completely glosses over the allegations of corruption leveled against her and her family (and unfortunately her most lasting legacy). [Note to the filmmakers: even if your final point is going to be that the allegations were baseless, at least address them!] There is a brief interview with Benazir's niece, who admits that there was some corruption, but implies that it was not as extensive as people claimed. And then the film just moves right on to something else. That seems like a cheap ploy to allow the filmmaker to blow past the question of corruption without really digging in.
Keeping track of all the allegations, indictments, convictions, exonerations, withdrawals of charges, sentences, and vacated findings surrounding the Bhutto/Zardari clan is a mind-boggling exercise. Benazir Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari (nicknamed Mr. Ten Percent, for kickbacks taken when he was brokering government deals; now the current Pakistani president, who took over when Pervez Musharraf was forced to resign) served three years in jail for extortion in the early 1990s, and another eight years beginning in the late 90s on a variety of charges including corruption and conspiracy to commit murder (of Benazir's brother). The New York Times wrote an in-depth report detailing its findings about abuses during the Bhutto administration. Bhutto maintained her claims of innocence until her death. The web of people, allegations, and money is so tangled, and the walls surrounding it so opaque, that probably no one will ever know what really happened.
On the other hand, the film portrays Benazir as a woman trying, and sometimes failing, to make her way in a man's world; even after Bhutto was elected prime minister, she was allegedly shut out of the President-military dyad, leaving her as a figurehead only. (Triads are famously unstable sociological arrangements.
Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October 2007, and was assassinated three months later while leaving a political rally. Accusations and claims of responsibility for her death have been flying ever since.
Bottom line: as per usual where politics is concerned, I'd guess that neither side in this debate is entirely right or entirely wrong. The movie is interesting within its limited scope, but there's a huge part of this complicated story that was left out.
Looks like your sociology class is teachin' you some things!
ReplyDelete