Home >> History, Ideology & Science >> Globalization

     Email   Print 

Geography of Assassination and Politics of Death

Saberi Roy - 1/21/2008

Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has once again highlighted the spectre of death that accompanies every step of the political roadmap. A political leader stands on flimsy grounds of existence, his survival merely a matter of fate. From Julius Caesar to Gandhi, political leaders seem to be born with death following them like their own shadow. Although Gandhi lived up to 78, many others like Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy died too young and could have contributed a lot more to humanity. Politics remains as one of the most visible professions and politicians bask in the limelight of continued attention. Yet politics in most cases is a career truncated and politicians are forced to stop while there’s still some ‘work in progress’. The list of assassinated people in positions of power suggests that obviously they are the most vulnerable of human beings. Politics is almost like a game yet the stark reality of sudden unexpected death makes it the most dangerous game.

Benazir Bhutto’s death however poses questions on the ever present assassin in political campaigns and mass rallies and in a prominent leader’s life. Rajiv Gandhi, prime minister of India was also murdered in a similar situation while he was with the masses and these two assassinations in South Asia expose the dangers of being or trying to be a ‘mass leader’. There seems to be four ways by which a leader gets assassinated.

1. Assassination by close aides – classic case is Julius Caesar and more recently Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi murdered by her own bodyguards
2. Assassination by deranged individuals – as in the case of Mahatma Gandhi, or John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln
3. Assassination by terrorist groups – as in case of Rajiv Gandhi and Benajir Bhutto
4. Assassination by political rivals – this is widespread in the Middle East and African nations and many examples could be cited from Mozambique, Cameroon, Ghana

Considering these four ways by which leaders could get assassinated, a model could be drawn on the type of assassinations that would be common in certain regions of the world. The US and the developed regions of the world such as Western nations may have widespread terrorist threats but considering the phenomenal security that leaders get, it is unlikely that powerful political leaders will actually be killed by terrorists in these countries. I’m not saying it is absolutely impossible, but then highly unlikely. On the other hand, regions like India, Pakistan and any South Asian country for that matter usually have dense population, political rallies in these countries are almost impossible to control and monitor. So terrorists or suicide bombers are most likely to succeed killing politicians in these regions. Large political rallies are targeted as here terrorists could easily kill many people with one bomb and can easily move in and out of a mass rally without getting noticed. Countries like Pakistan or India being terrorist infected zones, if a political leader in these regions tries to be a mass leader and actually gets close to the masses, that would be the worst political move ever. Yet that is exactly what South Asian leaders do. Unfortunately ‘open’ or ‘uncontrolled’ political campaigns seem to be the only method of reaching out to voters in this part of the world. There is a basic need for advanced political campaigning systems with close monitoring and very advanced security systems in developing countries otherwise there’s no way political leaders can function considering the extent of terrorist network in South Asia. A proper system of political campaigning should also be established that should delineate the rules of political behaviour. South Asian leaders like Rajiv Gandhi or Benajir Bhutto who spent a lot of time in the West did not actually grasp the ground realities of moving with the masses in such dangerous regions. They became emotional with the adulation and with the excitement of the masses.

In advanced economies and developed countries of the world, mass hysteria is well controlled with systematic political campaigning and very measured or calculated political, social, emotional and even physical moves by political leaders. However there is the threat of madness very true in the west. Assassination of leaders by deranged individuals would be most likely in advanced countries considering the lax gun laws in countries like the US, the widespread use of drugs or mind altering substances. History is replete with US presidents assassinated by deranged individuals from Lincoln to McKinley to Kennedy. Of course, there are deranged individuals all over the world, but considering the historical examples and the rise of mental illnesses in the fast paced life of the west along with a culture of substance abuse, derangement could be the largest threat to any political leader in the West. Then deranged individuals are most likely to come out with the weirdest methods of assassination, and only a weird unlikely method can kill a top political leader in advanced countries who is usually privileged with the best security arrangements.

The picture is slightly different in the African and Middle Eastern regions. Assassination by political rivals is widespread in African regions and in the Middle East and examples could be cited such as the case of Eduardo Mondlane in Mozambique, or Amilcar Cabral in Guinea and Cape Verde (and even Saddam Hussein for that matter could be considered as actually assassinated by political rivals in Iraq). So in these regions and countries characterised by dictatorial or autocratic political regimes, death in the hands of political rivals would be most likely. In democracies such as India or US or any other democratic region for that matter, political rivalry being open and accepted rather than checked or thwarted, assassination by political rivals would be counterintuitive or unlikely, although not impossible.

This will bring us to the last remaining possibility – assassination by close aides. This is definitely not quite region specific and can happen anywhere and can strike any leader. ‘In-house enemies’ are always possible as assassination by close aides is about fate and in this case, only a highly intuitive leader can escape the inner circle sting. Yet despite her famed intuition, Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India could not save herself from the bullets of her bodyguard.

Politics is finally about playing with death and a leader can get killed anywhere anytime, yet if we consider the geography of assassination, it may be possible to understand how and why leaders might get killed and what precautions should be prioritized to save the life of leaders.