Benazir Bhutto's murder in the garrison city Rawalpindi is a setback for everyone who was hoping to see some form of accountable democratic government emerge after years of military dictatorship.
Dictator Pervez Musharraf has been sustained by the benign attitude of the White House, which, for years, portrayed the only choice in Pakistan as between the military and Islamist extremists.
Only in recent years did it see Bhutto as a political alternative who would fall in line with the US "global war on terror."
The US put pressure on Ms. Bhutto and the discredited and unpopular general to enter a political marriage of convenience, with the general sporting a lounge suit as president and Bhutto heading an elected civilian government.
No formal agreement was reached, since each was reluctant to compromise with the other, but that remained the US preference.
Her assassination not only scuppers Washington's plan but also risks a descent into civil war and possible division of Pakistan.
Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party supporters reject the simplistic line put out by Gen. Musharraf's ministers – namely, that she was killed by "Islamist militants linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban."
They insist that the general was implicated, conniving in her murder to rid himself of a credible political challenger.
There is circumstantial evidence. Rawalpindi is a military town, where Gen. Musharraf has his headquarters. Its commanders ought to have been able to provide adequate protection to Bhutto.
In addition, Gen. Musharraf and the military top brass have a history of working closely with Islamists.
The Taliban themselves were the creature of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ISI organized and trained them and supplied logistical support when the Taliban swept through Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, ridding the country of the corrupt, divided, heroin-trafficking "mojahedin" warlords.
Despite the general's decision to throw in his lot with the White House war on terror after being threatened with invasion, there are still close links between ISI officials and pro-Taliban elements in Waziristan and other border areas.
Gordon Brown, like his predecessor Tony Blair, can be relied upon to parrot the US line, which he did on Friday, urging Gen. Musharraf to "stick to the course he has outlined to build democracy and stability in Pakistan."
He, like George W Bush, urged the greatest opponent of democracy to assist at its birth.
Mr. Brown gave the game away on the general's relevance by identifying Pakistan as "a major ally in the global effort to combat this menace" and offered "to sustain and build the already significant counter-terrorism support we offer his country, not least in the effort to destroy al-Qaida."
Tooling up the unpopular Pakistani military is not the way to help build a democratic, legally accountable state.
That will, in fact, require the removal of the military from the dominant role that it plays in political life, seizing power and laying down the law, as it has done on several occasions.
Democracy needs agreement among the political parties to create a level playing field, an end to bans on left-wing bodies, trade unions and legal officials and a readiness to tackle problems by political dialogue rather than a military iron fist.
