Adil Najam
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Field Marshal Ayub Khan. According to the 126 visitors who voted in the third ATP blog poll (earlier: here and here), these two did more ‘good’ for Pakistan than any of the leaders who followed them. (Of course, we should add that the Poll did not ask for an evaluation of whether the ‘bad’ they did was greater than the ‘good’; nor was the current government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf included).
Choices: (a) Ayub Khan; (b) Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto; (c) Zia-ul-Haq; (d) Benazir Bhutto; and (e) Nawaz Sharif
(Click image for larger picture)
The result is a split decision, but a very clear split decision.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto got the most votes (52 votes; 41%), but is practically neck-to-neck with his erstwhile mentor-turned-nemesis Ayub Khan (48 votes; 38%). In the context of this Poll and how voting went, the honest thing is to declare them co-winners. The other three – Zia ul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif – combined get only around half as many votes from ATP readers as either of these two! A review of the comments posted with the poll seem to verify these sentiments.
Of course, this is simply a ‘pulse of the blog’ poll and is NOT a scientific or representative survey. And, while one must (again) caution against over-analyzing these results, there are a number of striking elements in the results that are worthy of note, or at least of further discussion:
- First, it is striking that the two people our readers voted most overwhelmingly for were both thrown out of office through massive street protests; albeit amongst very different circumstances (the later aided by a military coup and an eventual execution)!
- Second, although my guess is that the average ATP reader is fairly older than readers of most Pakistani blogs, it is fair to say that most of our readers (and I assume voters) are too young to remember either Ayub Khan’s or ZAB’s eras. More likely that they know of them either from hearing about those times from others or (in Ayub’s case) staring at the back of painted trucks. One wonders, then, if the passage of time has had a ‘healing effect’ on the memories we have constructed of them.
- Notwithstanding the above points, it is quite clear from the margins in the poll as well as the comments that Z.A. Bhutto and Ayub Khan are considered to be WAY above all others. This, however is not a surprise finding and only verifies the view expressed by in one comment that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are not considered to be of the same ‘league.’ This would be so, at least partly, because they never had the type of ‘real power’ that Ayub and ZAB did and also did not stay in power long enough in continuous stretch.
- The biggest surprise to me was Zia ul Haq getting as few votes as he did (11 votes, 9%). He did have absolute power. He was at the helm for a very long time. And he orchestrated very significant changes that continue to be difficult to undo. I would have expected that he does have a residual constituency of support that is not captured by any of the others. I assume that constituency just does not visit ATP!
- Fifth, although Benazir Bhutto got the least votes (5 votes; 4%) I do not feel too sorry for her. My assumption is that BB’s father over-shadowed her (as he always, rightly, has). Had he not been in the list I assume a lot of those votes would have gone to Benazir. However, I am no longer convinced that all of them would have gone to her. Midway through the poll I kept thinking what might have happened if the poll only have Zia, Benazir and Nawaz as choices? I think the proportions of the votes would be very difficult, but I have no idea how. Politically, the fact remains that her constituency – although still sizable – remains largely hereditary.
- Finally, my other big surprise was Nawaz Sharif, who got more support than I had expected (10 votes, 8%). I had though his constituency would view Zia as the ‘father figure,’ but it seems not. Although his Bomb test was cited in the comments, my sense is that most people understand than the Bomb was ‘Bhutto’s choice and Sharif’s necessity.’ Maybe for those who get to use these things, highways, airports, overpasses, and infrastructure do matter in the end.
So there. These are some of my quick thoughts on the results as they panned out. What would you add?
I wonder, how the future might view Gen. Musharraf’s legacy in comparison to these?
My guess is that he probably wants to be seen in Ayub’s mould. However, I have a feeling that history will ultimately judge him on whether and how much he is able to undo the imprints that Zia left on the country. As Chou En Lai once said about the French Revolution, ‘Its too early to say!’
To all my fellow Pakistanis decrying the state of leadership in the country here is a simple missive – We shall impose leaders on you, who are like you (Alquran)
Bhutto was not brought down by massive crouds by by masisive influx of dollars to the mullahs – who have never done anything for the country but try and impose their own narrow biggoted and misguided interpretation of the deen on it in order to raise their rates so that they can sell themselves to the highest bidder. Maulana diesel anyone.
PSCC ZAB did not ruin the country economically or otherwise, he tried to fix a basic problem – the producers of wealth must have a share in its benefits, when they don’t you not only have injustice but instability and ruination. Agree that the national government’s role is to run the country and its industry but what would you have a national government do it is does not have the civic structures of the developed countries and is faced with industrilsits who have built their industries through national funds and the industry does not benefit the country and to top it all is exploitative of its citizens.
Here are three things all Pakistanis should be thankful to ZAB for:
1. Loads of Pakistanis abroad – good for the ballance of payment.
2. KRL and the ballance of power in the subcontinent.
3. The poor have voice – however enfeabled and made defective by the Zia period.
Eidee Man, admire your very rational and objective approach. Its so refreshing to see a Pakistan focused forum debating things this way. (I dont say that in a mean way). I’m always trying to build a greater understanding of your land and your current polity.
@Aqeel
As for land reforms in India, its not entirely true that it was Muslims whose lands were re-distributed or that the whole exercise was motivated from that perspective. My own ancestors lost land in the Land Ceiling Acts, and I’m not muslim. There are many such cases. It is true however that the Govt did abolish Zamindari, which meant a whole lot of land-bosses lost vast holdings. It so happenned that areas like Oudh and Deccan had a lot of Muslim zamindars and royalty who lost their land. Equally, there is Mysore where a Hindu King lost his assets. So I believe it was certainly not motivated by a desire to impoverish muslims.
All this said, Indian land reform was sadly incomplete. It only tackled the easiest part – stripping the very rich (kings, royalty, fuedal lords and such) – it never got to the point of really redistributing land to all the poor, taking it even from richer middle classes, where necessary.
not suprising at all, amazing thou only 120 or so people took part in voting.
i strongly believe no one leader in Pakistan will be able to change the fortunes of Pakistan. If there’s to change the fortunes of Pakistan, we the people must change, take active part in improving Pakistan. Improving the literacy level and educating people is only path to success. Rather than blaming the leardership of the country year after year, we must take the full responsibility for it. Taking responsibility (responding with an ability) changes the cards and puts in ones own hand..
I always like the line “If it’s to be, then it must be up to me..”
thanks! Allah Bless Pakistan, amen
yazi/
Dear PSCC!
I don’t agree with you in regard, “as none of them had the courage to revamp the feudal lord system of the country, as Nehru and his daughter did in India.”
Nehru and his daughter’s land reforms just ruined Muslims in India, these land reforms were mainly taken in muslim majority provinces, these are the provinces where muslims were landlords and they just took the land from muslims and distributed it.
It is a fact, I personly met muslims from India, its their opinion about these land reforms.
Leaders of our beloved country. All of them put themselves before the country, as none of them had the courage to revamp the feudal lord system of the country, as Nehru and his daughter did in India.
Ayub’s era was the golden era for everyone, but his sons really destroyed him.
ZAB was the most intelligent among all the politicians we have so far, he did some good to Pakistan, but economically ruined the country by nationalizing the industries and banks. Government’s job is to do the administration, not to run the industries.
Zia’s era was peaceful, but we didn’t see much development.
BB and Nawaz brought the country to the verge of bankruptcy.