Benazir Bhutto : 1953-2007
Two time prime minister and the scion of the Bhutto dynasty of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was brutally killed by assailants after a campaign rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. Her assassination further complicates the already tumultuous and precarious state of affairs in Pakistan. It also throws the country into further chaos, uncertainty and a period of undemocratic rule for the near future. Bhutto, the charismatic leader of the Pakistan People’s Party, was seen as the only credible moderate leader that could end the recent chaos witnessed under the Musharraf regime. The entire world had anticipated that the January 8th elections next year would herald Bhutto in for her third term as prime minister and in doing so bring some semblance of elected democracy in Pakistan. That hope was cut short by the fateful events at the Liaqat Bagh in Rawalpindi, ironically the very place where another former prime minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. The complex political history of Pakistan seems to be going into another tailspin, with one half of the famed democratic duo of Sharif and Bhutto, falling tragically to the assassins bullets. How does the death of the charismatic Bhutto change the course of political history of Pakistan and what will be the short term implications of this assassination?
Musharraf’s options
President Pervez Musharraf finds himself painted with blood to a corner. His deliberations with Bhutto since February of 2007 had ensured that they reached on a consensus on Bhutto’s return to fight elections. Today, Musharraf finds himself fighting one of the two charges – of either complicity in planning the attack on Benazir or a failure to provide her with adequate security. Musharraf will always battle either of these two charges in times to come. Also, with Benazir dead, Musharraf finds himself without any credible non-partisan politician on his side. Pakistan Muslim League (N) leader Nawaz Sharif voices a hard-line approach towards Musharraf, calling for the boycott of the upcoming elections and wanting Musharraf’s removal from Pakistani politics. Musharraf only enjoys the support of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), whose candidate for the prime minister is former chief minister of Punjab Pervez Elahi. It is the PML (Q) that has accorded Musharraf the political legitimacy since 2002 to continue in office as president and in such a circumstance are seen as complicit with the regime. Their victory in the elections will be seen as a farce by Pakistanis and will further play on the conspiracy theories of Musharraf’s involvement in Bhutto’s murder. Either way, holding elections in January seems untenable with the All Parties Democratic Movement wanting to boycott these elections. Musharraf will not risk holding elections to elect his allies again as that will mean a continuation of status quo ante in the country. If ever Musharraf needed to impose a state of emergency it is now, rather than having imposed it in November to settle political scores by putting Bhutto under house arrest and jailing lawyers and civic activists. Musharraf should postpone elections till March or April of 2008 to ensure smooth and participative elections. The current uncertainty and turmoil will witness namesake elections with large sections of the Pakistani electorate choosing personal safety over the ballot box. By giving a few months to ‘secure’ Pakistan Musharraf not will ensure some sort of legitimate elections, it will also help the PPP in choosing an alternative to Benazir. However, the postponement of elections comes with a rider, any delay may see demonstrations and a move to oust Musharraf which may enjoy the blessings of Washington and could further plunge the country into chaos. But it is time that Pakistanis decide whether they want elections under Musharraf or to charter a new course sans the dictator.
US’ Dilemma
Having put all its political hopes on Benazir Bhutto, her death brings uncertainty over US policy towards democratic change in Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif remains a persona non grata over his links to the Islamic fringe of Pakistani society and his hard line view on Musharraf’s continuation in office. The Bush Administration will view Musharraf as its only reliable ally in Pakistan, no matter how bitter a pill it maybe to swallow. It will have to support the ex-general; for without him the US’ war on terror will be shaky and the country’s new leadership after Musharraf will not toe the American line. The Americans will realize the political liability they have become to the politics of Pakistan, where backing a candidate means effectively eliminating them from the political scene. From today, Pakistani politics will shift more towards a more anti-US approach rather than allying with them. In such a scenario the US will need to keep Musharraf on their side. The Americans might just initiate direct contact with the new army chief, General Pervez Kiani, to take a stronger control over the army and thereby reduce American dependence on Musharraf. If the situation worsens, Kiani might topple his ex-master to take over the country. The US might trade democracy for stability, but its wish would be to see Musharraf continue in office and conduct some form of elections that they can tout as a positive way forward for Pakistan.
Impact on India
While the Indian establishment has been quick to voice its shock and horror on the events of the past 24 hours with the prime minister condemning it as a ‘heinous act’, there is no denying the fact that the assassination of Bhutto might strengthen India’s case in Kashmir. With the army and ISI having to battle its own demons within the country, the export of terror may not be high on its agenda or more pointedly in its control. The political turmoil in Pakistan gives India the legitimate right to strengthen its borders with Pakistan and thereby help curb infiltration. Pakistan will continue to battle its internal security rather than adopt a vigorous foreign policy on Kashmir. The past few years are a testament to this fact. The internal situation in Pakistan has become so tenuous that Pakistan has not had the time, energy or resources to pursue its twin pronged approach towards India – peace talks through Confidence Building Measures or turning on the tap of infiltration into Kashmir. While the situation in Pakistan will concern India, there is cautious optimism that the spotlight is now on the Pakistani establishment in fighting extremism in their own backyard. Any push to infiltrate terrorists into India will be strongly highlighted and dealt with by both the West and India. India may have lost a friend in Benazir, ironically it came on a day when in her last election rally she gave a strong nationalist speech and spoke at lengths on India’s nuclear program and how her father helped Pakistan acquire the nuclear bomb to counter India. While it may be political rhetoric it does belie a popular notion that she was a friend of India. If anything, the Kashmir insurgency and the rise of the Taliban has been attributed to the Bhutto, though on both counts, the Kashmir insurgency and the Taliban, could not have been possible without the ISI or the army. This does take away the fact that out of the many faces in Pakistani politics, Bhutto did emerge as the most moderate and modern voice and India will rue that fact that they will now have to deal with less hospitable leaders or continue to deal with the wily President instead of Bhutto.
Pakistan’s static political movement
The past two decades of Pakistani politics have failed to throw up credible leaders in the Pakistani political constellation. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were the only leaders that enjoyed a credible national following. The pretext of overthrowing Sharif in 1999 was to usher in real democracy in Pakistan. In the intervening near-decade old Musharraf rule, he has failed to propagate a democratic movement that would nurture political leaders. He like all dictators before him strengthened the control of the army over Pakistani society and followed the time tested disaster of promoting yes men as credible political leaders. By bringing in Shaukhat Aziz from the World Bank to serve as the country’s premier was to show to the world that Musharraf was bringing in change with technocrats given the job to run the country. But Aziz enjoyed little support from the political parties in Pakistan and was at best a stop gap arrangement. Without a sound political backing his attempt to stand for elections came to a naught. All this while Musharraf remained in the illusion that he was ushering in 'true' democracy in Pakistan. Unfortunately for him, democracy does not work from top to bottom; it is in fact the other way round. And this year, he was forced to bring back the same two people whom he proclaimed to be detrimental to Pakistan to stand for elections. The move-to-real- democracy myth that Musharraf played for the past decade seemed to have been unravelled and the true extent of the lack of grass root politics is on display in Pakistan today. It was left to the lawyers and human rights activists to oppose Musharraf’s stranglehold on power, and in doing so they have been at the receiving end of the regime’s baton.
The ISI and the Taliban
Musharraf initiated the doctrine of ‘enlightened moderation’ for Pakistan. Whereby he wanted to make Pakistan a modern democratic state with a free market economy and one where religion only in its moderate form would be allowed to flourish. The Pakistan of 2007 could not be further away from that doctrine. The Lal Masjid siege in the heart of Islamabad in July 2007 and the two assassination attempts on Musharraf and then on Benazir’s return has amplified the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan. The war that Pakistan is fighting is its own doing. The ISI tacit support for the Mullahs and militants has turned to become Pakistan’s worst nightmare. The ISI is still seen as hand in glove with the Jihadi elements. The Pakistani army bears its origin to the notion of an Islamic army. The infiltration of hard-line Jihadi elements in the army is well known and that will not change anytime soon. Generals have come gone as have political leaders, but the symbiotic relationship between the ISI-Army and Islamic radicalism remains strong since the formation of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal
The future of Pakistan hangs in the balance, the nuclear weapons state remains the most volatile out of the entire nuclear club. While there has been talk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, the notion is far fetched, though an important one to consider. The army will maintain control over the nuclear weapons program and any democratically elected civilian government can only make noises about the bomb rather than having any operational control over them. The concern remains over the blurring lines between the ISI-Army and Islamic radicalism. The complex relationship between the two is a cause for concern, for if a hardliner General were to take over the country, safety of the nuclear weapons will remain an alarming concern.
At the moment Pakistan marks the end of an era in Pakistani politics. The country has lost a truly charismatic leader who held much promise and the chance to bring in stability. Her funeral and burial will take place in the Bhutto home town of Larkana and she will be laid to rest next to her father. And with her many wonder has the chance for peace and stability also been given a decent burial. She may not have lived long enough to see a truly democratic Pakistan but she will be remembered as a courageous politician who gave her life for her country and for the cause of democracy.
Musharraf’s options
President Pervez Musharraf finds himself painted with blood to a corner. His deliberations with Bhutto since February of 2007 had ensured that they reached on a consensus on Bhutto’s return to fight elections. Today, Musharraf finds himself fighting one of the two charges – of either complicity in planning the attack on Benazir or a failure to provide her with adequate security. Musharraf will always battle either of these two charges in times to come. Also, with Benazir dead, Musharraf finds himself without any credible non-partisan politician on his side. Pakistan Muslim League (N) leader Nawaz Sharif voices a hard-line approach towards Musharraf, calling for the boycott of the upcoming elections and wanting Musharraf’s removal from Pakistani politics. Musharraf only enjoys the support of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), whose candidate for the prime minister is former chief minister of Punjab Pervez Elahi. It is the PML (Q) that has accorded Musharraf the political legitimacy since 2002 to continue in office as president and in such a circumstance are seen as complicit with the regime. Their victory in the elections will be seen as a farce by Pakistanis and will further play on the conspiracy theories of Musharraf’s involvement in Bhutto’s murder. Either way, holding elections in January seems untenable with the All Parties Democratic Movement wanting to boycott these elections. Musharraf will not risk holding elections to elect his allies again as that will mean a continuation of status quo ante in the country. If ever Musharraf needed to impose a state of emergency it is now, rather than having imposed it in November to settle political scores by putting Bhutto under house arrest and jailing lawyers and civic activists. Musharraf should postpone elections till March or April of 2008 to ensure smooth and participative elections. The current uncertainty and turmoil will witness namesake elections with large sections of the Pakistani electorate choosing personal safety over the ballot box. By giving a few months to ‘secure’ Pakistan Musharraf not will ensure some sort of legitimate elections, it will also help the PPP in choosing an alternative to Benazir. However, the postponement of elections comes with a rider, any delay may see demonstrations and a move to oust Musharraf which may enjoy the blessings of Washington and could further plunge the country into chaos. But it is time that Pakistanis decide whether they want elections under Musharraf or to charter a new course sans the dictator.
US’ Dilemma
Having put all its political hopes on Benazir Bhutto, her death brings uncertainty over US policy towards democratic change in Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif remains a persona non grata over his links to the Islamic fringe of Pakistani society and his hard line view on Musharraf’s continuation in office. The Bush Administration will view Musharraf as its only reliable ally in Pakistan, no matter how bitter a pill it maybe to swallow. It will have to support the ex-general; for without him the US’ war on terror will be shaky and the country’s new leadership after Musharraf will not toe the American line. The Americans will realize the political liability they have become to the politics of Pakistan, where backing a candidate means effectively eliminating them from the political scene. From today, Pakistani politics will shift more towards a more anti-US approach rather than allying with them. In such a scenario the US will need to keep Musharraf on their side. The Americans might just initiate direct contact with the new army chief, General Pervez Kiani, to take a stronger control over the army and thereby reduce American dependence on Musharraf. If the situation worsens, Kiani might topple his ex-master to take over the country. The US might trade democracy for stability, but its wish would be to see Musharraf continue in office and conduct some form of elections that they can tout as a positive way forward for Pakistan.
Impact on India
While the Indian establishment has been quick to voice its shock and horror on the events of the past 24 hours with the prime minister condemning it as a ‘heinous act’, there is no denying the fact that the assassination of Bhutto might strengthen India’s case in Kashmir. With the army and ISI having to battle its own demons within the country, the export of terror may not be high on its agenda or more pointedly in its control. The political turmoil in Pakistan gives India the legitimate right to strengthen its borders with Pakistan and thereby help curb infiltration. Pakistan will continue to battle its internal security rather than adopt a vigorous foreign policy on Kashmir. The past few years are a testament to this fact. The internal situation in Pakistan has become so tenuous that Pakistan has not had the time, energy or resources to pursue its twin pronged approach towards India – peace talks through Confidence Building Measures or turning on the tap of infiltration into Kashmir. While the situation in Pakistan will concern India, there is cautious optimism that the spotlight is now on the Pakistani establishment in fighting extremism in their own backyard. Any push to infiltrate terrorists into India will be strongly highlighted and dealt with by both the West and India. India may have lost a friend in Benazir, ironically it came on a day when in her last election rally she gave a strong nationalist speech and spoke at lengths on India’s nuclear program and how her father helped Pakistan acquire the nuclear bomb to counter India. While it may be political rhetoric it does belie a popular notion that she was a friend of India. If anything, the Kashmir insurgency and the rise of the Taliban has been attributed to the Bhutto, though on both counts, the Kashmir insurgency and the Taliban, could not have been possible without the ISI or the army. This does take away the fact that out of the many faces in Pakistani politics, Bhutto did emerge as the most moderate and modern voice and India will rue that fact that they will now have to deal with less hospitable leaders or continue to deal with the wily President instead of Bhutto.
Pakistan’s static political movement
The past two decades of Pakistani politics have failed to throw up credible leaders in the Pakistani political constellation. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were the only leaders that enjoyed a credible national following. The pretext of overthrowing Sharif in 1999 was to usher in real democracy in Pakistan. In the intervening near-decade old Musharraf rule, he has failed to propagate a democratic movement that would nurture political leaders. He like all dictators before him strengthened the control of the army over Pakistani society and followed the time tested disaster of promoting yes men as credible political leaders. By bringing in Shaukhat Aziz from the World Bank to serve as the country’s premier was to show to the world that Musharraf was bringing in change with technocrats given the job to run the country. But Aziz enjoyed little support from the political parties in Pakistan and was at best a stop gap arrangement. Without a sound political backing his attempt to stand for elections came to a naught. All this while Musharraf remained in the illusion that he was ushering in 'true' democracy in Pakistan. Unfortunately for him, democracy does not work from top to bottom; it is in fact the other way round. And this year, he was forced to bring back the same two people whom he proclaimed to be detrimental to Pakistan to stand for elections. The move-to-real- democracy myth that Musharraf played for the past decade seemed to have been unravelled and the true extent of the lack of grass root politics is on display in Pakistan today. It was left to the lawyers and human rights activists to oppose Musharraf’s stranglehold on power, and in doing so they have been at the receiving end of the regime’s baton.
The ISI and the Taliban
Musharraf initiated the doctrine of ‘enlightened moderation’ for Pakistan. Whereby he wanted to make Pakistan a modern democratic state with a free market economy and one where religion only in its moderate form would be allowed to flourish. The Pakistan of 2007 could not be further away from that doctrine. The Lal Masjid siege in the heart of Islamabad in July 2007 and the two assassination attempts on Musharraf and then on Benazir’s return has amplified the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan. The war that Pakistan is fighting is its own doing. The ISI tacit support for the Mullahs and militants has turned to become Pakistan’s worst nightmare. The ISI is still seen as hand in glove with the Jihadi elements. The Pakistani army bears its origin to the notion of an Islamic army. The infiltration of hard-line Jihadi elements in the army is well known and that will not change anytime soon. Generals have come gone as have political leaders, but the symbiotic relationship between the ISI-Army and Islamic radicalism remains strong since the formation of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal
The future of Pakistan hangs in the balance, the nuclear weapons state remains the most volatile out of the entire nuclear club. While there has been talk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, the notion is far fetched, though an important one to consider. The army will maintain control over the nuclear weapons program and any democratically elected civilian government can only make noises about the bomb rather than having any operational control over them. The concern remains over the blurring lines between the ISI-Army and Islamic radicalism. The complex relationship between the two is a cause for concern, for if a hardliner General were to take over the country, safety of the nuclear weapons will remain an alarming concern.
At the moment Pakistan marks the end of an era in Pakistani politics. The country has lost a truly charismatic leader who held much promise and the chance to bring in stability. Her funeral and burial will take place in the Bhutto home town of Larkana and she will be laid to rest next to her father. And with her many wonder has the chance for peace and stability also been given a decent burial. She may not have lived long enough to see a truly democratic Pakistan but she will be remembered as a courageous politician who gave her life for her country and for the cause of democracy.
posted by Karan Thakur @ 12:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home