I was looking forward to Benazir Bhutto’s lecture at the LSE. She was to deliver a talk on the current political situation in Pakistan.
She spoke yesterday at the LSE and I was there on time to listen to her. Firstly, she was half an hour late. The talk was supposed to start at 7pm but she arrived fashionably late with her entourage at 7:30pm. Hong Kong theatre was totally packed by 7:00pm. However, half of the Hong Kong theatre at the LSE was filled with PPP workers who were armed with their cameras and looked uncomfortable in their new suits. As soon as Benazir Bhutto arrived all of her party apparatchiks in the Hong Kong theatre dutifully stood up and started clapping with extreme zeal and passion. After this sideshow everyone sat on their chairs and waited for her to start her lecture.
The chair of the event, Dr. Purna Sen, introduced Benazir and then she got up and started her lecture. Let me first summarize what she said and then I shall reflect on her speech.
She started her lecture reminding people that she was educated at Harvard and Oxford universities. After that she started her history lesson. She began with the description of the night when military took her father in custody in 1977 through a military coup and then subsequently hung him on dubious charges. It was when Benazir met her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, for the last time in his death cell that her father passed on the baton of leadership on to her. This was the moment when she took a vow that she would give her entire life to serve the people of Pakistan and ensure that Pakistan becomes one of the great nations of the world. Then we heard a great deal about General Zia and his tyranny. Furthermore, she talked about Soviet-Afghan war of 1980’s and how it led to the birth of Islamization in Pakistan. Benazir then went on to talk about Taliban and how the ISI of Pakistan cropped them up financially and otherwise. Following on, she gave us a lesson on the correct version of Islam and what it means to be a Muslim in the modern world.
According to her, in last 30 years Pakistan was only governed democratically under her reign. She contends that in last 30 years it was only during her tenure as the Prime Minister that Pakistan was governed with vision; that she took steps to ensure that Pakistan develops and grows to become a strong, prosperous nation, which would have been on its way to thrive in an era of globalisation. In addition, Benazir vehemently defended PPP governments with respect to their integrity and their aggressive but appropriate methods to deal with poverty, terrorism, and jehadism. In fact, she had the audacity and gall to suggest that had she been in power the attacks on the world trade centre on the 11 September 2001 would not have taken place because her government would have been able to eliminate Al Qaeda and even deal with Osama Bin Laden. This was totally nonsensical and bereft of any reason. This was absurd. I could not stop myself from laughing loudly when she said this. In hindsight I should not have laughed but then how else could I have reacted to this drivel?
After this Benazir talked about her role in reforming the bastions of fanaticism, the religious schools or madrassas. In sum, Pakistan was shining under her and that had she been in power longer Pakistan would be an enlightened-moderate-Muslim-state. And there would be no way the vigilantes associated with the Lal Masjid in Islamabad would have been able to subvert and circumvent law and order and take mattes in their own hands. Benazir stressed that PPP government would have ensured that the writ of government extended to the entire nation and that no region, be it federally administered tribal regions, or organisations would have been able to act in contravention of the interests of the Pakistani state. Lastly, she reminded everyone that, like all nations, political parties had no permanent enemies but only permanent interests. And that was it. This was the end of her lecture and this was her view on the current political situation in Pakistan.
After she finished her lecture, the chair of the event gave the audience a chance to ask Benazir Bhutto some questions. I asked her the first question. I reminded her that she was supposed to deliver a lecture on the current political situation in Pakistan but she had failed to even mention the name of General Pervez Musharraf. Her history lesson stopped in 1999 and it was bewildering that she stopped at that point. Finally: I told her that she governed Pakistan shambolically and without any dignity. Then I asked her: was she going back to Pakistan to become Musharraf’s Prime Minister or was she planning to fight to restore democracy in Pakistan? She gave me a pathetic reply. Her patronising reply is as follows: “Young man: it is the people of Pakistan who would decide if I am worthy of governing them. So I shall leave that to them.” However, whilst I was asking my question the PPP workers were looking at me with their intimidating eyes and were visibly very angry. I was a bit taken aback but then that is there job. Other people also asked some good questions as well but she chose not to reply to anyone. But no one pressed her further on why she did not mention General Musharraf even once in her lecture.
Someone did remind her that it was her Interior Minister, General Naseerullah Babar, who claims to be the architect and the man behind the creation of Taliban and thus it was not apt for her to shy away from taking responsibility for creating a monster like Taliban, which had links with Al Qaeda and other jehadi organisations. Benazir replied that all governments have made mistakes and that this was a mistake. Again, that was it. So this is the reality: Benazir Bhutto does not deserve to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. She does not have the capacity, vision or necessary integrity or character to lead a nation of 160 million people. She was given two chances in the past but she has proven to be a disgrace.
It was very depressing to hear her speak. It appeared from her speech that Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto have reached some kind of deal. It is just a matter of time before we know the contents of that deal. This is going to be extremely bad for the future of Pakistan. Benazir is a corrupt thug. Her party, Pakistan People’s Party, has in past proved to be corrupt, ineffective, incompetent and incapable of governing Pakistan.
Yesterday, I was quite saddened by what I saw and heard. I fail to understand why people are talking about elections when it appears that the military government of Pakistan has already declared the results of the 2007 national elections. This is a disgrace. General Musharraf is only interested in perpetual power and Benazir also wants power through any means. It is not far fetched to say that Pakistani political process does not exist and that is why I feel that a person like Imran Khan cannot make any impact whilst this continues on in Pakistan. There is no hope for Pakistan under Musharraf and Benazir. I am certain that under Bhutto and Musharraf regime Pakistan will remain dormant or even further slide down developmentally, educationally and politically. Grotesque times are awaiting Pakistan.
I also had the displeasure of listening to Benazir Bhutto at the London School of Economics. It was interesting to see amongst current students and fellow alumni a coterie of her supporters clap and applaud everything she said regardless of its content.
The speech was nothing more than a lesson in Islam and history of Pakistan, which, dare I say, added nothing to my existing knowledge. It did not seem to be intended to convince the non-believers such as myself or her supporters. It was intended for a Western audience. She spoke about her credentials and the resolve she has shown through her personal life. Loss of one’s father and two brothers would gain sympathy from any unsuspecting mind. And though I agree that she has gone through a lot, I am afraid the title of the lecture was, ‘The Current Political Situation in Pakistan’.
It would be interesting to note that the lady spoke for 45 minutes and did not even ONCE mention the name of General Pervaiz Musharraf. I was shocked that his name was missing from her analysis of, ‘The Current Political Situation in Pakistan’. However, not only that. A lot more was missing from her analysis. Her 45 minutes were spent talking about her life from 1977 to 1996 and not a minute was spent on her life from 1999-2007. I am sure that would have been much more relevant to, ‘The Current Political Situation in Pakistan’.
If there was any doubt in my mind about a suspected ‘deal’ it was removed yesterday. Mrs Bhutoo did or said nothing to suggest otherwise and it seemed obvious that even if there wasn’t a deal she was making sure she said nothing that would affect her chances. She also stated she would be back in Pakistan by the end of the year, leaving out the bit ‘as prime minister’. A friend mentioned that the front row was occupied by half of the next cabinet of Pakistan.
What further disappointed me was not her political craftiness, but her intellectual incompetence as she visibly sidestepped all probing questions about the deal. A person with any intellectual integrity and such brilliant academic credentials would have taken the questions head on and given straight answers. That is the least we expect of our leaders. There is no doubt that if there is a deal it would be a disappointment. I would like to ask her how she would justify letting down Pakistanis who believe in democracy for the third time?
Hakim, you are absolutely right in pointing out her intellectual incompetence. Many disagreed with the policies and actions of her father but nobody could dispute his natural talent and charisma. Nobody regards George Bush as a bright guy despite the fact he went to Yale and Harvard. I see Benazir the same way.
I think the key point is that as Khuldun said she has no vision. To think that a 3rd world country can develop without any corruption would be naive. However there needs to be a sense of the bigger picture about economic and social development which needs to accompany it.
General Musharraf when he first came to power had a vision. He wanted Pakistan to be a prosperous, modern, secular, liberal nation. I imagine the Mullah’s disagree with this vision entirely. Naive ‘democracy at any cost’ elites would also have balked at this vision. However the common man shares most of these values and went along with this.
Given these points, could appointing Benazir in fact be a masterstroke by Musharraf. Hopefully she won’t have any real power. Secondly it would strengthen an important political party. Thirdly, having a genuine political party would weaken the Mullahs.
Of course all of this would be irrelevant if there was no vision to back it up. But even his critics can’t deny that Musharraf has done some important work in areas such as women’s rights legislation. On the other hand sacking the Chief Justice for not agreeing with you is a serious step back if you are trying to inculcate a sense of fairness and the rule of law.
So is this a masterstroke on the way to implementing Musharraf’s progressive vision, or a sign that Musharraf’s vision is now corrupt and Pakistan is headed for a descent into chaos.
Khaldun and Hakim, at least you guys dont have exams coming in two weeks. The lecture was probably aimed at stressed students, so that they may get a good laugh before exams. Do you remember how everyone laughed when she claimed that had she been in power, 9/11 would have never happened. Thank God, shes not in power at least till the end of this year. I am sure she ll somehow convince Bush that Pakistanis are all Al Qaeda people. Of course, to quote her, Bin Laden is in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. Sad! May God bless our country!
A few words come - BULL SHIT !! - I wish the people of Pakistan (or wait when did the people of Pakistan ever elect their leader) sorry since the people of Pakistan have no say - then I dread we are going to see this person return to power - for the third time - I mean you could be fooled once, well maybe twice, but surely not THREE time -
Pakistan please wake up
well, people who lived most of their life out side pakistan are the one’s who are specialists on pakistan’s history.
and people who never practiced islam are now teaching us islam.
This is what is our problem.
Saeed and Teeth Maestro: How dare you use that language about Benazir Bhutto or any other woman. You go to lectures at the LSE and yet are no more evolved or educated than the madrassah clan. She is too good for dirt mouthed, animals like you. She is a practicing woman and does not or now and has never worn a mini-skirt tho even if she had it would not be important. Islamic values are not those expressed by the ninja/jama hafza crowd. She, Nawaz and all their democratic ilk are too good for you. You are right they should stay away from Pakistan and leave you people to the Taliban………Sunim
ADMIN: PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE BLOGS COMMENT POLICY. DO NOT USE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.
Sunim: I would advise you to ignore the ignoramoses………They show absolute disrespect and disregard for the people of pakistan and who they vote for. They themslves are the middle class drawing room class who count for nothing. They are neither the political and economic elites of Pakistna who make a difference or the voters who have benefited from every democratic government - but what do these fools knows about well, schools and infirmaries…..Ignore the semi-literate………people who can read but cannot understand…
OH BY THE WAY KHALDUN: Do you dres really well or what. This piece is an attempt to slander Bhuuto from start to finish. fashionably late…entourage looking uncomfortable in their suits, clapping crazily for her - have you ever been involved in an american campaign….i am sure not or you would know these things are normal. this bhutto hatred is so boring now but i feel that i have to rebut because you goaded people into a free-for all of hated and anti-woman, anti bhutto crap. Zjan
ADMIN: PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE BLOGS COMMENT POLICY. DO NOT USE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.
I do hope that was not addressed to me and the offensive comments of W… and B…should be exised. Thanking you in advance.
Did anyone ask her about the ‘deal’? If someone did, did she deny it outright like her close party members have?
Convinced of a storm brewing, I guess the question now is: Will it be any worse than the current storm, that is would Ms Bhutto make any difference to the way the country has been governed for the past 8/60 years? [I doubt it will- no matter how much support Ms Bhutto can muster, deal or no deal, she can’t take on the army or the General’s wishes in the future].
Also, I’m deeply disappointed in the current direction of this discussion so please:
(1) When making a comment ask yourselves one question: Are you adding anything to this discussion or are you merely wasting space?
(2) Don’t Categorize people as ‘middle class’, ‘elites’ and ‘animals’ and use foul-language (for anyone!) since it is deplorable and does nothing to anyone except to show your level of thinking.
Although I think that ignoring comments such as the above is the key to making them stop, it seems that they are becoming more regular and therefore something needs to be said. It seems moderating comments is the only answer to individuals who run on wild emotions rather than rationale.
I agree with Sunim and ZJan about the language of some of the posts above. Where is the administrator? Once before, too, someone used the B word for Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto here.
I guess this is less MicroPakistan and more MicroGulberg or MicroClifton because sometimes the discussion is no more than a replication of the drawing room chatter in Pakistan’s Middle Class drawing rooms.
As for Khuldun and Hakim’s posts, they reflect surprise over the political nature of Mohtarma’s speech and the supportive behaviour of her supporters. WAKE UP guys. That is what politicians do.
Mohtarma is not a college professor. Everywhere she goes she will use the opportunity to score political points. Just attend “lectures” by Blair or Cameron or any other European politician.
The problem with many educated Pakistanis, as I keep repeating, is that they have no idea of the world of politics. They go to Aitchison College or Grammar School, inherit their families’ class prejudices and then end up with jobs in multi-nationals or the World Bank. But they also insist on meddling in and commenting on Pakistan’s politics, with which they have only the remotest of connections.
Forget Pakistan, they have no idea of the real world of politics anywhere. I suspect many people on this blog have never been to a politician’s speech, irrespective of where that politician is from.
So, here is my five cents worth. (For those of you in England, please figure out the conversion into pence on your own). The dynamic of Pakistan’s politics is in motion. Mush is up the creek and the army is worried about its future as an institution. The Americans have their own set of worries.
Benazir Bhutto is playing her cards right. She can still get enough votes from those guys you found “uncomfortable in their new suits” because those more comfortable in suits will not vote. Her speeches, including the ones in Denmark and at LSE, are playing well with the PPP base, the military and the Americans.
Mohtarma does not need to be intellectually competent in every way. She just needs to be able to win the votes. She seems to have a somewhat better intellectual team with her this time and if some of us set aside our anger and prejudice and join her, maybe we can contribute something to a democratic Pakistan this time around.
Alternatively we can eat our hearts out, and blog away.
Oh! and one more thing.
Mohtarma’s refusal to get drawn in over the question of the deal is also political. If she had said something on the subject, that would have been the headline of the next day, not the points she wants highlighted.
By not denying the deal more than it has already been denied by the PPP leadership, Mohtarma is encouraging defections from PML (Q). MNAs who do not want to be left out in the cold will now be negotaiting with her to get back in.
As in any election, some votes come from the candidate’s influence and some from the vote bank of the party. Many candidates in Pakistan look for the right party to find the winning combination of personal and party votes. The rumor of a deal will help BB pick up some of these guys for the PPP.
In a drawing room conversation, particpants want their questions answered, their concerns addressed.
A politician almost never addresses just the crowd he/she is speaking to. A politician’s priority is to get his/her message across to the wider public. And a politician always wants to project the best possible view that would get him/her votes.
Sunim and Wasiq: Saeed’s comment has been removed. TeethMaestro’s comment has been moderated as he had used a single fould word. However, since Sunim’s comment was probably the last in the chain that used foul language and since she had herself criticised use of language by other contributor’s I figured it would be a good place to reiterate the blog’s comment policy. Also, it would be hoped that frequent contributor’s would follow the blog’s comment policy in posting their comments.
Wasiq, by the time you commented on the blog there was no foul word referring to Benazir Bhutto. Hence, I am not sure what you talking about. However, as Saad K. stated it would be preferable if we kept to the topic of discussion and did not categorize people as ‘middle class’, ‘elite’ or anything else. People comment anonymously or through pseudonyms, hence, there is no way of knowing their backgrounds. It would be arrogant to assume their backgrounds as being anything. Wasiq, I would like to remind you of your own comment, ‘Attack the argument, not the person making the argument’.
However, please comment freely as you are an important part of the blog’s existence.
I was writing my comment while you were probably removing it. So I had read Saeed’s and Teeth Maestro’s comment though by the time mine was posted they had been removed. I thank the administrator for the prompt action.
As a student of political science, I would like to point out that segmentation by social or economic class is a valid analytical tool in understanding why and whom people support or oppose in politics.
For example, exit polling after elections always determines what ethnic group, income group, gender, religion etc. factored in people’s voting choices.
Talking about someone’s political views having been shaped by their being part of the elite or middle class is in no way abusive or downgrading. It is part of political science methodlogy of understanding political opinions an choices.
As my purpose was not to offend, I thought it necessary to explain.
My humble request to Saad and the administrator is to seriously consider my analysis.
The only reason Benazir Bhutto is even discussed by us is that she can get votes and might actually get re-elected.
She can get votes only because a significant number of poeple support her.
Yet, on this and many other blogs (which are mainly visited by educated Pakistanis studying abroad) there is anger and violent opposition to Mohtarma.
Shouldn’t we try and understand why the views of those able to study abroad and those likely to vote at home differe so much? Why do people in Sindh, the Seraiki belt, urban NWFP and small town Pakistan vote for Mohtarma and ignore all the corruption charges etc. while people from large, affluent cities cannot get over her supposed misdeeds (including her being half an hour late and her supporters wearing new suits to the LSE event)?
Why does PPP win in Lyari in Karachi, while MQM wins the rest of the city but the Defence-Clifton area has ended up electing either a Muslim Leaguer or a Jamaat-e-Islami man in the last four elections? These are valid political science questions.
Most Pakistanis studying abroad study science subjects (medicine, engineering, and IT being clear favorites) or economics and finance. Of the 6800 Pakistani students studying in the U.S., only 10 have a political science or International Relations major according to one study. Hence it might be useful for all of us to at least think about where our political views are coming from.
Some of you may still reach the conclusion that your views are right but please allow this political science graduate to introduce you to the concept of ethnic, class and social bias in political thinking.
Of course, I do not absolve Mohtarma of anything she may have done in the past. My purpose is to just put things in a more political context as I submitted above.
Based on some of the questions raised, my response/comments may be a bit tangential and only reflect my limited understanding of the underlying fundamentals.
BB does not have the Machiavellian charisma of her father nor does she have a slogan (Islamic socialism, roti, kapra, makaan)or a solid program for the nation to propel her vertically or expand horizontally. She is an icon of a different kind unique to our socialogy and therefore cannot be analyzed with respect to standard political models.
As to why she will get support in Pakistan while majority of Pakistanis abroad are overwhelmingly against her has to do with the level of information that “oversears” have about political candidates compared to their brothers in Pakistan.
Cultivation of informed citizenry through free press, literacy, basic education and economic stability is the responsibility of the state. Unfortunately, failure of this process has been very deliberate in our society ruled by un-elected leaders. Uninformed, uneducated, and ignorant citizens are easy to fool - and that explains electoral exploitation by the politicians all over. BB is no different and she will indeed get votes from people.
On a peripheral note, in Pakistan people, for lack of security, social fears, anarchy and economic deprivation are always waiting for a savior to come and rescue them from missery. A savior therefore is in the form of a person and not an idea or idealogy. People are torn between the immediate past that is ugly and future that is vague. That is why they look at distant past of Caliphs, and distant future of the promissed paradise and wait for someone to come and change them while they do not make any effort to bring about any change themselves - a kind of psychosis born out of feeling of helplessness and lack of hope. This also explains why we are so “personality driven.”
If history is any guide, we accepted each and every leader - from Ayub to Musharaf, to be our god father at one stage or the other. We did that because when we were sitting “inside” we could not tell right from wrong based on the information we had. But looking at the same history from outside has changed our perspectives.
As for the curent circus, citizens of Pakistan are as usual the spectators unable to particpate and change the outcome, with their hands and minds tied. They can only brawl, laugh and cry - show goes on.
Education is the key to solving the problems and also properity. It is a slow process. With access to information resources and education, an ordinary Pakistani will eventually be able to see through the opacity of our leadership.
Wasiq: Although a more lengthy analysis to your assumptions is required, let me just start by saying that yes, social classes are used as an analytical tool and MAYbe useful but in most of the instances that it has been used here (and which you are defending) is as an aggressive tactic to sideline people who you don’t have the slightest idea about. Therefore, only use it as a tool when you know the person you’re labelling without blatant disregard for facts.
Rational Expectations
As a Pakistani nothing would be dearer to me than seeing my country prosper. I am (and certainly most others here, are) a stakeholder of this extraordinary country to which justice has never been done in the past with respect to its potential. Therefore I would be most happy to see a leader with a vision and the heart to change the peoples’ ways so that they can show what they are capable of. Ms. Bhutto in a vacuum would seem to have a perfect background (’great leaders are born out of great adversity’) to instil such a change [this vacuum existed in 1988] but because she has been given chances at least twice before and failed (therefore, ‘great adversity doesn’t necessarily create great leaders’), are we wrong to doubt that she will (if given a chance) fail again? I don’t think one has to have any ‘idea of the world of politics’ to judge human behaviour in aligning one’s expectations with one’s experiences. Of course, this is based solely on the assumption that she has failed twice. If you don’t think that she has(and your views would make start to make perfect sense to all of us if you do think so-although you do say ‘it doesn’t absolve her of anything she has done in the past…’), then to that my answer is this: Ignore everything you read on this forum because most here are humans and by nature most humans are rational skeptics and unless someone ‘proves’ they are wrong to be skeptical, they are inclined to believe otherwise.
I completely agree with Saad. Wasiq, in his analysis, has assumed many things about the people commenting on this forum and has in the process strayed from the topic of discussion. Yes, we are discussing BB because she will get votes. We are also discussing her because she may be the next prime minister. The topic is her ‘deal’ with Musharraf.
However, we are not discussing people who comment on this forum or their social belonging. Noone is born with the right to comment on politics or vice versa. I am sure there is no scientific evidence to prove that people with social science degrees are better equipped to discuss politics or politicians.
You ask why those who are abroad and those that are back home and vote have different opinions? Anwar has given a very good explanation of this. It has a lot to do with education.
Another point: I can name many more than 10 political science or IR majors in the US that are known to me personally. Can you please state the source of your information?
Back to the topic of discussion: Benazir said one of the most absurd things that I have ever heard anyone say. When asked if she didn’t think her self-imposed exile had contributed to the Islamization of Pakistan, she drew comparisons with the Prophet (PBUH) and how he had migrated from Mecca to Medina. Wow!
Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully. I was talking about general patterns of various classes in Pakistan behaving politically in a certain way.
In my opinion –and I admit, it is only my opinion as I do not know anyone on this blog personally–the views reflected on this blog about Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto are closer to the views of the social groups I mentioned. Once again, the purpose was not to denigrate anyone, just to make people reflect on the vehenmence of their beliefs.
Of course, the problem would be solved if all of us introduced ourselves, making an empirical study of bloggers’ backgrounds and political views possible.
I got the figure from a presentation at the American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Conference held in Philadelphia last year. I am only trusting my memory so the figure may have been 12 or 14 but it is still in the ballpark. The presenter explained that students frequently change their majors in social sciences and liberal arts. She also listed certain countries, of which Pakistan was one, where political science is inadquately studies and it was in this context the number was cited.
But, then, more importnat than the exact number of political science majors among Pakistani students in the U.S. is the fundamental point I was making: Most Pakistanis who prefer non-political solutions for Pakistan do not have political science backgrounds.
In the interest of moving the converstaion forward, here is what I propose:
1. I withdraw my comments about class etc. so that people can address the fundamental issue: Why is BB able to win votes in Pakistan while being almost universally condemned in the blogosphere?
2. I withdraw the specific assertion about the number of people studying political science to solicit a response to the crucial question: Why are so many people in the blogosphere so universally enamoured of non-political solutions (technocrat government, support for Imran Khan, support for Musharraf etc.) when these solutions are not preferred by a majority at home?
3. I still want responses to my suspicion that Khuldun and Hakim have never been to a politician’s address or lecture before. My suspicion is based on their posts –the comments about party supporters cheering their leader while being uncofmrtable in their new suits and the remarks about BB just giving a standard political speech. My contention is that in the world of politics that is what happens and the expression of surprise over it is reflective of limited exposure to the world of politics.
So, now that we have the semantic issues out of the way, can we address these matters?
Anwar does address these issues.
Anwar: A few days ago you hinted that you review books in political science journals. If you have a website, could you please let me know so we can read your academic writings. Also, I am still waiting for you to name the book by Mr. Siddiqi on Pakistan that you mentioned not long ago.
Hakim, I have addressed the so-called deal in great clarity on this thread and elsewhere. read above, where I say:
“Mohtarma’s refusal to get drawn in over the question of the deal is also political. If she had said something on the subject, that would have been the headline of the next day, not the points she wants highlighted.”
“By not denying the deal more than it has already been denied by the PPP leadership, Mohtarma is encouraging defections from PML (Q). MNAs who do not want to be left out in the cold will now be negotiating with her to get back in.”
It is clear to me that BB is getting ready to go back and despite contacts (which have not been denied) there is no deal between BB and Musharraf. It suits both to have an illusion of a deal for different reasons.
Saad
As stated above, I did not mean to be aggressive or to sideline anyone. So let that be on the record.
You make a reasonable case for not expecting much from Ms Bhutto on grounds of past record. But here an ‘idea of the world of politics’ becomes important.
Politics is defined as ‘the art of the possible.’ I support Mohtarma’s return within the context of political possibilities. Indeed, I would argue her return both to the country and to partial power is almost inevtiable at this stage.
Given that reality, one way of dealing with it is to blog away and continue to express disappointment with her and Pakistan’s fate. The other is to advance unrealistic solutions (”Wouldn’t it be nice if we get a government of honest, smart people who set the country right?” “Why not Imran Khan?” etc etc). The third is to engage Ms Bhutto and the PPP and try and ensure that they have the best possible advice and talent available for a third (and full) term in office.
ZAB had a number of intellectuals on his team: Dr Mubashir Hasan, J.A. Rahim, Rafi Raza, Feroze Qaiser, Aziz Ahmed, Maulana Kausar Niazi to name a few. With the exception of J.A. Rahim, all of them stayed with him until the end of his stint in power.
In both her terms, Mohtarma has had to contend with skepticism of the intelligentsia. Her father’s associates had left her long before she got into office. Javed Jabbar deserted her within a few months of her first term. Iqbal Haider and Maleeha Lodhi bailed out towards the end of the second. Aitzaz Ahsan is perhaps one intellectual who has been with her consistently and he has made a positive difference.
I feel that educated Pakistanis must change that and join the existing political parties and make a difference from within. In the process, politics and a democratic system might actually be advanced.
If your beliefs are more aligned with a free market approach, join the PML. If you believe in social democracy, work with the PPP. In both cases, you may have to temper your expectations and the result will be less than ideal in each case. But it will be a lot better than the current mode of ‘forever complaining’ that I find on the Pakistani blogosphere.
Wasiq you make some good points and I’ll try my best to engage with you.
Firstly I wasn’t a poli-sci major, but a book I found particularly illuminating was Fareed Zakaria’s ‘Future of Freedom’. If you see his analysis of the economic and political development of third world countries, there is compelling evidence that liberal dictatorships are more successful than illiberal democracies. This doesn’t mean that Musharraf will automatically be a success or that Benazir will automatically be a failure. However at the very least, it should make you more receptive to the idea that military rule can be beneficial for a developing country.
Secondly, I think you mistakenly see opinion at home as being stagnant. There was a team when Benazir was extremely popular. Yet when Nawaz Sharif was elected for the second team, if memory serves me correctly the PPP did not win a single seat outside Sindh. Also the MMA is now electorally stronger than it used to be. Most importantly you ignore the fact that there was a large amount of goodwill towards Musharraf when he took over. Its not as if this is some blogosphere obsession.
As for standard political speeches, I think the point that both Khuldun and Hakim were making is quite obvious. The lecture is supposed to be on the current political situation in Pakistan; Benazir has been critical of previous military administrations and has spoken on why Pakistan was better governed when she was in power. In this context the fact that she didn’t even mention Musharraf is a clear sign that she did not want to do anything to damage the relationship and or understanding she has with him.
Finally do you honestly see the PPP and PML as representing centre-left and centre-right schools of thought? Please give me more to back this up.
Wasiq, I am impressed by your ability to make an argument. However, I am not convinced. You state that the views reflected on this blog could be attributed to certain social groups. That is a huge generalisation and you have provided no reasoning for it. In my opinion, these views are based on education and past experience as Anwar has explained.
You question why some people here might want non-political solutions? If you look at my previous posts I have definitely not advocated support for Musharraf and even though I would love to have Imran Khan as Prime Minister, I am a realist. Hopefully 20 years down the road we would see him in charge, but not right now.
I disagree that a majority of Pakistanis prefer a political solution. A majority of Pakistanis do not even vote. Let me ask you a few questions: What was the turnout of the last elections? Do you have any idea how people are made to vote? They are threatened by force or through monetary incentives. Do you know how easy it is to rig elections? Yes, out of all those that do vote BB may have the largest chunk, but that doesn’t say much.
Even though I am confused as to the relevance of whether I have attended a politician’s address or lecture before, I will answer it in the hope that you will be able to extinguish my curiosity.
Yes, I have been to politicians’ lectures before. However, this was not a political speech or rally. Benazir Bhutoo had been invited to the London School of Economics to speak about ‘The Current Political Situation in Pakistan’ as a former Prime Minister of Pakistan. I must state here that I have seen Prime Ministers in power several times before, but they did not bring along a group of supporters to shout and scream and punch their fists.
A few things were mentioned about her by the chair of the event 1) Her brilliant academic credentials 2) That she was twice Prime Minister of Pakistan. This was not billed to be part of her political campaign. Most people, other than her supporters, were there to hear her analysis of the current situation in Pakistan. This was my first time watching her live and I was really interested in listening to her analysis. I came back disappointed. As I stated earlier I didn’t expect her to give an honest speech, but I hoped that she would give honest answers to questions. There, she displayed a lack of intellectual integrity.
It was a shame that a 100 or so seats were reserved for her supporters and many students were not able to secure tickets.
I was not surprised by her supporters going hyper about what she said or making videos of her while she spoke. I was shocked that she brought along so many of them to an academic lecture. This is the first time in 4 years I witnessed any such thing at LSE (even though many politicians, even those in power, have spoken there). If I had known that it would be as political and as bizarre as it was, I would not have attended.
Also, I don’t think there are only two options available to Pakistanis: PPP or PML. Why join a morally bankrupt party? I agree that there is a process that every democracy must go through, however, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif have only done it harm. At this point I would like to ask you who you have decided to join.
Shariq,
When Nawaz Sharif won a second term (in 1997), the PPP’s seats were greately reduced but it did, in fact, win seats in all four provinces even then.
If you are impressed by Fareed Zakaria’s “The Future of Freedom” I also suggest you read the critique of his argument by Thomas Carothers in ‘Foreign Affairs.’ Or read Marc Plattner’s comments on Zakaria’s book (which I can post
if the administrator allows).
In a nutshell, Zakaria’s critics point out that “Fareed Zakaria is correct to note that liberalism and democracy are distinct, but he fails to realize that each feeds the other.”
There is a primary error in Zakaria’s argument (which I understand he has modified since he wrote the book) and that of others (such as Huntington) who want certain criteria to be fulfilled before full democracy can come about. That is to ignore the evolutionary nature of liberal democracy.
Nations must go through many stages to get to a more advanced stage of liberalism and a flawed democracy can, over time, evolve into a better one. The impatience of elites with flawed democrats undermines the prospect of such evolution.
For example, India’s Indira Gandhi turned illiberal during the emergency (1974-77), was voted out and then returned to power chastened by the experience. Pakistan’s ZAB turned illiberal, was booted out by the army and the country has never recovered.
Similarly, Rajiv Gandhi went corrupt (remember Bofors?), was voted out and would have been voted back in if he had not been assassinated. Even his assassination resulted in advan cing the democratic political process. It paved the way for a non-Nehru-Gandhi family Prime minister from the Congress Party (Narasimha Rao).
Hakim,
My point about politicians’ speeches refers to Khuldun and your posts above. I understand that BB did not fulfil your expectation of an LSE lecture and both of you clearly did not like the behaviour of PPP supporters (most of whom have probably never visited the LSE). But I stand by my argument.
BB is in campaign mode and politicians during campaign mode use every opportunity to score political points. From BB’s point of view, she would have wasted an opportunity if she had given an acadmeic lecture that did not advance her political agenda. That is what politicians do everywhere.
In fact, political parties have “advance men” who ensure that tickets for events are bought by their supporters in bulk or supporters arrive in buses ahead of the general public at an event to create an aura of support and applause. (Read any recent book on a political campaign). if anything, I am impressed that BB’s supporters are becoming “modern” and learning these techniques which the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy and German foundations for democracy now conduct training program for in third world countries.
Sorry, this behaviour does not accord with your expectations but it is part of politics. When you do actually get involved in a campaign for Imran Khan please read up (1) The Campaign Manager: Running and Winning Local Elections by Catherine M. Shaw or (2)Winning Elections: Political Campaign Management, Strategy & Tactics by Ronald A. Faucheux.
Imran could do with some help in real politics and with a little professional help might be able to retain his seat in the next parliament without Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s assistance.
I also recommend you observe Gordon Brown or David Cameron a few months before election time. They will make campaign picthes even when they are attending funerals, let alone at lecturing opportunities at colleges and universities.
It is one thing to say you do not like Mohtarma and will never like her, which is your right as far as I am concerned. But to knock her for not showing “intellectual integrity” and for having her supporters pack the audience reflects, in my opinion, a degree of innocence about what really happens in the political world (and I’m not saying it is good).
Your question on choices is a good one. In politics one must choose from what is on offer. At a McDonald’s my only choices are what is available on the board, so however much I might want Fondue I cannot get it. I must pick out of the available stuff. Of course, a change of restaurants might change the choices and I will then think of what I prefer from what is on the menu.
In a wider sense PML and PPP are not Pakistan’s only choices. We Pakistanis could get our act together and create new political formations. After all, until 1967 the only choices in Pakistan were the Pakistan Muslim League and the Pakistan Awami League. Then ZAB left PML (which was controlled by Ayub Khan)and formed the PPP. Many people left PML to join PPP and many who had never before been in politics identified with the new party.
Now, the available choices are PML and PPP or the assortment of ethnic or religious parties. A smart bunch of people from PML and PPP, joined by people who have not been in politics thus far, could expand the menu in the future. But for the next election, I feel like I do at McDonald’s. That is the place I can afford. It has what it has on the menu and I must eat. I make a choice for the moment and wait for when my choices will be expanded to indulge my desire for something better (unless, of course, I am in a position to cook something myself).
The PML has proven to be a spineless party, with a majority of its electable politicians deserting Nawaz Sharif as soon as he left power. The PPP has stuck it out through a lot more adversity. In any case, the business community has done well under Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz so it does not need further pampering, which is what PML always does. For all its faults, the PPP remains the party of the unwashed masses.
I have reservations about both but I think electing the PPP right now will advance the democratic process more than the military-tarred PML. (God! I sound like an Economist editorial before endorsing a candidate for the U.S. presidential election).
Wasiq, it seems obvious that we will not agree on our assessment of what is going on. The difference between me and you is a difference between how easily we accept the status quo. You might be the perfect realist and though I consider myself to be a realist as well, I am more of a progressive.
Now, you’re saying that this is how it is and we must learn to accept it and join the bandwagon. I am simply saying that we have a voice and we don’t NEED to accept it how it is and we don’t need to join the bandwagon. I don’t believe in a marriage of convenience and though one must always compromise there is no need to compromise on one’s principles. That probably comes across to you as innocence, but it is my right as an individual. The fact that a politician makes campaign related speeches at funerals is not something to be proud of. Every time I will see that happening I will express my digust at that and not just sit back and say that since that person is a politician normal rules of human courtesy and behaviour do not apply to them. I have simply called a spade a spade by being disappointed by BB’s performence and the fact that she got her supporters who turned an intellectual debate into a boxing match.
Anyway, I doubt that anything you will say will convince me to support either of the two parties so we can safely agree to disagree on this. I wish you the best with whoever who choose to support. Till then I’ll voice my opinions on this blog.
Wasiq, thanks for the reply. I don’t want to drag this on too long but as long as its a learning experience its worth continuing this debate.
Firstly with regards to Zakaria, as I mentioned in my comment I don’t dispute the fact that flawed democracies can evolve into better ones. India is a fine example of that. However South Korea and Chile are examples of non-democracies which have evolved into democracies.
If you go back to my first post, I actually put forward the possibility that this deal if it happens might be a good thing because it would strengthen an important political party such as the PPP, without putting an elected government in a position in which it can be completely corrupt without any vision for the development of the country. Heck it even looks a little bit like checks and balances.
Apart from that, do you really think that middle class people didn’t welcome Benazir when she replaced Zia and that any anti-Benazir sentiment is a result of personal or class-based resentment?
I was also present at the talk at the LSE, and I must say that it felt like a thief of an experience- it robbed me of all my legitimate expectations. Is Benazir is as intelligent as she purports to be, she is extremely haughty and downright arrogant to not dignify questions like Khuldun’s with a more erudite answer.
Zjan:
“They are neither the political and economic elites of Pakistan who make a difference or the voters who have benefited from every democratic government.” First, it does not matter if one is the elite or not- the truth is the truth. Second, what exactly has democratic government brought Pakistan that outweighs the culture of corruption and nepotism and selfishness that these ‘democrats’ themselves have partaken in? I feel we are all like the one whose shoulder was severed by these shameless Tantaluses. I hope that we for our part will get our shoulders replaced, and the Tantaluses get their comeuppances.
Wasiq:
It is ironic that Wasiq criticises the broad brush strokes used by Khuldun in his description of the event. Ironic since Wasiq uses an equally broad brush stroke approach with his sociological analysis rather than tackling the rot at the top which Bhutto embodies. More specifically, the moral of the story is that education and exposure count for nothing, and amount to nothing, if the intention is sinister and selfish.
Wasiq seems to want to educate us on the “World of politics.” Perhaps it is apt to remind Wasiq at this point that when Tony Blair is challenged point blank he stares the point down and does justice to it, whether or not the questioner agrees with his answer. He does not duck away from answering the question put to him. Politics is not about evasion- it’s about persuasion. And Bhutto was far from persuasive at the LSE.
I must say I found it highly patronising and extremely tedious to listen to Bhutto’s hackneyed recollections of Islamic history. It all seemed more than a bridge too far for her to reminisce about Saladin riding into Jerusalem on a white horse espousing tolerance. First, Saladin was universally respected within his community- Bhutto, far from it. Second, Saladin was an unbelievably selfless man. He certainly did not live in a £4m mansion in Surrey- the open air under the clear skies were accommodation enough. He did not live it up at the expense of his fellow soldiers- but Bhutto does. Most of all, he had the courage to tackle the thorny issues facing the community, rather than busy himself with self-aggrandisement.
By far the most ludicrous allusion was that to the Prophet’s (PBUH) Hegira. It almost made my temper flare to hear her imply that she too had a lofty purpose and destiny etched out for herself. That she was vouchsafed by the Divine. That she was the saviour of a nation plunged into darkness. The Prophet (PBUH) led the Muslims into the light. Bhutto only broke or sold all the light bulbs in the hall and left us all in one dark, empty, and very cold space. Thanks a lot, ‘Mohtarma’.
Wasiq seems to be trying to impart, somewhat unconvincingly, his Weltanschauung of how politic campaigns are run. He will no doubt accept they are also run to impress and inspire the voters- to capture their imaginations. Benazir is hardly a persuader a la JFK. She is far more a dissuader.
Second, Wasiq seems to be preoccupied with highlighting the 21st Century style methods BB’s supporters are using. I suggest, in entire seriousness, that Wasiq go further. While he is at it, he should complement the Devil for his extreme innovation in setting up his own opposition party all those eons ago- why criticise malevolence when there is so much seductively to admire about it, eh Wasiq?
Wasiq, perhaps all of us, yourself included, would do well to remember the prescient words of Goethe: “Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.” The truth we have before us is an opportunity, at the 60 year milestone, to make something better out of Pakistan. And yet here we are, giving BB a third term. People, have we no shame?
I think Hakim sums it up when he says it is unlikely we will agree.
For me, expression of opinion should be part of political action. Hakim seems to believe that expressing opinions (on this blog?) is an end in itself.
I do not see how the cause of democracy is advanced by condemning Benazir Bhutto without saying who you actually support instead.
To me politics is about choosing from among available options.
Also, everyone keeps on evading my comments about why Hakim and Khuldun even felt the necessity to comment on the clothes and behaviour of PPP suporters at LSE. If that is not about class, what is?
Similarly, Freddie is dead wrong about Blair never being evasive. I can produce many columns from Blair’s critics accusing him of not answering a question or of giving self-serving answers.
A politician’s evasion or brilliance is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing objective about it.
Shariq repeats Fareed Zakaria’s argument in citing the examples of South Korea and Chile without taking me up on my offer of sharing critiques of Zakaria.
Incidentally, in both South Korea and Chile, flawed democrats (Kim dae Jung and Salvador Allende’s successors in the Socialist Party)eventually came to power through fair elections made possible by deals with the military, which eventualy led to the restoration of democracy.
I am sorry for wandering into a virtual drawing room where I do not really belong. Reading so many posts on politics made me think we could actually get a political discussion going. But all some people want to do is to criticize Musharraf and/or Benazir without being willing to at least consider that their views might be the product of a non-political background/approach.
Maybe I should just keep quiet on politics and enjoy the non-political posts on things like Karachi’s invaluable Parsi connection.
A great article on how different groups of Pakistanis live, think and feel –exactly my sentiments about the group (or class?) basis of political differences among Pakistanis:
Unreal
By Dr Farrukh Saleem
The News, April 29, 2007
On April 20, Islamabad-based newspapers and magazines got some unexpected mail. A letter in the mail read: “Pakistan is an Islamic state and all media organisations have to follow Islamic rules and regulations. If they do not stop carrying vulgar and un-Islamic content every possible step shall be taken to put an end to such practices.” The author: Judge, jury and executioner all in one.
Two hundred and sixty kilometres from Islamabad is Lahore. As if on a different planet, Lahore is now home to Porsche Centre. Porsche, the German sports car maker, had projected to sell thirty of their six million rupee, high-performance vehicles in their first year of operation. On April 20, Porsche Lahore announced that they had already sold eighty.
On April 5, Bismillah Khan had also received an unexpected letter. As he opened up, an Rs500 note fell out. The letter read: “You are not living your life as per the prescriptions of Islam. The money is for your heirs to give you a decent burial.” On April 8, Mohabat Khan, Bismillah’s eldest son, found his father’s dead body. There have been Bismillah Khan episodes in Kohat, Mardan, Darra Adam Khel, Tank, Bannu, Lachi, Charsadda and Sherkot.
Lahore, a mere five-hour drive from Kohat, must be on another plant. Lahore is now home to Royal Palm Golf and Country Club, a 140-acre “expanse of rolling greens and stately old trees.” On April 8, while Mohabat Khan was dumping his murdered father into a hole, the elite of Lahore’s elites, were also chasing holes. In pursuit of their golf-playing pleasures, they sat in Royal Palm’s comfy Club House watching the final competitive round of The 2007 Masters. Unreal, isn’t it?
On March 9, the Chief Justice of Pakistan was made ‘non-functional’. On March 19, Justice Jawad Khawaja of the Lahore High Court resigned. The other ninety-eight judges of Pakistan’s superior courts stayed put. Obviously, the system designed by the masters of our state is working just fine; only one of the ninety-nine slipped through the filter. Surely, this isn’t a ‘judicial crisis’ because ninety-eight judges haven’t moved, not even an inch.
On March 26, the prime minister of Pakistan met a delegation of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI). At the PM House, the prime minister told FPCCI: “Government believes in the supremacy of law.” On March 27, girl students of Jamia Hafsa, a mere three kilometres from the PM House, kidnapped Shamim Akhtar, a 65-year old lady, her daughter, her daughter-in-law and a sixth-month old baby. While the kidnapping ordeal was taking place in Islamabad, Punjab Chief Minister Pervaiz Elahi and Federal Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid were addressing a public rally at Liaquat Bagh. They said: “Rawalpindi was a stronghold of the Pakistan Muslim League.”
On April 6, Friday’s sermon at Lal Masjid threatened “suicide attacks if the government did not enact Islamic law.” While the sermon was being delivered President-General Musharraf addressed ladies gathered to celebrate the World Health Day. The president said: “Healthcare targets under Millennium Development Goals would be achieved ahead of 2015 deadline.”
On April 20, Friday’s sermon at Lal Masjid stated: “We will not wait more … it will now be Sharia or shahadat.” On that day, the President of Pakistan told Al Arabiya Television: “I am willing to travel to Israel to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Unreal. Isn’t it?
This is in response to Sunim’s comments,
No I did not use any abusive language against Benazir Bhutto. My respect level for her is the same as for other politicians in the mainstream (i.e less than zero). I happened to mention merely the fact that ever since Benazir Bhutto’s photo’s in a miniskirt have become public(more than 18 months now), there has been no negation from her or her party’s side. More so more her co-ordinator in Dubai has even partially accepted that it was an unfortunate breach of her privacy. (Contact Mr. Chugtai at chugtai2k@hotmail.com or chughtai@hotmail.co.uk for your own confirmation.)
She has spent more than 200 Million USD on a PR firm in USA for her image buildup and they also haven’t been able to prove that her private pics circulating the net are other than true.
Please remember when Hillary Clinton faced such a scenario, the reaction was swift and immediate. Websites hosting questionable images of her had to face stern legal action.
Why is that some reputable (and well established) sites are still hosting her private pics and not an iota of legal action has been taken against them. Even a measly complaint has not been lodged.
And also I don’t like Taliban, fact is mentioning their name brings salt in my mouth since they were the ones who brutally hanged Najeeb, a person I admired and still admire.
I hope this calarifies my stance.
This is in response to Sunim’s comments,
No I did not use any abusive language against Benazir Bhutto. My respect level for her is the same as for other politicians in the mainstream (i.e less than zero). I happened to mention merely the fact that ever since Benazir Bhutto’s photo’s in a miniskirt have become public(more than 18 months now), there has been no negation from her or her party’s side. More so more her co-ordinator in Dubai has even partially accepted that it was an unfortunate breach of her privacy. (Contact Mr. Chugtai at chugtai2k@hotmail.com or chughtai@hotmail.co.uk for your own confirmation.)
She has spent more than 200 Million USD on a PR firm in USA for her image buildup and they also haven’t been able to prove that her private pics circulating the net are other than true.
Please remember when Hillary Clinton faced such a scenario, the reaction was swift and immediate. Websites hosting questionable images of her had to face stern legal action.
Why is that some reputable (and well established) sites are still hosting her private pics and not an iota of legal action has been taken against them. Even a measly complaint has not been lodged.
And also I don’t like Taliban, fact is mentioning their name brings salt in my mouth since they were the ones who brutally hanged Najeeb, a person I admired and still admire.
I hope this clarifies my stance.