Adil Najam
Rumors of a ‘deal’ between PPP leader Benazir Bhutto and Gen. Pervez Musharraf have been rife for a long time. All indications now suggest that a deal of some sort has, in fact, been reached.
The ferocity with which the rumors are being denied – with obvious insincerity – suggests that something is afoot. The question is, exactly what.
There is little utility, it seems to us, to indulge any further in the speculation than people already are. The much more important question is what – if anything – will such a deal mean for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan.
Will it make things better? Will it make things worse? Will things remain as they have always been and this will simply be one more round in the ‘great game’ of musical chairs that has always been Pakistan politics?
That is the question for our new ATP Poll (see top of middle column). Let us know what you think, and why? With your vote in the poll and with your comments below.
Ahmed Shaid raises some excellent points. Thank you so much for raising the level of the discourse. Your comparison with Burma is a good one. Salme
As opposed to the view of the majority on this forum, I think such a deal would be good for the country in the long run. I neither support Musharraf or Benazir, in fact in the election would vote for NS, but stil think it would be good for the country.
The case in point is Burma. Long misruled by the military junta, for over forty years now, and the adamant approach of its main opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma is still there where it was 40 years before. The complete return to the rule of law, democracy, extermination of corruption, in one go is impossible to say the least. Thus expecting that things would become ideal in Pakistan in one go is rather too idealistic to be taken seriously.
Why the deal would be better?
1) It would take at least some power away from the military, which in my view far surpasses political parties in corruption. In fact corruption within the military has been institutionalized to the extent that many don’t even consider occupation of land by the military as corruption.
2) It would bring back the two main opposition leaders. No matter how one hates them they are popular and given a fair chance would emerge as the leading parties in any election. Denying them that right, by force or any law, would tantamount to the betrayal of the public trust and would achieve nothing in the long run apart from making idealists laugh a bit, before they realize the folly of such an act. If they have to be thrown out, either people must do it through their votes, or let them rot to their bare bones in their graves. Any other solution would be disastrous.
3) It would give some breathing space to the secular parties and take some air out of the balloons of the religious parties that have basically thrived on the incapability of the mainstream parties to garner support among the masses due to the exile of its leaders.
4) Remaining stuck to your views achieves nothing. Compromise is the best way forward. That would bring slow and gradual change rather than quick and harsh change that would benefit none.
Samdani:
That ‘only problem’ is a big one.
As for why the deal continues to be elusive, the reason is the serious divergence between the demands on both sides. Apparently, Musharraf has been wanting BB to give up her pursuit for the position of PM and accept a role similar to Sohnia Gandhi’s, while PPP has been unwilling to settle for anything less than BB’s return to PM house. Otherwise, PPP could have formed a govt with Makhdoom Fahim the PM after the 2002 polls.
The other divergence of course is on the uniform issue, on which Musharraf has been totally uncompromising, but whether this is a negotiable point for PPP is not clear, we might find that out in the coming months.
Back to the original article by Mr. Haqqani, no mater what onethinks of him the analysis is interesting and it could be a distraction tactic. That does make a lot of sense.
The only problem I see there is that it does not explain why BB also seems to be sugesting that there IS a deal?
haa haa
I knew this would provoke such an angry response, but how is he more crazy than the diehard jialas?