Adil Najam
Benazir Bhutto says that it is now time to take the ‘risk’ of going back to Pakistan. Gen. Musharraf says that he expects to be elected for another term as President. Pundits seem sure that a deal is not only on the cards but is done. Some do wonder if it is merely another detraction tactic by the military government, but others argue that it may be a step – even if a tiny one – towards democracy.
But while most have been caught in the ‘Deal or No Deal’ question, we at ATP asked our readers whether such a deal – if made – would be good for Pakistan or not. As many as 654 of our readers spoke. And quite unambiguously.
In response to our question – “What would a benazir-Musharraf Deal Mean for Pakistan?” – as many of 84% (547 votes) of respondents say that it would either make no difference (‘Same old stuff’; 41%, 268 votes) or would actually make things worse (43%, 279 votes). Only 16% (16%, 107 votes) believe that such a deal would actually makes things better.
The result is surprising in how stark, clear and unambiguous it is. This is unusual for ATP Polls which have usually tend to show a divided viewpoint. The one exception had been the Poll on Chief Justice issue. Most other Polls – on ‘Grading General Musharraf‘, on ‘Who did the Most Good for Pakistan‘, on ‘What Gen. Musharraf Should Do about his Uniform‘ – had yielded rather divided views.
So, what is going on here? Why this sudden unanimity amongst our readers who tend not to be in such agreement on most issues?
Could it be just a high level of cynicism? Or is it that our readers tend to be more urban and come from cohorts that have tended not to be major BB supporters? Or – as some have said – those who come here are from a so-called ‘drawing room’ class? Or is it that our readers have a better sense of the pulse of the nation that political pundits do?
I think it is clear that the English-speaking elite represented here is divided on Musharraf and united against BB. The people of Pakistan, on the other hand, are most likely less hostile to BB otherwise Musharraf wouldn’t even need to talk to her.
Zak is generally right in his/her arguments about why the deal won’t work.
I might add that if BB had been willing to do a deal that would amount to a capitulation to Mush, she would have done it without spending 8 years in exile. Asif zardari could have avoided at least five-and-a-half years in prison.
Just as BB was alleged to have done a deal with Ghulam Ishaq Khan but never did, this time too the Bhutto-haters are letting loose their anger and emotion. GIK never got what he wanted but BB got an opening in a constricted political situation. The Mush-lovers should be prepared for similar treatment for the object of their affection.
Personally, I think that will be good for Pakistan but then I was (1) educated at Aitchison College, Grammar School, or any of the American Schools; (2) do not belong to a family that lives in Gulberg, Model Town, Clifton, Defense Society or Islamabad; (3) Do not have a parent who was a senior civil servant, world bank official, military officer or executive in a multinational corporation.
It is my experience that any combination of these attributes is usually a major factor in the froth-at-the-mouth-on-the-mention-of-a-Bhutto disease widely found among the affluent sections of Pakistani society.
Some people are showing their hatred for BB while pretending that they only want a “purer solution” in the form of BB returning without a deal with the army. These folks are most likely the type of apolitical folks who support Imran Khan.
Statements describing the current political crisis back home as a “popular uprising” betray the naivete of the apolitical crowd. Never having seen a popular uprising, some people consider a crowd of 3-5000 as enough to unseat a military dictator.
Just to put things into context, the MRD campaign against Zia drew even larger crowds in 1983 and BB returned to massive reception in 1986 but Zia didn’t go until 1988 and that too only with the help of a crate of mangoes.
The movement against Ayub Khan lasted 5 months and succeeded mainly after East Pakistan beacme ungovernable.
The point is, it is easy to say high-sounding things like, “come back without a deal and lead the uprising already happening.”
The real uprising will start after BB comes back, which is why the regime is talking of a deal. Now when large crowds come out to receive her, the regime will be able to make at least some of us wonder whether that is the result of the deal.
Given that IK is polling below 5 percent back home, I recommend that they not waste their energy on blogs and go give the poor kaptaan ji a helping hand. Otherwise, he will have to seek Qazi Hussain’s support once again to win his solitary seat from Mianwali.
I liked BB’s statement that a new arrangement is needed to ensure the exclusion of the army and ISI from politics and that she is willing to negotiate on how to achieve that.
FROM THE NEWS: BB SPEAKS
“I plan to go back to Pakistan by the end of the year whether Mr Musharraf would like it or whether he would not like it,” she said calling for corruption cases against her and family members to be dropped.
“There have been ‘back-channel’ contacts with Musharraf for some time (but) they have not led to an understanding. “And so all this talk of an ‘understanding’ I find very confusing.”
=============
Yeah sure. She really thinks people will beleiev this!
Why I think the deal won’t work:
1) Credibility gap from both sides:
from Mushys side a)his advisors remember BB turning on GIK and dumping him in 1993.
b)The word Bhutto is almost a swear word for many people in the establishment. Politicians are bad enough but ones with ego (overinflated) are worse..
2) from the PPP’s side: Past experience with backing GIK in 1988 against nawabzada nasrullah and then having GIK turn on them. Also more recent issues about Mush, considering his breaking of his promise to the MMA in “the national interest” does not exactly make him someone who is credible to the PPP
The other two issues are even more relevant:
1) The centre right element in the PML-Q is ideologically incompatible with the PPP, if they want allies their preference is the MMA. Secondly the ex patriots and millatis would see themselves turned irrelevant if a deal was struck so it’s in their interest to sabotage such a deal. So it is in both these groups interests to go for an overkill rigging in the elections and aim for 100% results.
2)The biggest issue in the negotiations is one..the PPP should back Mushs election as Pres first as an act of good faith..secondly the deal would kick in after the elections. Again that second bit would be a moot point if the elections are over rigged.
Finally, the PPP and PML have to deal with the neglected peoples opinions. The PPP’s cadres will be hit hard by the deal news..as they are instinctively anti establishment and in 1997 and 1993 in response to PPP deals they did not turn out in force. This applies more nowadays, especially with how 24 news has transformed the political landscape.
From The Times
April 28, 2007
Destiny’s daughter
Benazir Bhutto’s life has been a rollercoaster of high political drama, acute personal loss, early triumph followed by downfall and charges of corruption. Ginny Dougary meets her in exile in Dubai, as she plans her return to power in Pakistan
The story of Benazir Bhutto is dramatic enough on paper but becomes almost fantastic in person. Her pampered-princess start in life, raised at her father’s knee in the ancestral estate on heady tales of the Bhutto family’s political dynasty; her education at Harvard and Oxford, where she was president of the Oxford Union; her heartbreaking return to Pakistan when she was unable to save her beloved father – despite intense international pressure – from being hanged in 1979 by General Zia’s military dictatorship, whose coup had toppled Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s democratic government. Her subsequent years of solitary confinement, as the new leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (the mantle passed on to her by Bhutto Sr, who founded the socialist party in 1967), in the squalid, inhumane conditions she had last seen her father calmly endure; the isolation of house arrest with virtually no visits or phone calls; her escape to Britain in 1984, campaigning in exile against the injustices of the Zia regime, and triumphant return to Pakistan two years later, where she was greeted by a staggering one million supporters and elected prime minister at the age of 35, in 1988, the youngest person and first woman to hold that position in any modern Muslim nation.
Within two years, her government was controversially dismissed by the military-backed president and an election called, in which the PPP (in a democratic alliance) was defeated. In 1993, she was re-elected, only to be dismissed once again three years later by another president on the grounds of mismanagement and corruption. Since 1999, Bhutto has been in exile in London and, latterly, Dubai, where she was reunited with her colourful husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who was released from prison in Pakistan in November 2004, having spent eight years awaiting trial on corruption and murder charges.
Two years earlier, the present president, General Pervez Musharraf, who continues to remain head of the military – seemingly impervious to widespread public criticism of his dual role – introduced a new amendment to Pakistan’s constitution, banning prime ministers from holding office for more than two terms. This should disqualify Bhutto from ever resuming that position and also her old rival, Nawaz Sharif. But in Pakistan, anything can happen, and Bhutto is planning to return to her country – regardless of the numerous corruption charges which she and her family still face (as well as the couple’s separate, ongoing money-laundering case in Switzerland) – to fight the allegedly free and democratic elections which have been promised by the end of this year. As she says, her own life has mirrored the history of Pakistan and that is why, at such a pivotal time in the West, it is both fascinating and important to hear what Benazir Bhutto has to say.
The four hours spent in her home in Dubai are a rollercoaster of copious laughter and floods of tears, noncommittal cautiousness and breathtaking openness, plain-speaking to the point of impertinence and insinuating charm, high-handed loftiness and affectionate intimacy. Bhutto is the most extraordinary woman who says the most extraordinary things, veering wildly between self-aggrandisement and a knowing, sometimes humorous, recognition of how she can come across.
Related Links
Exile Bhutto looks to a deal on return
Although she declines to name names – saying that “it’s better not to give the impression that you’re trying to fire political shots over somebody else’s shoulderâ€
By the way, Wasiq yaar, what you are sayingis real spin.
BB and Mushy have both accepted a deal by their words and their actions. How do you explain her LSE speech, begging for a deal?
Deal, negotiation, sell-out, what is the difference, just words.
If you want positive spin on this then the lesson for BB from this in case she is listening is that she should NOT make a deal with Mushy. Its not good for her and not good for the country. As Expat says, come back without a deal and ead the uprising already happening.