Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

Photo:AP

Popular politician: Her party has now lost its links with the past.

The reason why Pakistan will be such a different place, at least in terms of its political and democratic futures, from now, is the absence of the most important political personality, who had been the public face of dissent and hope for the last three decades. The loss of Bhutto as one of the most important, vocal and courageous political figures on the Pakistani, and indeed, global, scene, will be irreplaceable. Whatever one thought of Bhutto’s politics, and there were many who did not agree with it, there were few who denied her the recognition which she deservedly received. She will be sorely missed for her public presence and for her pivotal role in Pakistani politics over the last three decades.

Whatever role and significance Benazir Bhutto had on the political map of Pakistan, her own individual presence cannot be separated from the ideological and political heritage of her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. It was the politics, vision and ideology of her father, which ensured that Bhutto became a popular politician. Even five elections after his death in 1979, Bhutto was seeking a vote for the Pakistan People’s Party, and for ‘Bhutto Shaheed’. The slogans at her political rallies, even the day she was killed, were mostly for Bhutto’s daughter, and not simply for Benazir. All previous election campaigns by the People’s Party relied on the Bhutto name to garner votes and this year was no exception. In many ways, one can say that even three decades after his death, a large proportion of the approximately 30-35 per cent vote bank of the People’s Party, continues to vote for an imagined hope and ideology, of a nostalgia for what Bhutto represented.

Yet, while the shadow of her father dominated her political development, Benazir Bhutto also acquired her own independence and presence. Moreover, the 1990s and the 21st century, were a very different place from the 1960s and 1970s of Bhutto the father. Hence, with his populist politics and rhetoric for the poor and down-trodden — perhaps the People’s Party’s largest and most consistent supporters — Bhutto brought in her own vision of politics, in many ways similar to some version of a social democratic political position. Mixing the free market with state intervention, privatisation with social welfare, and becoming part of the international and global world order, Bhutto distanced herself from her father’s fiery brand of third world radicalism.

Bhutto’s politics was, perhaps as any other politician’s, complex and contradictory. She represented a liberalism, both of the lifestyle kind as well as political liberalism; yet it was she who built up the Taliban in Afghanistan. She approached the poor wearing her father’s mantle, yet liberalised and privatised the economy, handing it over to the IMF and World Bank. She fought against one dictator in the 1980s refusing to compromise, but reconciled to deals with another military man two decades later. She spoke for the oppressed and for women, yet there was little substantial progress in legislation when she was Prime Minister. She promised an independent and corruption-free Pakistan, yet her regime was perhaps one of the most corrupt in the country’s history and closely aligned to the U.S. She was constrained by circumstances, by history, and by the establishment’s various secret services. Yet, for at least a third of the electorate, she represented great hope and many aspirations.

Politics in Pakistan, and that of political parties in particular, has always revolved around the personality of the leader of that party, none more so dominating as Ms. Bhutto’s. Despite the presence of a central executive committee and other inner forums within parties where advice may have been sought, political decisions were taken by her and a handful of the leadership, and it was always Bhutto who symbolised the political stand of the party. With her death, the Pakistan People’s Party has lost not just its leader, but also the continuity with the past, with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The inevitable parallel with the Nehru dynasty and with the assassinations of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi are likely to be made, perhaps more so in India than in Pakistan, now that the second Bhutto Prime Minister has also been assassinated, and with the third generation of both families being groomed for succession. Perhaps for some there is a great deal of symbolic significance in this similarity between two countries, which share very little in terms of political and democratic culture and history. In fact, precisely because India and Pakistan parted ways many decades ago and have continued to develop and evolve very different institutions and systems of government, this parallel is erroneous.

Although both the Bhuttos and the Nehrus/Gandhis are political dynasties, the similarities between the two end there. Perhaps the most important difference between both sets of political transitions is that India represents an institutionalised, working, political, stable democracy with continuity in its political processes even after the assassination of its Prime Ministers. Pakistan, on the other hand, not so much in 1979, but certainly in 2008, makes a clear break with its past. But, it is this break that allows a new possibility for Pakistan.

Because a heir has been appointed to represent, but certainly not lead, the party, we already have the makings of a different Pakistan People’s Party, and hence, political process in Pakistan. For the first time since its founding, the People’s Party will be without a charismatic leader. It might, for once, rely on some democratic consultationary process, to reach political decisions in a more collective manner, representing different constituencies. Of course, such a leaderless party also has its own problems and can unravel as well but, in the immediate term, one could see things being done differently. And, it is the immediate term, the politics over the next few weeks, which make the possibilities of the future more promising.

Elections on January 8 would have greatly suited the new collective leadership of the People’s Party and that is why they so eagerly agreed to contest. With the elections now postponed by some weeks, they will have to respond to the new rules being set by Musharraf and his caretaker government. They will lose some of the expected support in the delayed elections, and the new leadership is faced with its first real challenge. Had the People’s Party, along with Nawaz Sharif, boycotted the elections, they could have created a joint front to oust the remnants of the Musharraf regime. By agreeing to contest the elections in the hope that Benazir’s death will get them more votes, the People’s Party made the correct, but short-sighted, political decision.

Had Benazir led the Party and contested the elections, she would have ended up legitimising and endorsing Musharraf’s hollow political structure and arrangement, largely for her own personal and political gain. Now, after her death, a different leadership, if it is willing to work in a parliamentary system in collaboration with Nawaz Sharif on his call to form a joint government, has the power and will have the votes, to democratically oust the regime and structure in place since October 1999. The next eight weeks will certainly lay the foundation of a new Pakistan People’s Party. Possibly, of a different Pakistan as well.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail