What Next for the Taliban?

"The Taliban will be in Kabul within weeks!" So went the media punditry on Friday just gone. And just a mere two days later the Afghan government has completely dissolved, the United States are evacuating personnel in scenes reminiscent of the embassy airlift from Saigon in 1975, and the Taliban are back in charge. 20 years of blood and treasure wasted for the situation to wind up where it began. To be sure, the rapid collapse of the client government and the humiliation of the Western powers underlines the bankruptcy of "humanitarian intervention". A point lost on sundry Tories and hand wringing centrists doing the rounds and attacking the withdrawal of military support. They have learned nothing.

None of this soft soaps the Taliban. This might be Taliban 2.0, one savvier when it comes to diplomacy and cutting deals with regional powers, not executing Western journalists and allowing aid agencies to stay, but their extreme gynophobia and suppression of select aspects of modernity remains. What happens next? In this discussion between Alex and Paul Rogers of Bradford University's Peace Studies department, Paul explores the difficulties the American-led coalition faced, the division in their foreign policy establishment, the stupidity of the occupation authorities, and how the Central Asian great game is going to play out between Pakistan, India, and China as well as the US. Events have unfolded rapidly since this was uploaded yesterday, but the analysis underpinning it is a must listen.

Politics Theory Other · The Taliban on the verge of victory w/ Paul Rogers

And don't forget to help support Politics Theory Other out via its Patreon.

That Biden Speech on Foreign Policy

At yesterday's 45th Munich Security Conference, US vice president Joe Biden outlined the character of Obama's foreign policy for the next four years. While it contained no real surprises it is an important speech for socialists to look at, even if it is light on detail. The US economy might be sliding perilously close to depression, but by a vast distance it remains the world's only imperialist superpower and no other state, be they the great powers of old or the emerging might of China and India, has the kind of global reach America possesses.

It is probably too early to speak of a distinctive approach to foreign affairs but at first glance you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Biden speaks of a "new tone" requiring "strong partnerships to meet common challenges", and a casting "aside the petty and the political to reject zero sum mentalities and rigid ideologies, to listen to and learn from one another and to work together for our common prosperity and security." He goes on to say there cannot be a choice between liberty and security as they are mutually reinforcing - "the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example", as he pithily puts it. Despite the diplomatic wording (it would have been impolitic for Biden to have said "we're breaking with Neoconservatism"), these comments clearly mark a change in direction.

What the administration has in mind is a return to a more collegial approach, but this is hardly earth-shattering news. Overseas antipathy toward Bush and the appeal of Obama to a large degree turns on this question of international cooperation. But nevertheless it's worth remembering that despite its Neoconservatism the Bush administration worked multilaterally through NATO and the UN to secure the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (and let's face it, much of the liberal opposition to the war in Iraq was because it did not successfully proceed through their precious UN, not because the invasion was intrinsically wrong). Therefore what really matters is not Obama's readiness to work with other states, but to what ends the "understandings", pacts, treaties and alliances will be put.

On this occasion though, Biden was careful to sound a liberal note few international relations watchers would grumble about. He identified the key challenges as:

* The spread of mass destruction weapons and dangerous diseases;
* A growing gap between rich and poor;
* Ethnic animosities and failed states;
* A rapidly warming planet and uncertain supplies of energy, food, water;
* The challenge to freedom and security from radical fundamentalism.

He argues America will work with others wherever possible and waxes lyrical about the building and enforcing of collective security arrangements. This enables him to wag a finger at Iran for pursuing its "illicit" nuclear programme and sponsorship of terrorist organisations, but also Biden explicitly states the US is willing to negotiate. What he doesn't elucidate is the second part of this principle - the reservation of the right to act unilaterally "only when we must"; an omission that lends a degree of pregnant menace to his Iran comments.

The second principle is a move from the Bush doctrine of pre-emption to prevention with the heavy accent on diplomacy. As Biden admits, the acid test for multilateral diplomacy is the ever-present destabilising effects of Israel/Palestine. He argues for aid efforts that strengthen the 'official' Palestinian authority at the expense of Hamas, the establishment of a lasting two state solution, and the defeat of "extremists" who perpetuate the conflict (as if the interminable strife can be boiled down to die-hards on either side). The second is the worsening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which will require multilateral cooperation from all interested parties. For Afghanistan it means ridding the country from terrorists. For Pakistan it is aiding the state against its recalcitrant tribal territories in the north and along the Afghan-Pakistani border and helping out with economic development - probably much easier said than done given the depths of the country's economic crisis.

The third, quoting from Obama's inauguration speech, is "America will extend a hand to those who unclench their fists." He rejects the clash of civilisations thesis and instead paints a picture of a decent world threatened by extremism. Part of the foreign policy programme will see the USA reaching out to hundreds of millions across the Islamic world to strengthen the values most Muslims and America hold in common - and naturally restore the global hegemon's legitimacy. Biden may have in mind Islamic fundamentalism, but what of other sorts of "extremism"? How long will it be before growing labour and socialist movements are grouped into this category? Again, the Obama Doctrine is designed to avoid this scenario. Its favoured method of prevention is the encouragement of liberal democratisation and economic development.

Moving on to the 'vision thing' the development goals Biden sets the administration reads like a liberal interventionist's dream. Their objectives are

* To help eliminate the global education deficit;
* To cancel the debt of the world’s poorest countries;
* To launch a new Green Revolution that produces sustainable supplies of food and;
* To advance democracy not through its imposition by force from the outside, but by working with moderates in government and civil society to build the institutions that will protect freedom.

These are prefaced by a desire to cut global poverty by half by 2015. I think they're going need a bit of assistance meeting that one.

In the final part of the speech, Biden turns his attention to NATO and the perennially frosty relationship with a more assertive Russia. First off he recommits the administration to maintaining a missile defence capability, but only to protect the West from Iran and, importantly, in consultation with the Putin-Medvedev regime. This sounds the tone for a more conciliatory approach to Russia. For example, there is a strange almost-admission that its Soviet predecessor was right to fight fundamentalist Islam in Afghanistan and calls for more cooperation between Russia and NATO against the Taliban (and presumably the Islamic movements and militias active in Russia's near-abroad). He also looks forward to cooperation with Russia over arsenal reduction and against nuclear proliferation. Interestingly Biden notes US opposition to the puppet states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but signals America's intent to keep it as a paper position.

And all this is concluded with a neatly-tied pledge to transatlantic cooperation. So far, so liberal.

It remains to be seen whether the administration's actions will match the rhetoric. But when all is said and done after Guardianistas, Decent-types, sundry Democrat and LibDem commentators, and 'soft' anti-imperialists have pored over this speech, there is no real qualitative difference between the new administration and the ancien regime. Neoconservatives were equally partial to wield the apologia of liberal interventionism - their problem was virtually no one took their humanitarian gloss seriously, least of all themselves. The difference is because our liberal friends want to believe in Obama and his foreign policy actions are likely to get a free pass from this quarter for quite a while. It falls to us socialists to articulate the criticisms and offer an alternative.

Pakistan Economy in Meltdown

I haven't really got any time to write a proper blog this evening, so I hope readers don't mind if I bring this article to the notice of those who don't regularly frequent the website of the CWI. This is by Khald Bhatti of the Socialist Movement of Pakistan. In it the comrade looks at what the economic crisis spells out for Pakistan.

The Pakistani economy is facing its worst crisis in a decade, with massive trade and budget deficits, plunging foreign currency reserves and investments, a severe energy crisis, super inflation and capital flight. According to senior economist Qaisar Bengali, “we are on the verge of default and economic collapse. It is a financial crisis and it is very serious. If we are unable to meet our debt repayments, if we are unable to pay for imports, then the wheels of agriculture and industry will certainly come to a stop”. He is not the only economist portraying such a catastrophic scenario; another leading economist, Yousaf Nazar, put it this way; “we should prepare ourselves for the coming economic tsunami. Pakistan’s economic outlook for the next year or two is negative, even if it manages to get the planned three billion dollars in external financial assistance in the next few months”. This is generally the pessimistic mood among the leading independent economists in the country. Some economists are even saying that present economic crisis is the worst in the history of the country.

The Pakistani currency has lost 30% against the US dollar in a year without a single devaluation of the currency taking place. The trade deficit has widened to an unsustainable level of $20 billion. Foreign exchange reserves have fallen from 17 billion dollars to 6.7 billion dollars. This is not enough to pay for imports for even four weeks. The current account deficit has now exceeded 10% of GDP. GDP growth is likely to drop sharply to around 3%, which will imply a drop in the real per capita income of around for 80% of Pakistanis. It was more than 7% in 2007 and 8.9% in 2006. Inflation has risen to 26% (official figures), and food inflation is around 36%. The stock market fell 35% in the last few months – falling from 15,800 to 9,240 points. Foreign investment continues to fall. In 2007 it was $8.7 billion in and has now dropped to $5.19billion in 2008. Foreign portfolio investment declined from $3.28 billion to $41 million dollars in the same period. Overall investment dropped by 9% in one year. In last few months, capital outflow and flight out of the country has increased significantly, as millions of dollars are leaving the country every day. Finance ministry officials put capital flight figures at between 6 and 10 billion dollars in last few months. Both the agriculture and industrial output have dropped.

The textile industry is in crisis and factory closures resulted in the loss of 300,000 jobs in this sector. Textile exports have fallen around 23% in the last year. The suicide attack on the Marriot hotel in Islamabad hit the textile industry and exports badly, as many foreign business delegates canceled their visit to Pakistan.

Based on the latest available key economic indicators in the 25 largest ‘developing’ countries (excluding the Middle Eastern oil producers) in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Pakistan has had the worst fiscal and current account deficit (measured as a percentage of GDP), the second highest inflation rate and the second worst performing currency, when measured in terms of its depreciation against the US dollar, since the beginning of the year. The rapid deterioration of macro economic indicators has exposed the fragility of the Pakistani economy. It has undermined the myth of its “economic progress”.

Amongst all the major ‘developing’ countries, Pakistan’s economy is the weakest and most vulnerable. It needs at least $10 billion to stop its journey into the economic abyss.

Top government officials, including the President, Asif Ali Zardari (pictured) and Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gillani, are touring one country one after another to get much needed financial assistance. All these efforts have so far failed. There was big enthusiasm in government circles when the US and Britain announced the formation of a group called “friends of Pakistan” to help the ailing economy. But nothing has happened so far, and now the government has decided to go to the IMF for a bailout package.

It is most likely that international imperialist financial institutions like IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank will provide some financial assistance to country to save it from defaulting and going into total collapse. The IMF and World Bank are negotiating a financial assistance package with the PPP-led government. It is most likely that this package will lead to harsher conditions being implemented. This means more attacks on the already impoverished working masses and poor. The government has already abolished the subsidy on food, electricity and other items, as dictated by the IMF, which hit the poor very hard. The prime minister of the PPP government admitted this in a televised press conference. For ordinary people, life has become a struggle for survival with very little hope of relief. Further attacks on living conditions will make the situation even worse for the working class and poor families. The results and experiences of past IMF and World Bank interventions since 1988 clearly show that they may stop the total collapse of the economy in the short term. However, the cost, as always, will be more misery and suffering for the working masses. These interventions in the past have increased poverty, unemployment and hunger and made basic and essential services less effective, but more expensive.

Pakistan is going through a severe energy crisis. Long power failures have disrupted normal daily life for ordinary working people. Power failures, which are known as load shedding, are compounding the economic crisis. They are crippling industries and businesses. People are spending 12 to 14 hours a day without electricity in the cities and 16 to 18 hours in the rural areas. The prices of generators and UPS (uninterrupted power supply systems) have already been doubled. This puts them out of the reach of working class and middle class people. Thousands of workers have been made unemployed because of power failures. The energy crisis has already cost the economy more than $8 billion in 2008.

The present state of the economy has not developed overnight. It is the direct result of the economic policies pursued by previous governments and continued by the present PPP led government and compounded by the current international crisis. The Musharaf-led military regime created many bubbles during its 9 year reign. All these bubbles have started to burst, one after the other. General Musharaf, and his economic team, was headed by the blue-eyed boy of IMF and World Bank, Shaukat Aziz. He was appointed finance minister by Musharaf and then promoted to the post of Prime Minster. The Musharaf regime achieved high growth rates through money- pumping policies. The first bubble was created through the stock market which first burst in 2005 and then again in 2007-8. The regime poured billions of rupees into the stock market and share values started to climb. The big investors and speculators also started to invest and the market index reached an historic high.

The second bubble was created around the real estate business which burst in 2007. Through the speculation, the price of lands and houses rose to unsustainable levels. In some cities the prices went up to 400% and even middle class people were finding it hard to buy a home, or piece of land. In 2007, property prices dropped almost 50% which led to a major crisis in the real estate business that still continues today. The third bubble was created around consumer spending. The regime encouraged the banks to start different schemes to offer cheap loans to the middle class and public sector workers to purchase cars, houses, TVs, refrigerators, air conditioners and other household items. This consumer boom helped the auto and electronic industries to flourish. This spending-fueled bubble started to burst in 2007. Rising food prices, the energy crisis and falling incomes triggered a crisis in consumer financing, as people were finding it difficult to repay loans. Many new supermarkets and retail stores were established during the consumer boom. Now many of these big supermarkets find themselves in a very different situation. According to one local supermarket chain, their sales have dropped by almost 50%. The general manager of this super market chain said “I have never experienced this situation before. Even well off customers who used to buy things in big quantities are now buying according to their budgets and buy less”.

The high growth rate was mainly based on these bubbles and on foreign aid. The US alone provided aid and assistance to the tune of 12 billion dollars since 2002. The IMF, World Bank and ADB (Asian Development Bank) all provided generous loans to Pakistan. Pakistani immigrants in the US also sent billions of dollars in remittances, which were also used to simulate the economy. The regime also used privatisation as a means of collecting more money and attracting foreign investment from the Middle East to boost the economy for a short period of time. The neo-liberal economic agenda and free market economic policies were implemented with full force and vigor. The present economic collapse and severe crisis is the result of these policies.
Super inflation and poverty

According to the official figures, overall inflation stands around 26% and food inflation 36%. But independent economists are saying that actual figures are a bit higher than official ones. This is the highest rate of inflation in the last 3 decades, and has hit millions of working people and the poor very hard. The prices of food items have been doubled within one year. The price of wheat flour has risen from 15 rupees per kg to 36 rupees per kg. The price of one egg has gone up from 3 rupees to 6 rupees. The price of a chicken has risen from 80 to 145 rupees. The same applies to the prices of fruit and vegetables. An average working class family used to spend around 60 rupees to cook vegetable curry. Now it will cost around 120 to140 rupees. Household expenditure surveys indicate that the sharp rise in food prices have had a devastating effect on the poor. According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), food expenditure makes up for an average of about sixty percent (60%) of the household expenditure for an ordinary family in Pakistan. The ADB also pointed out that a 10% increase in food prices would drive an additional seven million into poverty; a 20% increase. A 30% increase would drive 14.7 million more into poverty. According to this analysis, 27 million Pakistanis have fallen below the poverty line in one year because of the increase in food prices. Nearly 87 million people, out of the total population of 160 million, live below the poverty line. 88% population earns less than 2 dollars a day. On the one hand, more people are falling below the poverty line but at the same time the people already living in poverty are being driven deeper into destitution. According to the World Bank report, 77% of Pakistanis are exposed to food insecurity and the quality of life is falling rapidly. This means that more than two thirds of the population vulnerable.

According to the consumer price index (CPI) which covers the retail prices of 374 items in 35 major cities, in September 2008, transport and communication charges shot up by 40%, food and beverages by 30.9%, fuel by 21.48%, laundry by 20%, textiles and footwear by 17%, education and house rent by16%. House hold furniture and equipment rose by 14% and medical expenses by a staggering 135%. These increases, in just one month, tell the whole story of what has happened in the last year. The prices of basic items have left working class families struggling to make ends meet and they have been forced to cut their expenditure on health and children’ s education. Pensioners, the poor and low income working class families have been forced to spend less on food, clothes, medicines, transport, education, rent and utilities.

The main reason for this rampant inflation is that the government gives a free hand to the cartels of different industries. The big traders and dealers increase the prices according to their wishes. The free market economy runs unchecked over the lives of millions of working class people and poor without any hurdles. The privatisation of state owned industries, services and businesses in last two decades have allowed the private sector to develop monopolies and cartels to take advantage and to maximize their profits. Capitalist greed has pushed millions into poverty, hunger and misery. Capitalism as an economic system bases itself on profits and exploitation. Production under capitalism is not done to meet the needs of the people but to make the maximum profit. It is necessary to end this system of greed, profit and exploitation and to replace it with a system which produces goods to meet the needs of the people. The overthrow of capitalism and the transformation of society along socialist lines will create the conditions in which everyone can have access to enough decent food, decent housing, education, health care, transport and other utilities and services. The nationalization of industries, banks, insurance companies, services, natural resources and other sectors of the economy under the democratic control of the workers would provide the basis for the provision of basic services and utilities to everyone. Humanity would be free from hunger, poverty, exploitation, war, repression and all sorts of discrimination. Neo-liberalism and free market economics have failed to solve the basic problems faced by the working masses, instead they has aggravated the already existing problems. Free market economics has failed because it works only in the interests of the handful of rich fat cats and big business and ignores the needs of millions of people. The problems of the working masses can only be solved on basis of socialism.
The Socialist Movement demands:

* Reduce the prices of food, energy, fuel and transport by at least 50%.
* Stop privatization. Nationalize industry, banks, services, insurance companies and other key
sectors of the economy under the democratic control of workers. No to neo-liberalism and the
free market, for a democratic, socialist, planned economy.
* Abolish feudalism, for progressive land reforms and voluntary collective farming, reduce the
prices of fertilizer, diesel, seeds and tractors by at least 50%.
* For a 12,000 rupee minimum wage, linked with inflation and a 35-hour working week.
* For a government of workers and peasants.

A Day With Bourdieu

Alas, only metaphorically seeing as this titan of the French intelligentsia passed from the scene six years ago. But Pierre Bourdieu's ideas live on and this was the topic of yesterday's Reproductions day school at Warwick University. After the customary tea and biscuits the proceedings began.

The first session by Michael Grenfell, titled 'Social Class? Bourdieu and the Practical Epistemology of Social Classification' was an overview and recap of Bourdieu's work for those of us whose brains had gotten a bit stiff. Among other things, he suggested there were three key moments in Bourdieu's approach empirical work. The first concerns the construction of the research object. This means anything the sociologist approaches as an object of study is not innocent. To illustrate, social space is composed of an overlapping and shifting number of fields. Each of these fields operate as if they are an economy, with their own methods of regulation, stakes to fight over, capital to accumulate and strategies that can be deployed in struggle. There are any number of agents active within these fields who occupy certain positions and trajectories and have an interest in struggling for the possession of the capital specific to it. The more capital one has, the greater the potential for reconfiguring the field around their interests. All social phenomena have a position in one or multiple fields and are constituted by their relations to other objects within the field and the overarching dynamics of struggle. Therefore starting point for sociological research is to conceptually locate the object in relation to everything else and not commit the fallacy of treating it as stand alone phenomena.

The second methodological instance consists of three distinct levels. Even though social space is configured through interrelated fields, it is worth bearing in mind that contemporary social formations are organised hierarchically - and this applies to fields too. The wider social field constitutes/is constituted by the economic and political fields, but it is also dominated by them. Even though each field has a certain autonomy and a specificity that cannot be wholly understood with reference to external determinations, who "decides" what is and isn't legitimate tend to be those who are rich in the capital of the dominant fields. The closer a field is to this field of power, the more apparent this domination is, and the more value the cultural capital specific to it has vis other fields. For example, among academic disciplines Economics enjoys close links to the business world, attracts more research monies, influences key decision making and so on by virtue of its position. The same cannot be said of Cultural Studies. Hence sociological research involves analysing this field of power, the relations between the agents competing in the field and the 'habitus' of agents, a "practical sense, that is, an acquired system of preferences, of principles of vision and division (what is usually called taste), and also a system of durable cognitive structures (which are essentially the product of the internalisation of objective structures) and of schemes of action which orient the perception of the situation and the appropriate response. The habitus is this kind of practical sense for which is to be done in a given situation – what is called in sport a “feel” for the game, which is inscribed in the present state of play." (Practical Reason 1998, p.25).

Thirdly and crucially is the element of Bourdieu's work Grenfell felt was often overlooked by sociologists - the process of 'self-objectivation'. What this means is turning the sociological gaze back upon ourselves. It follows that if all social phenomena are bound up in the structures and struggles outlined above, so are we. There's no Mount Olympus from which sociologists can observe the social space below, we are as much part of the fields we study as anyone else. Bourdieu is not for a 'sociology of the sociologists' because it's a jolly excuse for academics to churn out more papers no one is likely to read: it is the condition of scientific sociological knowledge. By looking at our own trajectories, positions and interests in academic and other fields we control for the distortions and biases that are the inevitable outcome of a sociology operating in a society stratified by class and cut across by fields and their species of capital. This can only strengthen the claims our research makes (something, incidentally, that concerns about half of my thesis).

Then came the first of the day's workshops. The first was Raffaella Bianchi whose paper was on musical culture and class in Risorgimento Milan. She looked at how opera was assimilated into the class practices of the nascent Milanese bourgeoisie, of how private boxes at La Scala became a key site for the constitution of common political interests and a new nationalist hegemony to counter the Austrian and Papal domination of Italy. The second was from Will Atkinson who was using Bourdieu to understand class reproduction in a self-stylised individualist age. As education is one of the primary fields where we all begin acquiring the cultural capital that allows us to get on, he was interested to see if class remained a key factor in its accumulation and therefore individual life chances.

After lunch Andreas Bieler gave a talk on European integration and 'Neo-Gramscianism' - but I'll leave that one for a post of its own. So it's to the afternoon workshops. Saleem Izdani Khan gave a presentation on sectarianism and class in Pakistan. This was basically an account of the shifting composition of the Pakistani ruling class and the project of constructing a secular Muslim state in the aftermath of Partition. He also looked at the position of the army and the contradictions arising from Pakistan's backwardness (i.e. feudal basis of much of the ruling class, low rate of urbanisation, regional rivalries, geopolitical positioning, etc.). Considering no one knew anything about Pakistan apart from Saleem, the question and answer session was very thorough.

The final event saw Lisa Adkins give a talk called 'Mobility in a Time of Futurity' which was a complex encounter between Marx and Bourdieu, and one where Bourdieu didn't come off lightly. Adkins critiqued him for ignoring how exploitation and surplus extraction are also fundamental constituents of the social order. He disregards the Marxist understanding of capital as representatives of congealed abstract labour time and deploys capital merely as effort recognised by others in a field. The problem with this, I would suggest, is by treating capital in this meritocratic manner Bourdieu can only really describe the reproduction of the uneven distribution of capitals, but not explain it. For that you need Marx. Adkins went on to look at the composition of abstract labour in contemporary capitalism and argued there were new modes of capital accumulation starting to emerge. With reference to her work on freelance web designers, she described how they made their money. Basically they build websites and charge according to the number of potential hits it would likely generate. In classical terms, the designer is not exploiting their labour power as would a self-employed small business owner, instead earnings are entirely future-oriented, based on time that does not yet exist. I wasn't entirely sure about this myself.

Overall it was an excellent day. All the sessions were high quality and gave pause for thought. And it was good to see plenty of Marxist and Marxisant postgrads in attendance. If this is in anyway representative, it looks like the increasing take up of Bourdieu is paving the way for a sociological comeback of Marx. Afterall, it is impossible to talk about Bourdieu and not have the old beard crop up sooner or later. 

The Death of Benazir Bhutto

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto will have deep political repercussions domestically and internationally. At the moment of writing, it appears she was in the process of leaving a Pakistan Peoples' Party election rally in the garrison city of Rawalpindi when her entourage was attacked by a suicide bomber. Along with the bomber and his high profile target, at least 20 other people were killed.

So far, the US state department has condemned it as an attack not just on Bhutto and the PPP, but also the so-called democratic reconciliation process since the lifting of martial law last month. David Miliband, speaking for the government expressed his shock, and called for restraint. David Cameron for the Tories said it was a significant setback to Pakistan's return to democratic politics, and her London-based cousin, Asim Bhutto, paid tribute to her as someone who would bring "peace and freedom" to the country.

You can expect a number of tributes to litter the press and the blogosphere generally over the next couple of days. But let's be clear about this, Bhutto's support by the US and UK governments plus the friendly coverage she's received from the BBC since her return from self-imposed "exile" have nothing to do with her democratic or secular credentials. Our masters remain very keen for Pervez Musharraf to remain in power. From their standpoint he is a pro-Western figure amenable to US and UK imperialism's geopolitical interest in the region. The big problem is his lack of popular mandate, they'd much rather have a friendly face at the helm who's got there by fair means rather than foul. A rapprochement between the two figures - a government position for Bhutto plus a pardon concerning corruption charges - in exchange for her backing of Musharraf's presidency after the elections was possible, despite the long-standing personal indemnity between the two. Furthermore, neither were very far apart politically. On the key issues; the relationship with India, and opposition to the myriad Pakistani Islamist movements and militias, they were virtually one. The passing of Bhutto from the scene has thrown a spanner in the works.

While this will cause the foreign office and the state department a headache, for Pakistan it marks a new intensity to the crisis permanently engulfing its political system. It is no exaggeration to say Bhutto's death fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation. Where the PPP are concerned, more than one commentator on the BBC this afternoon has noted it was very much structured around Bhutto's person. For example, imagining Forza Italia without Silvio Berlusconi gives you an idea of the predicament the PPP finds itself in. Without the anchoring figure of Bhutto, it's difficult to see how this party - a coalition of convenience between bourgeois nationalists, secularist intelligentsia, and even Trotskyists, can remain a coherent political entity. Nawaz Sharif, the ex-prime minister toppled by Musharraf's coup in 1999, may have ostentatiously wrung his hands of any benefits to be accrued from the assassination in his BBC interview a short while ago, but he did commit his party to sitting down with the PPP to work out what can be done, despite the bad blood between the two. No doubt he will be looking to co-opt as much of the PPP to his bandwagon as possible.

Another casualty will be the shreds of what remains of Musharraf's legitimacy. Speaking to the BBC, Hussain Haqqanni, a former Bhutto flunky, pointed out Rawalpindi is the headquarters of Pakistan's overblown military apparatus. It is a place that, in theory, should be the most secure location in the country. It is widely accepted to be crawling with intelligence operatives. And yet a suicide attacker was able to penetrate Bhutto's security detail in the heart of the military establishment with apparent ease. To the mind of many Bhutto supporters and sympathisers, even if there is no link between Musharraf and the attack (a claim already being made by Asim Bhutto) this, coming on top of his inability to tackle fundamentalist-inspired political violence at the very least positions him complicit in Bhutto's death.

In the immediate term, a postponement of elections is likely, giving Musharraf and his Muslim League some time to horse trade with his opponents. As for a return to martial law, this could be a serious mistake from Musharraf's point of view. It is possible such a move could be supported by some of his opponents as a means of stymieing the fall out, but seeing mainstream politics fall behind de facto military rule would do nothing to challenge the growing influence of fundamentalist political Islam. Whatever the case, it is they who are the winners. By claiming the scalp of Pakistan's most high profile politician, future "martyrs" will be emboldened to make similar attacks.