Adil Najam
The obvious and logical followup to our last ATP Poll is to now ask the question: which of our leaders did the most harm to Pakistan? A number of readers suggested, and we agree, that such a poll should be conducted. We ask only that you please respond to the question with the same care with which it has been structured.
As we had done in the last poll, we have structured the question carefully to focus only the harm that these leaders might have caused (all leaders do bad things as well as good, some more and some less).
Please focus on the negative actions these leaders were themselves responsible for, and not as much on things that might have been out of their own control.
The Question: Focusing primarily on what you consider ‘negative’ actions taken by them during their stint(s) in power, who, amongst the following, do you think did the most ‘harm’ to Pakistan?
As others have suggested, it is not at all necessary that those who got the most votes for doing ‘good’ will automatically get least votes for doing ‘harm.’ Since we have been asking people to focus only on one or the other, it is not entirely impossible that the same person is deemed to have done a lot of good as well as a lot of harm; albeit by a different set of voters – in a society as divided as Pakistan this is not just possible, but even likely.
As in the last poll, the current leadership is not included (although we did conduct a poll grading them recently) and only those whose tenure is now behind us are included, from Ayub Khan onwards. 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 which of their actions you think had the most harmful and lasting impacts on Pakistan’s well-being as a nation.
We eagerly await your views on this, in the poll as well as in the comments.
Hands down Zia ul Haq. Since we’re comparing the worse of the worse, he wins. Ayub Khan did commence Military Rule in Pakistan but Zia ul Haq concluded it..took it to the level which ate and is eating our society. 2 things i name here:
1- Talibanization of Pakistan
2- Klashinkov culture
The person who used to drink alcohol himself forced people to be ‘Muslims’. This is where extremism stemmed out of. Before him, no one, not even Quaid-e-Azam knew that Pakistan wasnt actually Pakistan but the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and it was no more secular. He told us that Pakistan needs to discriminate between Muslims and not Muslims. Why not arm students along the way. Why not make a couple of organization to ”propell” the message of Islam..unfortunately thru the barrel of a gun
I think there needs to be some more options for answers.
Our grandparents, parents, edlers have blame these personalities for all the issues faced by Pakistan.
so following answers may futher some introspection..
1. us (who are doing nothing to help Pakistan)
2. Our elders (who allowed these people to govern them)
You forgot to mention the following two:
1. Altaf Hussein for creating and sustaining an environment of violence and lawlessness
2. Wali Khan for taking the trophy on energy crisis that strangles the whole nation today
Bhutto was probably the biggest culprit, not because he did the most damage to the institutions, but because he wasted the greatest opportunity to build the nation. Zia will win the poll for the next few centuries because of the pure evil he was.
BB and Nawaz Sharif were lucky enough to be interrupted to score low on the ranking. They had the capacity to do exactly like their actual and spiritual fathers respectively.
Adding Gen Musharraf to the list is unfair. His legacy will be more clear in the next decade. Leave him out for now.
In the last poll I had voted for ZA Bhutto for having done most good. I still believe that is true.
This time I am again voting for Bhutto because he also did the most harm. Especially by bowing to the mullahs on the Ahmedi issue. I am not an Ahmedi, but I think that was a shameful day for all Pakistanis.
That does not take away from all the good Bhutto also did, but it does diminish him in the overall calculation.