Pak Tea House » Anniversery, Benazir Bhutto, Left, Liberal Democratic Pakistan, Uncategorized » Benazir Bhutto and Her Politics: A Critical Evaluation
Benazir Bhutto and Her Politics: A Critical Evaluation
By Raza Habib Raja
I remember that once Nadeem Farooq Paracha wrote that in Pakistan Bhuttos are hated in their lives by the affluent middle class and media (which is mostly the expressive medium of the same class) and then sanctified once they have met a tragic end. In lives they are branded as corrupt and only after death, and that too tragic death, has it been possible for the mainstream media to actually reflect back on them with some appreciation. Of course for the supporters any criticism on her personality, particularly after her death, is equivalent to blasphemy.
Cult of personality which has become somewhat of a rarity in the West is an integral part of the political culture here. Such personality cults form around Political leaders, particularly famous ones, in our part of the world. Strong political leaders are not merely the reflection of the society but are often strong enough to affect it. Late Benazir Bhutto was one of such political personalities. Charismatic personalities are often riddled with contradictions and like all such personalities she also had her strengths and weaknesses.
This article tries to evaluate the politician Benazir Bhutto and the way she affected her party and the Pakistani political landscape. Since the article tries to adopt a CRITICAL approach therefore it points towards her weaknesses (as percieved by the author) besides appreciating her strengths.
Benazir Bhutto though it is not often acknowledged was in many ways Pakistan’s only true liberal leader. Compared to her charismatic father who was ready to manipulate religious sensitivities to extract political mileage, Benazir Bhutto knew where to stop. Yes, she was pragmatic and like all politicians acted in rational self interest-Politics is after all realpolitiks- but she never tried to whip religion for that purpose.
Those who believe in a secular, liberal and plural Pakistan, like to remember Jinnah for his 11th August speech; likewise I would like to remember Benazir Bhutto through a statement she made in early 1990s when she said “Insanoon ke hath Paon Katne munasib Nayee Samajte. Khuda Zalim Nayee Hai. Zalim Quaneen ko Islami nayee manti” (We do not think amputating hands and legs of human beings is an appropriate thing to do. God is not cruel. I do not think that harsh laws can be Islamic). This statement, though now rarely quoted caused quite a stir in early 1990s. In fact the Imam of Badshahi Mosque even issued a fatwa against her. Other than her, I have never heard ANY politician utter such a statement. I wish that this statement had started a wave where people could have mustered enough courage to actually start a critical discourse on religious laws and on the role of religion in their lives. Sadly it merely created short term controversy and print media of those days lapped on it for creating sensational headlines. The statement could not define her legacy but nevertheless is an important indication of the stuff Benazir Bhutto was made of.
Benazir Bhutto inherited the party from Bhutto but in many ways she earned her title. After all when her brothers chose to stay outside and indulge in militant tactics she decided to adopt the political course and tried to engage with the supporters of her party. Even legacy politics need charismatic inheritors who can engage with the masses. It is that kind of mass populism which acts as a cancelling agent to religious fervour and its political manifestation at the mass level. Benazir Bhutto could do it brilliantly despite the fact that her Urdu was not as fluent as her father’s.
Her biggest achievement for the PPP was that she was able to glue the party after him and prevent it from disintegration. Her stature which was underpinned by much more than her blood linage ensured that unity prevailed. While it helped the party in the transitory phase as it needed a strong leader but in the longer run has proven counterproductive as legacy politics has become too entrenched.
In legacy politics the direction of a political party is often controlled by the cultish leader. PPP’s direction from 1986 owed largely to her vision and political outlook. PPP changed with times and Benazir while holding on to the legacy politics was very willing to embrace newer ideas. As socialism waned globally, Benazir was quick to reform her party’s ideological outlook and PPP started to transform from a centre left to economically conservative and socially liberal party. In fact the privatization program started with her tenure. She was also extremely keen on bringing in foreign investment and her second stint as Prime Minister witnessed huge investments in the power sector as several Independent Power Projects (IPPs) were set up. The move which was severely criticised by subsequent Nawaz Sharif government as being “unfair” to Pakistan, ultimately proved one of the most beneficial economic decisions taken by her government. As Pakistan suffered from terrible electricity shortages, the situation would have been virtually catastrophic if there were no IPPs.
Politically she was a realist though knew how to balance the pragmatism with ideological stance of the party. Her pragmatism emanated from her experience as a Prime Minister particularly her first tenure. She quickly realized that in Pakistan the “deep state” held all the keys and if her party aspired to have power, it could not go totally against the so called establishment. Therefore when Nawaz Sharif conspired to remove her from power in 1990, she returned him the favour in 1993 when she supported Ghulam Ishaq Khan in his efforts to remove him.
Moreover despite having liberal outlook she had no stupid romantic notions about militant parties like MQM. She was firmly behind the 1995-96 operation and understood that action was needed to eradicate militancy. She was pretty firm and did not yield to blackmailing tactics even when the killings mounted. At one time, corpses were being daily found in bags with chits attached to chest stating “Naseer Ullah Baber ke liey Tuhfa” (A gift for Naseer Ullah Baber).
I think it was her administrative quality which perhaps was her weakest trait. Her second tenure was riddled with severe controversies and in fact it alienated her core support which was reflected in 1996 elections. Although it is often claimed that in 1996 establishment rigged the elections but the reality was that PPP voter simply did not come out to vote. In fact throughout Punjab and NWFP, its candidates were getting less than 10,000 votes per constituency in the elections for national assembly seats.
It was the controversies of that tenure which continued to cast a deep shadow over the rest of Benazir’s life. All of the infamous cases are related to that period.
Despite going into exile in late 1990s, Benazir continued to have a lot of influence on the local politics and once Nawaz Sharif was again removed, her popularity witnessed resurgence. PPP became a key party after 2002 elections and in the last years of Musharraf regime was the most sought after party by the establishment and US alike for tackling rising extremism and for ensuring trouble less continuance of the battle against Islamic militants.
Things started to move in an uncontrollable direction after the lawyers movement started. Although now the PPP tries to call the movement “reactionary” but the fact is that during her life Benazir never publicly criticized it despite the fact that she knew that from pragmatic point of view, the movement though weakening Musharraf could also adversely affect her leverage. In fact PPP selectively supported the movement. An intelligent person like Benazir would have never supported the lawyers’ movement if it was totally “reactionary” particularly at that point. Of all the politicians, she was the best in striking a balance between political necessity and ideological orientation. In fact the fact that PPP in post Benazir time adopted delaying tactics allowed the right wing elements to literally hijack the movement. Had she been alive, things would have taken a better turn as she was far more astute than her successor.
Her death has obviously been a big blow to Pakistan’s prospects of becoming a more tolerant and moderate political entity. Religious extremism in fact benefited the most from her tragic death.
Moreover her tragic death also solidified the legacy politics as her successor had to be from her nearest relatives to keep the party intact. Dynasty politics became further entrenched and even Bilawal had to be renamed as Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It is claimed by the PPP that BB Sahiba nominated the current Joint Chairman, Asif Ali Zardari. By following him, they are actually following her desires. And yet the ones who were near to Benazir during her lifetime and even her final moments like Sherry Rehman, Naheed Khan and Amin Fahim are now out of the limelight. If her wishes were that dear to PPP then people on whom Benazir had trust should not be given such treatment.
To be fair to the current chairman, PPP led government has tried to reach out to various ethnicities and tried to adopt reconciliatory approach. In some constitutional matters the party has fared quite well and has successfully brokered an improved NFC award. Provincial autonomy has also improved. However the quality of governance remains a problematic area.
It has to be understood that eventually people judge a government not merely on its ideological orientation but also on its actual performance in economic and administrative realm. And yes there will always be those who despite ideologically agreeing with a liberal party will nevertheless assess the actual performance and vote against it. In USA the registered Democrats far outnumber the registered Republicans and yet there have been Republican presidents and legislatures. Even in the recent midterm elections the conservatives make a strong comeback.
Merely calling the critics as “Pseudo Liberals” or members of naive “chattering classes” or “closet conservatives” will not do the trick. Pakistan Peoples Party has to improve its governance and since it is the mainstream liberal party it is critical that it improves. Likewise whipping Benazir’s and Zulfiqar Bhutto’s name won’t make the issues with the party disappear. A Shaheed may act as a powerful rallying force in one election but cannot deliver performance. Post Benazir PPP needs to realize that.
Filed under: Anniversery, Benazir Bhutto, Left, Liberal Democratic Pakistan, Uncategorized · Tags: Benazir, Benazir Bhutto, Bhutto, Politics
32 Responses to "Benazir Bhutto and Her Politics: A Critical Evaluation"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said sorry read ex-paki not nazi - tajender said ex-nazi,
india is country of immigrants like ameri...
- Maggu
said “So tajender, the day you screw an Arab woma... - Maggu said TAJENDAR : what a shameless, fatherless, brazen an...
- tajender said But Subcontinental Muslims, they are slaves of the...
- Ex-Paki
said Tajender,
Sorry, I don’t know anything about... - tajender said Hindus in Arabia are those who show the Arabs the...
- RajTOO
said So tajender,
.
You can call Hindus whatever. That... - tajender said It is only Subcontinental Muslims, who would remai...
- home cellulite treatment said It’s very effortless to find out any topic o...
There are some line from Shakespeare’s Falstaff, which seem so appropiate to the moment and as a reply to this article – let us sit on the ground and tell the sad stories of our kings and their deaths.
Benazir, Pakistan’s only true liberal leader, as the article suggests, could not repeal the laws passed by her father. What was so liberal about Benazir? Her policies were not liberal, but the appeasement of her own personal desire to remain in power and if that is the benchmark of liberalism in Pakistan, then Pakistani politics has to be one of the most liberal politics in the world today.
Did Benazir pass a law to repeal the Blasphemy Laws, the Hudood Ordinances or did she pass any legislation that improved upon only liberal minded law to have been created in Pakistan – Ayub Khan’s family laws, which gave more rights to women than anything passed or legislated under her or her father’s term of office.
Please do tell on what criteria is Benazir being judged as Pakistan’s most liberal leader? Pray, do inform what great feats of liberalism did Benazir accomplish? I was under the impression that article was a critical evaluation of Benazir and her politics, but I guess, I was mistaken.
I am afraid that in our ususal stupid sentimentality, we will make an idol of Benazir Bhutto and this article confirms my worst fears that we have only created another false idol to worship.
ciao
Feroz khan, if you read the article carefully and even the paragraph in which her liberalism was mentioned, the suggestion is that she was personally liberal in outlook which was reflected by several bold statements she made and the fact that she did not whip the religous fervour. Moreover the word “liberal” has been used in a relative sense,i.e. compared to the rest of the leaders.. Secondly if you read it till the end, the article also critisizes Benazir on her quality of governance and other issues. So the suggestion that it paints onse sided picture is not correct. Mind you this is being written at her anniversary and consquently out of reverence there are certain things which can not be written in a harsher tone.
Frankly repealing blasphemy law can not be done by an individual alone. It is an extremely difficul thing in a bigoted society like Pakistan. The mere mention of repealing it causes a stir. Your entire electorate has to be behind you firmly even to suggest such a thing. If that is used as a criteria then NO one can be liberal in Pakistan. Repealing such law needs much much much more than personal outlook of a leader. Benazir is being called a liberal leader as she did not whip religion, played her part in repealing some parts of Hadood ordinance and compared to political leaders of her generation and even before, she was relatively liberal.
And the very fact that she was particularly targeted by extremist forces on her return also gives an indication as to where her orientation was. Liberalism has to be seen in Pakistan’s context and the prevailing circumstances.
@ Raza
“Mind you this is being written at her anniversary and consquently out of reverence there are certain things which can not be written in a harsher tone.”
Why not? Does dying make a person immune to criticism in Pakistan?
If this is the case, then the article should have been titled as tribute to her and not as a critical evaluation of her politics.
I agree with you in the sense that liberalism has to be seen in the context of Pakistan, which is why I said most Pakistanis are psuedo liberals. Raza, the real problem with liberalism in Pakistan is, and here I am in complete agreement with AA Khalid, that is has too often compromised its principles and has not really stood for its own set of believes and values and has never developed a foundational framework to support its view point and has too often relied on acts of individualism to propell its cause onward.
ciao
Feroz khan, compared to many articles this article is more critical. A critique has to be some what balanced and adopts a combination of both appreciation and criticism. I have tried my level best to do that.
mind you benazir never had two third majority to repeal the ordinances. In fact both her tenures witnessed strong opposition in the form of PML N which was a conservative party. She never even had the votes to repeal these ordianances and even if she had it would have been a very very very tough task. Even then, PPP played its role in repealing some parts of Hadood ordinance in 2006.
Any ways
please read this article and you will actually find out that both of us agree on very critical issues.
http://pakteahouse.net/2010/12/08/who-is-secular-in-pakistan/
I didn’t see much ‘critical’ analysis in this article at all i’m afraid and would still like to echo Feroz sb.
Yes, you say that she was liberal in her personal outlook. I believe that to be true but how and when that ever translated into most things that involved her politics escapes me. and that is the true tragedy of BB. And in that case what good was it?
Also, I would like to have maybe seen a comment on how much her own feudal roots translated into how she looked at politics and her governance style. Did that psyche play any part in her final ‘gift’ to this country? sent to us from beyond the grave in the form of Chateau ‘ali Sarkar?
How is that liberal?
lastly, any genuine and critical comment on her is impossible without a clear understanding of why she let her spouse run riot and ‘apparently’ either turning a blind eye or being a full fledged partner in crime. This always intrigues me at a personal level that how a person of such obvious intelligence and stature allows this to go on oblivious to the untold damage this perception had on herself, her party and her ability to govern.
What did this say about her? What did this actually say about why she wanted to lead? Was she even a true democrat?
Just like No comment about Zia is complete without mentioning the evil that he bequeathed us; no comment about BB is complete without what she has left us with.
It is a commemorative article on BB on her death anniversary, not a detailed analysis of her politcial regimes. I think considering what has been published in today’s newspapers (bothe Urdu and English) this is a much balanced piece. It hasnt eulogized her to abnormally high levels at all.
Her liberal creditionals were seriously undermined on account of her feudal background, as well as the manner in which politics is conducted in Pakistan. However relatively speaking, and selecting from the range of politicians that we have, she can be called liberal.
As for repealing of Islamic laws in this country, frankly given the sentiments and the political set up one needs to be extra realistic. even very slight amendments would be major achievement.
She was more for power than for Change and that’s what weakened her. Otherwise what couldn’t she do with her vote bank. Lacked vision & determination. Praise be to her legacy. Perfect at somersaults and going back on promises and words. She usually spoke rhetorically and meaninglessly. But a one eyed among the blinds. Look at her decorating the Army with Tamgha e Jamhooriat, or the launching of Kashmir Jehad or Talibans in her tenure.
The one million, at Lahore Airport in 1986 foolishly believed she would deliver. Nostalgia makes us blind when we say, things would have been different, her being alive.
No doubt in ‘Deep State’ cunningness but then she was a feudal, Oxford Graduated, Bhutto’s Daughter and Sir Shah Nawaz’s Grand Daughter not a bullied proletariat. Privatization of Power Sector was her huge blunder that drowned Wapda into liquidity crunch. The whole world was ready to donate and help her. If she could kick start Ghazi Barotha, so could she other on Wapda’s list. Remember her France visit when Pres. Mitterrand, agreed to even civilian nuclear reactors. Her lack of managerial skills lead to bad governance and hence credibility deficit. In short, where there is will there is a way. She failed us and failed us so badly that the general public lost faith in democracy, liberalism and socialism.
The same pattern can be seen in Bangladesh, Philippines and to some extent India. Burma and Columbia may not wager on their ladies.
Her murder, is condemnable and PPP Jiyalas should step beyond dirges and blames and do us the justice of stripping the culprits.
Gigantic banners in my city Karachi portray her and Z.A. Bhutto as democratic giants and super saviors. I have nothing but two questions:
1.) If they were democratic why did neither of them hold party-elections or at least build a mechanism that can saturate democracy inside the party? (On the contrary the Giant Democratic Leader BEQUEATHED the party to her husband)
2.) She was dismissed twice. If she was that massive politically, where was her electorate? Why didn’t they come and re-install her?
I was deeply moved by her death.
She was like her father intellectually light-years ahead from her contemporaries but, sadly, like her father she couldn’t develop the democratic attitude which her party badly needed.
Unfortunately the PPP with its current structure will remain a personal fiefdom. She was a nice human being. Perhaps, not made to be a leader. She once said that she wanted to be a diplomat. Maybe she was right.
@Probyn
Did you read the article till the end?
Or just concluded by reading first two paragraphs and Feroz khan’s comments.
I think one mistake I made was the title of the article. The word critical has created an impression that the article will be highlighting the shortcomings of the Benazir too much. In my books crtical means acknowledging both plus and negatives.
If you read the article till the end you would notice that I was also highlighted the negatives particularly the governance quality and legacy politics.
Regarding her liberal credentials, well TRY TO UNDERSTAND that you have to judge her relatively here. She was not an angel nor it is easy being a TRUE liberal in this country. By relative standards she was a liberal but at the same time a pragmatic realist also.
Any ways I acknowledge that I should have been harsher when discussing the negatives
@ Mnoor
Thanks for understanding the crux of the article
@ raza raja…
I suppose the title of the article did create expectations which were not met. Hence my own comment.
And yes, I did read the article till the end thank you very much!
Whatever I concluded was based on what I read. Stating that I agreed with Feroz sbs comments does not mean that I have nothing to say on my own behalf.
I understand what you are saying that it is hard to be a true liberal in Pakistan. However, I still fail to see what good it does anybody else if that liberalism is restricted to one’s own house.
As far as you highlighting governance issues then the following:
‘Pakistan Peoples Party has to improve its governance and since it is the mainstream liberal party it is critical that it improves.’
regarding some truly heinous shenanigans (not to touch upon a democratic chairperson for life and the inheritance etc. etc. we could go on) is singularly underwhelming.
But I suppose a decent one if as Mnoor said, the effort was supposed to be more ‘commemorative’ than anything else.
@ probyn
I crticized her role in entrenching legacy politcs which is in fact critism on her decision to assume too central role in the party affairs. Now compared to the other pieces on benazir which are just paying grand tributes and nothing else, this article does try to be critical. Obviously the fact that it is her anniversary has made me avoid adoting a scathing attitude on her negatives..
Her liberalism was not merely just restricted to her ownself…yes you can argue that she could have done more…but did she have the votes??
It is easy to say that Ayub Khan’s family laws were much more liberal but then Ayub could make law through decree whereas in parliamentary form you need a consensus to pass or repeal anything. For repealing anti blasphemy law she needed absolute support from masses as well as two third majority in the parliament..did she have it?
Lets be fair here..and learn to evaluate people in the context of their circumstances. If absolute criterian is used then frankly no one is liberal, not even you, me or feroz khan. This is Pakistan janab….
who said Im a bleeding heart liberal?
@ Raza
Raza, this reply will be in two-parts. The first part, will be a response to your comments and the second-part, will be an explanation of my reasons and views on the general topics identified by this article. Please bear with me. Thanks.
Part I:
Pakistan, from its very inception, has been ruled as an administrative state through ordinances and fiats and declarations. The experience of goverance in Pakistan directly points to this, which is why over a period of time, there developed a blending of perceptions, on how to rule Pakistan, between the civil service and the military and why, over the years, the civil service of Pakistan has been so comfortable during the periods of military rule.
Both the military and the civil service of Pakistan, due to the traditions of their institutions and the practice of their experiences, see the goverance of Pakistan through the lens of an administrative problem. This common believe, as to what is the best solution for ruling Pakistan, has created the idea of a “steel skeleton” whereby the military and the bureaucracy see themselves as the most qualified to administer Pakistan.
It is for this reason, that both the military and the bureaucracy have no faith in idea of democracy and the idea of the supremacy of the parliament. This view is then shared in equal measure, with the politicans of Pakistan, who come from a feudal background and as such, are strong supporters of the status quo, which is also view a shared by the military and the bureaucracy.
This has created a triangle of power in Pakistan and though these interests; military, feudal and bureaucracy may differ with each other on issues, they generally support each other in maintaining the status quo of power in Pakistan. It is for this reason, that we see the same politicans changing their political affliations from democratic credentials to serving the tenures of military dictators with ease and no moral qualms of a hypocrisy.
The one idea, which all these three ruling interests of Pakistan agree upon is the notion that a true devolution of political power to the people has to be denied. It is for this purpose, that though they make claims to the paeans of democracy in Pakistan, they make no pretense in supporting their own interests over the interests of democracy and have generally favored and supported political issues, which are narrowly identified with consequences, which have been historically deterimental to the cause of building political institutions in Pakistan; to devolving democracy in its true sense by removing it from the concerns of the drawing rooms to the concerns of the street.
The idea that Benazir Bhutto did not enjoy a two-thirds majority to change laws is without merit. The idea that a two-thirds majority is needed in Pakistan to change laws is a myth, because laws in Pakistan are changed or made by issuing and passing ordinances and then later, getting those ordiances rubber-stamped by a spineless parliament.
If Benazir Bhutto, really wanted to change the laws like Blasphemy and Hadood and as you said, she was a pragmatic leader well versed in the art of Realpolik, she would have simply passed an ordinance. The very thought that Benazir Bhutto believed that she needed a two-thirds majority to change an existing law does not bode too well for her sense of pragmatism or her understanding of the nature of Realpolitik in Pakistan.
Pakistani political leadership, and this includes the military as well, use the rationale of a law and the legal procedure to resist demands, which they believe go against their interests, and when it suits their interests, they have no issues passing ordinances or amending the consitution to their whims and riding rough-shod over the parliament and the due legal process in Pakistan.
Secondly, to identify Benazir Bhutto as being liberal because she faced opposition from the “extermist” is a misleading statement. “Extermist” in the context of your article, denoted the idea of religious conservatism and people, who support Islamic militancy. To equate liberalism as the anti-thesis of religious conservatism in Pakistan would be wrong, because it creates the very impression, which liberalism in Pakistan should avoid – being seen as against religion. If this was the measure of Benazir’s liberalism, it was a very shallow liberalism.
Also, if Benazir Bhutto was truly liberal, then why did she not tolerate dissent during her tenures of power and free the media in Pakistan? Why did she not practiced what she claimed by letting the chairperson of the PPP being some one else? In a similar vein, you mentioned that PPP was a mainstream liberal party of Pakistan, but where is this idea of liberalism and of being mainstream, when Asif Ali Zardari is elected its chairperson without a single vote of the PPP’s workers and according to WikiLeaks, wishes that in the event of his death; the next president of Pakistan should be his sister?
Could you please explain how this idea of treating PPP as a personal property makes it into a mainstream liberal party of Pakistan?
Raza, to be judged as a liberal does not mean to say a few a words, because if I remember correctly, you mentioned that Benazir said that cutting of hands and feet was not Islamic and is a harsh law and that in your opinion made her into a liberal. Please identify the actions of Benazir, which show her liberal views in a concrete fashion. Benazir did nothing to translate her political rhetoric into actions, which could testify to her being judged as a liberal.
In my opinion, the accolade of Benazir being a liberal is not supported by the history of her two tenures and her actions during her terms of office and she does not deserve to be called a liberal.
Benazir Bhutto was a firm believer in the status quo and was always true to her class-background.
As to the article being well-balanced, and not being harsh on Benazir Bhutto because she is dead, I have to disagree. Any person who assumes the position of authority, where they can affect and influence the lives of millions in a nation, needs to be stripped naked in the forum of public opinion and judged. With all due respect Raza sahib, it is rank sentimentality like this, which covers the faults of our leaders and wrongly idolizes them into persons, which they never were during their life times.
All this howling and crying over Benazir Bhutto and making her into an ideal of some universial idol confirms what A. Cowasjee of Dawn said about Pakistanis (and said the same thing about Indians) and said it correctly. Cowasjee said Pakistanis (and Indians) act as a bunch of sub-continental monkeys at times, who still need to climb down from the tress and outgrow their tails.
I most strongly oppose this tradition of political necrophilia, which seems to be taking roots in our part of the world, where we lose all proportion of common sense, when it comes to certain scions of political dynasties who died a violent death.
We have already created a shrine to the memory of our fallen idol – Benazir Bhutto – and so, what is preventing us from turning her into a saint and even more? You mentioned in your reply to me that “mind you this is being written at her anniversary and consquently out of reverence there are certain things which can not be written in a harsher tone.”
The word “reverence” should be replaced by the word “respect”, because reverence means something totally different and would be a wrong term to use in paying homage to Benazir Bhutto. It seems that while Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) destroyed the idols, when he entered Mecca, we as a nation are creating idols of our own, which speaks volumes on our committments to make Pakistan into an Islamic state and upon our state of minds and upon which, I will not even comment!
Raza sahib, thank you for your for patience and kindness in reading this reply and for allowing me to share my reservations on the topic and allowing me the space, in your article’s response section, to comment.
Best Wishes!
Feroz R.Khan
“Cowasjee said Pakistanis (and Indians) act as a bunch of sub-continental monkeys at times, who still need to climb down from the tress and outgrow their tails.”
This is a repulsive statement. I am assuming that by quoting this, you are implying that Pakistanis need to evolve (socially? biologically?) in order to be ready for democracy? I must say that in a comment ostensibly devoted to the idea that no one in Pakistan is a true liberal because no one in Pakistan believes in the empowerment of the masses, this is a particularly shocking quotation to choose.
Dear feroz
I request you again to read the following article
http://pakteahouse.net/2010/12/08/who-is-secular-in-pakistan/
Once you have read it you will perhaps understand that our point of view about political parties is more or less the same.
And secondly I have not tried to make late Benazir a saint… May be in the article I was not harsh enough for your liking.
Where I slightly differ from you is that I judge people in the context of their circumstances. Compared to amny others benazir was certainly more liberal. No leader in pakistan has willingly made someone else the party chairman. Only party which has a definate mechanism for selecting a leader is ironically jamat i islami (now it does not make it a liberal party, does it!!!!)
And yes kindly read this article also which will make it clear to you that I am against legacy politics and do not have any romantic notions about it
http://pakteahouse.net/2010/08/10/the-shoe-the-helplessness-and-legacy-politics/
Moreover you keep on talking about laws, frankly those laws can not be repealed through simple majority. Those need 2′/3 rd majority otherwise they may be reinstated by the courts. Moreover the electorate itself is not willing to change them. Plus PPP was part of the process which amended hadood ordinance in 2006.
It is easy to judge people as illiberal based on their failure to repeal blasphemy but it is extremely difficult to actually change that law for any political party. even then the only party who even talked aabout repealing or amending it is PPP.
anyways please do read the articles..
If the wells of democracy and liberty are full at the PPP, then why are we all sitting around with parched lips?
The PPP is a continuation of a peculiar sub-continental tradition of dynastic politics, obsessed with the cult of personality which inevitably turn mere mortals undeservedly into creatures from heaven.
So I wholeheartedly agree with Feroz here, our political culture lacks an ethic of autonomy, critical reasoning and democratic transparency.
Democracy does not simply mean the electoral process runs smoothly, but rather is an outlook and a framework for negotiating the competing claims on authority and power.
The fact is that the way the PPP is internally run is anything but democratic. Throughout Pakistan, all political parties are run like the personal dukedoms of dynastic families.
This is what erodes the possibility of a liberal political culture in Pakistan. We do not have an ethics of autonomy, because we are a people obsessed with carving the characteristics of Messiahs into the crooked timber of humanity.
I agree, for the sake of dignity that one should respect Bhutto, but we should not idealise her. In the words of William Darlymple, Bhutto was a flawed and feudal princess.
I agree repealing certain laws in this country is difficult, but that is not how I am judging the PPP or the Bhuttos.
Does the PPP embody the ethic of autonomy, does it foster a transparent and accountable party plaftorm? Does it practice democracy within its ranks? The intra-party process in Pakistan is notoriously autocratic. What passes as democracy in Pakistan, are autocrats whipping up hysteria to secure vote banks for their own families and stakeholders in their dynastic ambitions.
I quote Darlymple (google Pakistan’s flawed and feudal princess):
”Today, Benazir is being hailed as a martyr for freedom and democracy, but far from being a natural democrat, in many ways, Benazir was the person who brought Pakistan’s strange variety of democracy, really a form of ‘elective feudalism’, into disrepute and who helped fuel the current, apparently unstoppable, growth of the Islamists. For Bhutto was no Aung San Suu Kyi. During her first 20-month premiership, astonishingly, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world’s worst records of custodial deaths, killings and torture.
Within her party, she declared herself the lifetime president of the PPP and refused to let her brother Murtaza challenge her. When he persisted in doing so, he ended up shot dead in highly suspicious circumstances outside the family home. Murtaza’s wife Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima, as well as Benazir’s mother, all firmly believed that Benazir gave the order to have him killed.””’
”More than anything, perhaps, Benazir was a feudal princess with the aristocratic sense of entitlement that came with owning great tracts of the country and the Western-leaning tastes that such a background tends to give. It was this that gave her the sophisticated gloss and the feudal grit that distinguished her political style. In this, she was typical of many Pakistani politicians. Real democracy has never thrived in Pakistan, in part because landowning remains the principle social base from which politicians emerge.
The educated middle class is in Pakistan still largely excluded from the political process. As a result, in many of the more backward parts of Pakistan, the feudal landowner expects his people to vote for his chosen candidate. As writer Ahmed Rashid put it: ‘In some constituencies, if the feudals put up their dog as a candidate, that dog would get elected with 99 per cent of the vote.’
””’
Darlymple concludes in his article that:
”Benazir Bhutto was a courageous, secular and liberal woman. But sadness at the demise of this courageous fighter should not mask the fact that as a pro-Western feudal leader who did little for the poor, she was as much a central part of Pakistan’s problems as the solution to them.”’
Dear AA Khalid, I request you to also read this article which will perhaps make you understand also that I am not a great fan of legacy politics
http://pakteahouse.net/2010/08/10/the-shoe-the-helplessness-and-legacy-politics/
please read it and try to understand the context of my point of view about BB. Where have I called her a saint??
BTW nice to see you and Feroz Khan agreeing!!!!!
@ Raza (December 27, 2010 at 10:19 pm)
Raza, the fact that no leader made anyone else the party chairperson, does it make it right? Is PPP or any other political party the birth right of its leader and the leader’s family? If such is the case, then Asif Ali Zardari suggesting that his sister be made the president of Pakistan is a valid point and we should simply stop this charade of demanding democracy and rights and laws and justice and simply admit, that we have no rights as citizens of Pakistan.
Judgements tolerating actions based on the nature of circumtances and allowances for actions, considered in the light of circumtances, is a thin end of the wedge.
If we follow this logic, the American actions to imprison Muslims in Cuba were justified given the circumtances.
Raza, when we accept mitigating circumtances as the reasons to condone certain policies or acts, we are only compromising our own principles. This is the logic, which has allowed us to accept military coup d’etats in Pakistan and so, given the present circumtances in Pakistan, is another military coup justified in Pakistan?
If Jammat-i-Islami, which is a religious party can have internal elections, why cannot the so-called liberal parties who claim to represent democratic norms and traditions in Pakistan have elections in their parties?
Raza, you did not read what I wrote. Any law in Pakistan can be changed by simply passing an ordinance if there is a political will to do it and as to the courts, the honorable justices of Pakistan will do nothing as has been their practice in the past in such a case.
As to the people of Pakistan not favoring such a law, when was the last time some one checked the opinion of the people, when making or breaking the laws of Pakistan?
ciao
Feroz
Well did you read both the articles ???
And secondly my judgement is going to be relative..
You know this article if published at LUBP will be blasted for commiting blasphemy against BB…and yet at PTH I am being accused of elevating her to the level of Saint!!!! Funny
@ Raza (December 27, 2010 at 11:25 pm)
Yes, I have read those articles. As to your judgement being relative, I am sure it will be relative to Pakistan and your experiences in it. As to LUBP, I will not comment on that site and its ideas of dissent, but only say that I find them to be too provincial minded. Raza sahib, you are not being accused of anything on PTH.
Below is the Part II of my response to the other topics raised by your article and comments to it, including our interactions on the subject and the concerns of the article.
Let me start by stating that all liberals in Pakistan, including myself, are psuedo-liberals. We are not really and truly liberal in our views and to consider this statement, we have to understand our social, educational, cultural and even political backgrounds. Pakistanis, by and large, are moderate people, but they are moderates of conservative bent of mind.
Liberalism and the idea of liberalism, is more than a fashion statement as it is understood in Pakistan and it is more than a mere climax to a particularly well told joke. Liberalism as an idea suggests that political change must happen in a consitutional manner, which is the traditional version of liberalism and to this, we can add the modern caveat that a liberal state is responsible for the welfare of its citizens from the cradle to the grave.
The biggest problem confronting a liberal minded person in Pakistan is how to balance his/her loyalities to the idea of a political change, within the ambit of their religion – Islam. I am not about to make an argument for atheism or what AA Khalid calls “moral relativism”. The problem is that despite all the problems we face due to the association of our polity with religion, we have still not decided how we are to react to religion existing in our politics and are undecided, whether a criticism of religion is a reflection of our own faith or lack of it thereof.
This problem stems from the fact that we are too pre-occupied with the idea of what others think of us and in pleasing others, we have simply forgotten or even ignored the idea of what it is that we personally desire and want. In Pakistan, we contantly exist under the harsh glare of a societial microscope and all our actions are, thus, magnified and habitually judged.
The extent of this invasion of privacy, if you will, is such that we have become mentally defensive and accustomed to the idea of a fait accompli, that we are destined not to change the circumtances of our existence, but to accept them. Over the course of time, with this mind-set, we have become a society that favors the status quo and feels uncomfortable at the idea of change.
So, the dilemma for a Pakistani liberal then becomes how to change and enable the process of change within the existing expectations and limits of the prevailing status quo?
If this was not bad enough, we as people also labor under the impressions of being hospitable and polite and not offending others and I am not suggesting that we become rude, but only that we have ourselves placed too many resistrictions and strictures on our own freedom of action.
In the end, it all boils down to how we wish change to happen in Pakistan? We all have an end vision of what we would like Pakistan to be, but the idea of how to get there, as a nation and as a people, eludes us. We hope, we can achieve this change within constitutional framework, but the manner in which our constitution is abused by those in power, we really do not have that option for a change.
So, we search for a process to change and even though we find none, we still search for a process and this also explains, why despite the countless heartbreaks, we still cling to those notions of democracy and constitutionalism and why, we will never be the revolutionary sorts and welcome the revolution.
The revolution and ideas of it, scares us because we are too afraid of losing the comfort of our status quo and its relative sense of security, which is why we are more than happy to have compromised with the idea of military coup d’ etats, which are like a revolution, but they do not reject the status quo as much as they are seen as a needed, reformist, correction to the status quo itself.
This is also the reason, why so many liberal minded Pakistanis support military rule and why they place so much hope in the military rules as portents of change.
So, what is a Pakistani liberal supposed to do?
I hope this explains, why I have such a cynical view of liberalism in Pakistan and why I call Pakistanis liberals, myself included, as psuedo liberals.
ciao
@ excellent stuff feroz Sb. Excellent.
” Liberalism as an idea suggests that political change must happen in a consitutional manner, which is the traditional version of liberalism and to this, we can add the modern caveat that a liberal state is responsible for the welfare of its citizens from the cradle to the grave. ”
To which I partly disagree. I think liberalism is a far wider idea than simply mere legal wrangling with dry constitutional texts. Liberalism is an ethic aswell, an ethic of autonomy, which is why I think it is accessible to people of all creeds and walks of life. Liberalism involves serious metaphysical and moral considerations.
Also there is no one simplistic version of ”liberalism”. There are many theories within the tradition of liberalism. There are sometimes contradictory strands of liberal thinking aswell. For instance an egalitarian liberal and libertarian liberal will not see eye to eye on many economic and social policies, indeed in many countries there is a fierce divide between libertarian liberals and egalitarian liberals.
So when Feroz says, ” a liberal state is responsible for the welfare of its citizens from the cradle to the grave”, this is a statement which many liberals will disagree with. Mainly those in the classical tradition of liberalism and modern libertarian liberals will disagree with Feroz and say the State has no duty to provide welfare from the cradle to the grave.
Similarly, expressions and arguments for liberalism differ from society to society. Different democracies will have different expressions of the liberal ideal.
De Tocqueville in his seminal work, ” Democracy in America”, frequently commented on how the moral foundations of liberal democracy in America were dependent on a particular interpretation of religion. New interpretations of Christianity helped the everyday American make sense of the liberal ideal in a language and setting which was familiar yet revolutionary. The Protestant ethic greatly helped everyday Americans make sense of the virtues of liberty and freedom, so much so that De Tocqueville writes:
”The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.”
For liberal democracy to flourish yes Feroz is absolutely right there has to be constitutional change but there is also a need for nurturing a certain moral ideal and ethic, to foster certain habits of heart and qualities of mind to understand the liberal ideal, and for that new forms of religious interpretation are certainly crucial. Religious re-interpretation is a great factor in the long term modernization, liberalization and democratization of societies.
When Benazir began to make unequivocal statements against the Taliban, she became a target of those within our establishment who are steering this country towards an ‘Islamic’ dystopia. Benazir, a popularly elected leader, would have posed a more serious threat to their plans than anyone else in Pakistan. She was flawed in many respects but she also had the ingredients and the charisma to change the course of this country away from the vision of the Islamists. She had to be eliminated and these Islamists did not find it too difficult to do so when she had come to believe that she walked on water just like her father. She abandoned all precautions and her premature death was a tragedy and a serious setback.
Dear Feroz Khan
I gave you two links so that you understand that I do not have any naive illusions about Political outfits in pakistan. The article about secualrism actually tried to debunk the myth that any party is secular in pakistan.
I agree with AA Khalid that liberalism is not a strictly defined doctorine and its definitions and understanding would vary from society to society.
Alam Wolfe’s book “the Future of Liberalism” is a good text which tries to bring out the basic tennets of liberalism.
What you are stressing about is constituional liberalism and also on the rule of law, but that is a part of it.
Any ways according to you Pakistani liberal has to balance “So, the dilemma for a Pakistani liberal then becomes how to change and enable the process of change within the existing expectations and limits of the prevailing status quo? ”
Well I would like to say that an individual has to understand the particular society and its established political culture and the available mainstream choices and then if he is serious about bring actual change rather than talking about abstract concepts, work with the best available choice which is also electable.
My appreciation for PPP and late benazir is based on the this premise. I am under no naive illusions that she was an angel. That is why I kept on requesting you to see those articles. My reference to LUBP was because they have kept on blaming me that I am overly critical of PPP due to my “burger class” origins. That was cited as a defense against your assumption that i am in immature awe and hero worship of PPP aqnd its leaders.
I tend to judge things in the relative context of the circumstances and the society. PPP may not be strictly “liberal” but in my opinion is the best choice availabale. And I have critisized it also
Oh, my. It seems with Geo, ARY and Express Tv busy doing a clean up job with the usual anti-PPP rant-men, it seems they’ve all gathered here to take out their frustration at what is actually an excellent piece.
Well done Raza.
AA Khalid:
Request your friendship on FB. My id Rashid.Orakzai.
@ Raza Raja (December 28, 2010 at 8:14 am)
Raza, does it really matter what LUBP thinks of you? They called you a “burger” and an ISI agent, so what? The fact of the matter my dear friend, is what matters is what you believe to be the truth and not what others say about you.
If you had read what I wrote, you would have noted that I said we are too pre-occupied with what others think of us and not what we think of ourselves.
When you write, “… that an individual has to understand the particular society and its established political culture and the available mainstream choices and then if he is serious about bring actual change…” is the same thing I said; a Pakistani liberal seeks to bring about a “change and enable the process of change within the existing expectations and limits of the prevailing status quo”.
If you really wish to understand my cynicism, I would suggest that you find a good DVD of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister series from the BBC and watch it. I am sure you will learn to appreciate Sir Humphrey Appleby’s wit and comments about politics and government.
ciao
BB assassination probe: ‘Murder plot hatched at brigadier’s home’
The Express Tribune, December 31st, 2010.
ISLAMABAD: A fresh probe has uncovered the role of nine men, including an army brigadier, in the December 27, 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. The assassination plot was hatched in the official residence of the army brigadier mentioned in the investigation report.
The findings of the probe, conducted under the interior ministry’s supervision, have deliberately been kept under wraps — even from the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party’s leading lights. The report is in the possession of Interior Minister Rehman Malik and has only been seen by President Asif Ali Zardari in its entirety.
Earlier this week, President Zardari temporarily shelved plans to share the contents of the inquiry report. The president was keen to first take the army leadership into confidence before ordering the arrest of certain uniformed personnel over their alleged involvement in Benazir’s assassination.
Five of the nine co-conspirators are still alive, according to the inquiry report. They were the ones who hired the killers and gave them shelter and logistical support. The five men will now be formally charged-sheeted and put on trial. The remaining four men, including those sent to kill Benazir, are already dead.
Both logistical support and rehearsals for the murder were arranged by uniformed persons, who were part of the plot. Militant groups, which were working closely with the nine plotters, provided the manpower.
It has also been confirmed to The Express Tribune that the joint investigation team had traced two new mobile phone sims that were used to communicate on the day Benazir was assassinated.
Sources said that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had drawn up a tough questionnaire for General Pervez Musharraf on the basis of investigations conducted by the joint investigation team. The questions were framed once the role of the nine plotters became clear and the inquiry team managed to lay its hands on the main accused who was part of the plot to eliminate Benazir.
Sources said that Zardari was still undecided on how to handle the more explosive contents of the inquiry report. They claimed that President Zardari had deliberately withheld presentation of the inquiry report before the PPP central executive committee in Naudero.
Although Zardari had agreed in principle to make the report public, he wanted to give it some more thought. The president and his party leaders are keen to fight off the somewhat popular impression that they are disinterested in tracking down Benazir’s killers.
At one stage, President Zardari had made up his mind to unveil the inquiry report on Benazir’s third death anniversary, sources said. But he changed his mind at the eleventh hour and told the interior minister to drop the idea for the time being. The absence of Bilawal Bhutto from the CEC meeting was only used as a pretext to delay the presentation of the report. The president did not want the present army leadership to be caught off guard when the names of certain uniformed persons feature in the report.
For their part, the military leadership signalled their willingness to cooperate with the civilian government and put any accused military officer on trial, sources said. Even when a cabinet inquiry team led by Rauf Chaudhry was constituted, the military leadership had backed the initiative to an extent that the director general of Military Intelligence, Nadeem Ejaz, was made available to a three-member inquiry committee.
Sources said that the committee chairman was even told by the top military authorities that a serving lieutenant general would be available round the clock for as many days as they need for questioning, till they reached any conclusion about his innocence or guilt.
The interior minister refused to comment on the inquiry report on the pretext that the matter was in a court of law. When asked whether he intended to share the findings of the probe with the PPP’s CEC members, the minister said he would definitely place the inquiry report before his party’s elders.
http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101060275&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20100925
http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101060275&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20100925