ATP Poll: Who Did the Most Good for Pakistan?

Posted on July 26, 2009
Filed Under >Adil Najam, ATP Poll, People, Politics
82 Comments
Total Views: 91046

Adil Najam

Back in August of 2006 one of the first ATP Polls we did was to ask our readers which recent leader they thought did the most good for Pakistan? We had structured the question carefully to focus on the good that these leaders did (all leaders do bad things as well as good, some more and some less). It is time to ask the same question again.

In 2006 we had not included Gen. Musharraf since he was still in power. This time including Gen. Musharraf but not Asif Zardari, who is in power now. So, what do you think?

Please do take the question serious and answer it in the spirit asked:

The Question: Focussing primarily on whatever ‘positives’ might have been achieved during their stint(s) in power, who, amongst the following, did the most ‘good’ for Pakistan?

Let me repeat the explanatory paragraph I had included in introducing the question the first time:

The key word is ‘achieved.’ We always have plenty of discussions about what leaders have and are doing wrong, but nearly never talk about what they did right. Interestingly, even when we are trying to make a case for someone, we tend to make it by explaining what is wrong with everyone else. After all, if everyone else is bad (and worse) then our guy must be good, at least in ccomparison and by default. The logic makes a perverse sort of sense but tends to take our political conversations towards confrontations (since they are based on ‘attacking’ the other rather than on ’supporting’ our own). So, here is an experiment to see if we are capable of talking differently about such things.

As before, for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif consider the combined impact of two stints they each had in power. Do also please tell us what you think they did that was most important and lasting to Pakistan’s well-being as a nation. Again, we focus on achievement here not because the ‘bad’ that they did was not important (in each case it was) but to discipline our conversation towards thinking of things that, maybe, we should be doing more of.

82 responses to “ATP Poll: Who Did the Most Good for Pakistan?”

  1. a_syed says:

    Thank you Ghulam Ali for providing yet another example of the Net Good Argument.

    Its really wonderful he gave “voice and confidence to the rest of Pakistan!”. Bravo.

    And in all seriousness, kudos for the Nuclear Program. That was smart.

    But how does that help the fact that there is no East Pakistan today? Or that nationalization was disastrous for Pakistan’s economy?

    And please do elaborate on what sort of “Pakistani Elite” I am? I am dying to know how you cunningly arrived at such an insight about me.

    I should have added a fifth item to that list:
    5) Baseless Bullsh** Argument … =)

  2. Ghulam Ali says:

    a_syed is right. The passion with which we defend the indefensible is really amusing. Like, for example, his own lame attempt to bad mouth and negate Bhutto’s legacy. I wonder why a certain type of Paksitani elite can never forgive Bhtto for giving a voice and confidence to the rest of Pakistan!

  3. a_syed says:

    I have to say the passion with which we defend the indefensible is really amusing. I see the same patterns being used over and over again:

    1) Net Good Argument (or Good actions negate stupid ones) Which is ridiculous because you are comparing apples to oranges. Just because ZAB started the nuclear program or OIC doesn’t absolve him from his role in the dismemberment of the country or his disastrous economic policies

    2) Dilution of Responsibility Argument
    Yahya and Ayub were there too!… so what? That just proves that all three were idiots.

    3) Its What the People Wanted Argument
    ZAB was just doing what his W.Pak constituents wanted with respect to E.Pak.
    So just because a crowd is telling you to do something that is clearly wrong that makes it ok?

    4) The Other Guy was Worse Argument
    ZAB’s pandering of the right-wingers was a mere pittance compared to what Zia did.
    I would think that by now we would have realized that there is no such thing as appeasing religious nuts. Doesn’t matter if the rabid dog killed him too soon for him to see the full consequences of his actions. The point is ZAB threw the first bone. And before some one brings up an incident of earlier appeasement by someone else go read Argument # 2.

    The same principles are used again and again regardless of who is being supported or maligned.

  4. mg says:

    Wow, the feistiness and the deep in-depth knowledge with respect to ZAB

  5. Meengla says:

    @Bangash,
    Reading all your posts in the two topics in this forum related to the latest poll it is not hard to conclude that your main focus in putting down ZAB. Fine.
    1) But what ‘1971 Constitution’ are you talking about? If you are talking about the ‘provisional’ Const. which Yahya was about to promulgate then you should know, at once, even if that Const. was promulgated by Dec. 1971 it had no legal status considering that more than half of country’s population had broken away.
    2) I have read an account of a meeting at the GHQ shortly after the Fall of Dhaka. It was agreed by the top brass of military by then that Yahya had to go. But who to replace him? One general suggested Air Marshall (ret’d) Asghar Khan’s name. To which another general retorted: ‘How can you make A.Khan the new President when he lost his own seat in his home constituency?’. Thus the -generals called in Bhutto- to come to power. I think Bhutto was in NYC at that time? I don’t think ZAB could have predicted the course of events to such meticulous plan to grab power being officially out of power since 1966.
    3) There was a Martial Law in Pakistan since March 1969. There was no permanent Const. New elections in the remaining Pakistan after the Fall of Dhaka would be ill-timed and ill-advised. Bhutto assuming a Civilian Martial Law Administrator for the interim period was a practical plan and kudos to the Pakistani establishment which thus started picking up pieces.
    4) ZAB certainly did some ‘appeasement’ of mullahs. But don’t think they were more than some token ‘Islamic’ laws/prohibition and thus I don’t think Pakistani society was fundamentally more religious by July 5, 1977. However, after that–we know what Zia did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*