Infant Politicians

I did not comment on the death of Benazir Bhutto at the time. My main thought was 'do some countries deserve democracy?'. I don't know whether it is the lack of democracy that lead to the high feelings contributing to her death, or the sudden relaxation of martial law that enabled people to go out murdering. Unlikely the second one, I would have thought - I suspect in Pakistan people have access to guns and anything destructive very easily, and murdering and suicide bombs were quite the rage during martial law as well. The assassination attempt/murder may in any case have been condoned/encouraged by the ruling party - who knows. Pointing the finger at Al Qaeda might be music to Mr Bush's ears but it seems more like a 'for God's sake, don't let Pakistanis be blamed for this' effort.

But putting her 19-year-old son in the job as party leader - why don't they just write his death warrant now? It's weird - he may well have been elected, but at the wrong moment (in an emotional backlash) and on the wrong grounds (he is his mother's son, therefore he is a good leader). What will it do to his remaining life in Oxford - and his needs for personal security? More to the point for Pakistan, how can he possibly be elected President of Pakistan - would there not be a minimum age limit? What experience has he got to run such a volatile country? If he cannot be elected as president due to age restrictions, which candidate is the party proposing?

What is it with the Indian sub-continent that they always go in for dynasties? It's as if they still need kings and queens. But equally, they are happy to kill them off. What is the average life expectancy for a politician from a dynasty in those countries? Maybe now they are taking them so young the question may be resolved soon, if young Master Bhutto may not actually be able to produce offspring.