The Legacy of the Late Benazir Bhutto and the Survival of Her Political Party

Source:

EthnicNewz.org (formerly go-NEWz.com)

Writer:

M. Thang

Adil Najam, professor of international relations at Boston University, and M. Saud Anwar, founder and past president of the Pakistani American Association of Connecticut, spoke about the future of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party and her two terms as prime minister with relatively unremarkable accomplishments.

Benazir Bhutto was on the campaign trail, in her third run for prime minister, when she was assassinated on Dec. 27, 2007. Bhutto died after a suicide bomber approached her automobile and exploded as she exited a political rally. Bystanders reportedly heard three gun shots as well.

Najam is a former journalist in Pakistan who met and covered Bhutto a number of times when she was prime minister. He is also the founding editor of All Things Pakistan [1], a Web site.

Anwar is a physician in Connecticut who specializes in pulmonary- and critical-care medicine.

New England Ethnic News interviewed Najam and Anwar separately by telephone on Dec. 28, 2007.

Following is an edited and condensed transcript of the interviews.

Benazir Bhutto was touted heavily in the media these past few months as being the key to democratic change. How realistic was this image, considering Pakistan's history of political turmoil and violence during its 60 years of independence?

Adil Najam: No one person could have brought democracy to Pakistan. It is the U.S. media who touted her like that. She was clearly the U.S.-anointed person to become the prime minister. Part of her return was engineered by Washington.

I think she was A key amongst many for a return to democracy. It wasn't one person (alone who could restore democracy).

Washington misunderstood the situation. I think it put all its eggs in the Benazir basket.

In some ways, that made her less popular in Pakistan and a bigger target for the extremists because now she was seen as Washington's choice.

The one country that says it wants democracy in Pakistan is the biggest hurdle to democracy in Pakistan.

The story of Pakistan's 60 years is really a story about a democratic society trapped inside an undemocratic state, especially in the last year.

M. Saud Anwar: I have a feeling that the violence is overrated, and certain lobbies in the U.S. would like to strengthen the perspective that there's a higher amount of violence there (in Pakistan).

If you separate the history of Pakistan's recent past (after Sept. 11, 2001) from that of the relatively distant past, I think these terrorist attacks that we're seeing is a new phenomenon in Pakistan.

We would never hear of suicide bombings in the past, and now it unfortunately has become much more common.

With respect to the past, it has not been as violent except there was focused violence in which people were using power to go after their political enemies in violent mechanisms.

DEMISE of the BHUTTO PARTY?

The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) is essentially the Bhutto party. It was founded by Benazir Bhutto's father, and then she inherited it, so to speak, and kept it strong. Is this the end of the party? Can it continue without a Bhutto at the helm?

Adil Najam: No, I don't think it's the end of the party. People thought that even when Bhutto [Benazir's father] died.

Her greatest asset was her last name. Her father made the party, and then she earned the party – by being in jail for three years, by being in exile as a young woman of 20-something. She paid the biggest price – her own assassination – for inheriting the party.

But the real question is: Is it the end of the party? It's a very troubling time for the party, but these dynasties don't die out with just one person.

There is a another generation of Bhuttos, many of them young, many of them very interested in politics. It's too early to say what will happen. But I will not be writing off either the Bhutto name or the Pakistan People's Party.

(Regarding "another generation of Bhuttos, many of them young"), Benazir Bhutto's children are rather young. The first one is in college, and I think you might have to see him soon. The point is that we don't know what will happen.

[Editor's note: TIME.com [2] reported on Dec. 29, 2007, that 19-year-old Bilawal Bhutto, Benazir's oldest child and only son, "will likely be named as her political heir and the new party leader on Sunday [Dec. 30, 2007]."]

M. Saud Anwar: I think so (that the PPP can continue).

Look at the fact that she was out of the country for about eight years in her self-imposed exile, and during that time the entire party infrastructure was intact, and everything was working – because of the leadership, with a lot of people working on the ground in the country.

I think this could be a big growth spurt for the party if they act in an organized way.

Two possible successors to Benazir Bhutto, to lead the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), are Makhdoom Amin Fahim, the PPP's senior vice chair, and Aitzaz Ahsan, the lawyer who helped reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, according to the New York Times. What is your opinion of them?

Adil Najam: I think (they both) were close to her. Aitzaz had actually gotten slightly distant. If it is Aitzaz Ahsan who does lead, it might reinvigorate the party. He has a national support base.

At this point, it is very unclear. She had a very strong control of the party. She was the party. She decided on every position.

I think there's going to be an immediate sense of a vacuum and then some sort of struggle within the party for who emerges as the leader. Those two might be amongst them. There might be others. Both of them are interesting articulate people, but they've never played a role at this level before.

I am a big fan of Aitzaz Ahsan, but I don't dislike Fahim, either. Aitzaz Ahsan has been at the forefront of the democracy movement recently.

Fahim is probably more likely to take on the party leadership because he's less of a maverick. But again, he's less tested. He's less known, and I have nothing against him.

M. Saud Anwar: I would make a very bold statement and say Ahsan may be better than Benazir.

Ahsan is actually a genius. He's actually a better candidate (than Fahim) as well. He's a brilliant lawyer and a brilliant individual. He's very, very well educated and sharp, very articulate and very focused.

From the U.S. perspective, he may be better. (Ahsan has) a much more global perspective (than Fahim does).

Fahim, from Sindh Province (the same province that Bhutto's family is from), is a well-educated individual. He's extremely patriotic to the country, but also to the party, and has on multiple, multiple occasions been offered to be the leader of the party when she was not there.

But he refused to go that direction because he is very focused on what's in the best interest of the party.

He would definitely bring a lot to the table. The only thing is, he's probably not as articulate as she is. But with respect to the policies, with respect to what needs to be done, he's a very good person.

DISAPPOINTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

As a two-time prime minister who was twice ousted, what do you consider to be Benazir Bhutto's accomplishments during her two terms?

Adil Najam: Much less than they should have been actually. A lot of her political energy was used up in just trying to stay in control, which she did not.

Having said that, there were significant advances she made, especially in her first time as prime minister, which came immediately after (the term of her predecessor) Gen. Zia ul-Haq.

(These changes include) some of her social policies – banking for the poor, for example, and particularly women's rights.

M. Saud Anwar: I think in the two terms, there was a lot of disappointment. Clearly there were governance failures in both terms.

On the positive side, she was a woman (and) prime minister of a Muslim country. She initiated democratic reforms. Jobs were created in certain parts of the country.

I think she played an important role with the geopolitical challenges (associated) with the Soviet era, that continued on after Zia's (Gen. Zia ul-Haq's) time.

Was she the perfect leader of the country? No. Was she better than a dictatorship? Yes. Did she prove herself over time? Somewhat.

Did she learn from her failures? Looks like it, very much so.

CORRUPTION and POWER

Benazir Bhutto was twice forced out of government when she was prime minister. In more than one country, she and her husband were charged with corruption and money laundering, involving over $1 billion reportedly. Yet she and her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) seem to have had immense popular support despite the scandals. Why is that?

Adil Najam: Neither statement is entirely correct. There were certainly charges against her and especially her husband. Part of the charges may have been politically motivated.

The numbers might have been propped up to create a case against her by the government. I don't mean to suggest that there was no corruption; there probably was.

I think there is this false notion in the West that she was an immensely popular, sweeping figure.

The PPP is probably the single largest party in the country, (but) probably not the majority party in the country because it is a fractured society. I don't think it [her party] was as popular.

The other two leading parties are the PMLN (Nawaz Sharif's party) and the PMLQ (Musharraf's party). (PML stands for Pakistan Muslim League. The "Q" in "PMLQ" stands for quyaid, or leader.)

Then, there's the issue of who would or would not have supported her in this (Jan. 8, 2008) election. The U.S. wanted to anoint her, so there's this sense that all of Pakistan was behind her. It wasn't.

She probably had the single largest party in Parliament. But that doesn't mean that she would've had the majority.

Any government that would have been formed would have been a coalition government (since) in a parliamentary system like in Pakistan, the government is usually formed through a coalition.

M. Saud Anwar: In the politics of Pakistan, there is a lot of political scandals that come out, which are primarily done as a political ploy by opponent parties.

I think that may be one of the reasons that many of the people in Pakistan do not believe (the allegations against Benazir Bhutto).

The other component is that she did have a charismatic personality. She was a very good spokesperson for the needs of the people and was there to represent the people, (their) perspectives and interests.

That's why there has been a very strong following in Pakistan – primarily for her.

Do you think Benazir Bhutto was motivated mainly by power, that she was power-hungry in her attempt to return to the Pakistani leadership this time, with her checkered political past?

Adil Najam: It is the nature of power that the more you have, the more you want it.

Here is a woman who had immense international recognition, was immensely rich, and had seen the dangers of politics. Her father and brother had been killed because of politics.

She knew the risks of returning, so why did she do it? I don't think anyone knows the answer, but we can speculate.

She did want to become prime minister again; that was very clear. She wanted power again.

But I think part of it is also that she wanted to finish (what she didn't in her two terms as prime minister). The two times that she was prime minister, she was ousted from office without completing her terms. Maybe she felt cheated.

Saud Anwar: I know some people who have mentioned that.

Anyone who's running to be a president or prime minister, they are somewhat power-hungry to do that. You have to have that hunger to do it, but also have the hunger to make a difference and have changes in the country.

Just putting it as a power hunger may not necessarily be fair.

NEXT STEPS for PRES. MUSHARRAF and the U.S.

Pres. Musharraf has declared three days of mourning. Is that appropriate? What would you advise him to do in addition to – or instead of – having this three-day mourning period?

Adil Najam: Sure, it's appropriate, but it's not sufficient.

I think he should leave. He has made a number of changes in the constitution unilaterally, which have caused great, great distress.

Musharraf is immensely unpopular right now. I really think most Pakistanis think he should leave. He is now part of the problem.

His unpopularity is basically the biggest hurdle to democracy in Pakistan. From a U.S. perspective, it is also the single biggest obstacle to the war on terror.

If he does need to do something, which I don't think he will do, (four) immediate steps would be to restore the judiciary, restore the constitution as it originally was, turn back the human rights abuse, and bring back freedom of the press.

Those are four concrete steps that he could take immediately to demonstrate partly that he understands the mistakes he has made and partly that he is willing to change.

M. Saud Anwar: Clearly there was a security breach (involving Benazir Bhutto's assassination). An independent evaluation of why and how this happened (must take place).

There shouldn't be any elections until the two (major political) parties are on board.

The two parties are not going to be running for the election (on Jan. 8, 2008, in which Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were candidates). Nawaz Sharif has said that he's not going to run for the election (because of Bhutto's assassination).

The third thing would be to make sure that the current violence (that is) a reaction to what has happened, stops. Musharraf needs to take whatever action is necessary – including (declaring a state of) emergency, if the violence persists – to try to control all that.

The mourning, that needs to happen.

What course of action – or restraint – would you suggest that the U.S. take?

Adil Najam: Its actions should meet its words – if, in fact, it is interested in democracy, then its actions should resonate with that.

You cannot say from one side of the mouth, "We want democracy" and, on the other side of the mouth, support a military dictatorship.

M. Saud Anwar: The United States needs to understand that in the past, there was a component of disengagement from the region, which was a total failed policy. Ongoing engagement is absolutely necessary.

That engagement would not necessarily have to be restricted to military engagement, but has to be multilateral, at all different levels – to have a mechanism to strengthen the civilian assistance as well – helping in the infrastructures for (civilian needs such as) education, healthcare and finance.

POOR U.S. MEDIA COVERAGE of PAKISTAN

How has the media coverage in the U.S. been of Pakistan politics in recent years?

Adil Najam: [slight laugher] International coverage is not the U.S. media's forte.

There's been a lot of good coverage of Benazir's assassination. But the general understanding of the complexity of Pakistan in the media can be very, very poor. If you want to see very good coverage, you look at the BBC.

(Regarding what American media has gotten wrong) there are so many things, for example, this building up of Benazir in the last many months, of building false expectations of what Benazir could do if she returned.

Anyone in Pakistan just could not understand what you were seeing on the screen here (in the U.S.). It had really little relevance to what was happening on the ground there.

(Another example is) this constant drumming of Pakistan being a nuclear power state, as if all of Pakistan's politics now depends on that.

Also (another example is) this idea that if Musharraf is not there, Pakistan will fall apart, as if he's the only moderate Pakistani in the world.

M. Saud Anwar: (I'm) satisfied regarding coverage of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but prior to that, probably not.

In the U.S. media, nobody's doing the appropriate level of homework. Many (are) required to put news out there in a very rapid fashion.

The perspective about the number of casualties in Pakistan – and what Pakistan has lost because of the war on terror – nobody (includes) that in the picture at all – that is, casualties and the losses of the Pakistani people in the country with respect to the economy and to changes in the life of the average person (as an effect of) this war on terror.

Source: EthnicNewz.com

Copyright 2007 New England Ethnic News, EthnicNewz.org (formerly go-NEWz.com). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express permission of the news source. Contact NEWz for more information.