Time Person of the Year

Time's Person of the Year: Vladimir Putin

My choice for Person of the Year, well there would be many.  Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would top the list.  They won a Nobel Peace Prize working on a major issue that will affect the world for the rest of time, does that not scream Person of the Year?  Maybe the monks in Burma.  Standing up for democracy in a military dictatorship when no one else in the world will help, does that not qualify for Person of the Year?  Maybe we should stick to the United States.  Nancy Pelosi, first female Speaker of the House?  Well then again, maybe not as she and her Democratic partners did not do as much they had originally planned- that could have been because they lacked a significant majority in the House and Senate to override a Bush veto and they did not have enough seats in the Senate to end a Senate filibuster- but that is story for another blog.

As we have seen, Time's choices for Person of the Year have gone down hill recently.  Think 2006- "You".  Hmm, yes, You are the Person of the Year.  That is the best way to say that we have no freaking idea and are completely indecisive about who should be named Person of the Year.  

And now, 2007's Putin.  Of course, let's name Russia's new dictator Person of the Year, why didn't I think of that first?  Maybe because to me, Person of the Year is a distinction, or at least it has become one, that shows that a person has affected the world in a positive way.  Well, Time sees things differently, "Time's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor.  It is not an endorsement.  It is not a popularity contest.  At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping the world- for better of for worse".  This is the inherent problem with Time's recognition of Putin as Person of the Year.  How can a magazine as upstanding as Time have the guts to declare that Putin, who is hugely becoming a dictator in his own country, can be considered a Person of the Year.  Putin is a dictator, no ifs ands or buts about that.  But I guess, because the Person of the Year does not need to be good, as long as he or she is shaping the world for better or worse, it's ok.  

I guess what only disappoints me further than this is, why if under these circumstances, Osama bin Laden was not declared Person of the Year in 2001?  Now that is a question that the Time editors may have a hard question answering.  But then again, I guess Rudy Giuliani was a good pick for 2001.  Or maybe Time should have picked President Bush, the people of New York City, or better yet the People of the United States.  Come on Time, Putin is a very influential man, but seriously, find some better People of the Year.  Work less at getting your own name in the news with a controversial pick, and work towards picking people how have had an amazing positive influence on the world and who can be good role models for all generations.

Benazir Bhutto Assassination

If you have been living under a rock, or maybe haven't had a chance to watch the nightly news yet, you probably have yet to hear that Benazir Bhutto, the leaders of the Pakistani People's Party (PPP) was assassinated earlier today.

Why is this important?

Well first of all, in my own personal life this event hold a high significance.  This past fall, as I entered into my first political science class- Introduction to Comparative Politics with Sophia Perez- I learned that I had to read London's Financial Times newspaper.  Upon opening up the first newspaper, I began on a journey that involved exploring the up and coming problems and concerns in Pakistani politics.  After reading the newspaper throughout all of the fall semester, I began to become surprisingly attached to what was going on in Pakistan.  One can be sure, the events in Pakistan over the past couple of months- Bhutto's return, Musharraf's election, Sharif's return, problems over Sharif participating in the upcoming elections, upcoming Parliamentary elections, the State of Emergency, Musharraf stepping down as Chief of the Army, etc- have been heavily covered in newspapers throughout the world.  Pakistan became my little baby.  My developing democratic country to study and learn from.  Bhutto's death affected me like a little girl watching her baby fish die in her growing aquarium.  It will be interesting to see how Bhutto's assassination will affect, and it will majorly affect, Pakistani parliamentary elections and Pakistani politics in general.

Second, Bhutto's assassination will have a major influence on Pakistani politics.  Parliamentary elections in Pakistan are to be held on January 8th, 2008.  The major players in this election were to be Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.  This election was supposed to determine whether or not Pakistan was truly on the path to democracy.  Now, one of the major players is dead- not just died out of the blue, but assassinated.  Assassination- the action that has a major effect on how well democracy will work.  Assassination does not bode well for a developing democracy, especially where the person assassinated was supposed to help in a power sharing agreement with Musharraf, who was slowly loosing support with the Pakistani people.  What happens next?  Only the January 8th elections will tell...

Finally, Bhutto's death influences how the United States will continue to deal with her Pakistani ally.  For CNN's view on this issue, check out this link.  The United States supports Pakistan as Pakistan support the United States in the War on Terror.  This relationship has had some rocky points.  Most notably- the relationship is strained because Pakistan is a developing democracy, not a true democracy (i.e. United States / Britain style).  Musharraf's personal election was a sign that the country was heading towards a more acceptable style of democracy, instead of rule by a military dictator.  When Musharraf declared a State of Emergency, arrested dissidents, and threw out the Supreme Court, Pakistan's relationship to the United States was tested.  How can the United States support a country that cares little about democracy?  Why?  Because Pakistan is an ally with the War on Terror.  Therefore, this relationship is way more important to war-hungry Bush than a developing democratic country.  And the Bush administration's latest response to Benazir Bhutto's death... "This latest tragedy is likely to reinforce beliefs that Pakistan is a dangerous, messy place and potentially very unstable and fragile and that they need to cline to Musharraf even more than they did in the past.... The weight of the administration is still convinced that Musharraf is a helpful rather than a harmful figure" (Daniel Markey).  Pakistan is still dangerous and unstable, without a doubt, and maybe Musharraf is a helpful figure for the United States.  Maybe he is helping Pakistan transition into democracy.  However, how can the Bush administration be sure that being an ally with Musharraf and Pakistan is the right idea?  Pakistan is still developing.  It's not fully there and it still has the possibility of reversing it's pathway to democracy.  Everything can change in an instant.  Does the United States want to be known for supporting anti-democratic countries that a just allied with the US's beliefs?  Well, obviously the United States does not care that much.  For the Bush administration, in the War on Terror, all that matters is that we have allies, no matter if they are democratic themselves or not.  And remember, we've done that in the past, supporting the Shah of Iran.

Benazir Bhutto's death has major ramifications personally, within Pakistani politics, and with United States relations.  It will be interesting to see where this assassination will take us...