ATP Poll: Who Did The Most Good?

Adil Najam

Back in August 2006 and then again in July 2009 we conducted ATP Polls on the question: “Who 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, and in August 2009 we also did a poll on “who did the most harm?” which we may well repeat soon). It seems this is a good time to do a third installment of the same question to see how the opinions of our readers have evolved.

In 2006 we had not included Gen. Musharraf since he was still in power. In 2009 we did include Gen. Musharraf but not Asif Zardari; again, on the principle of only including past leaders in teh question. 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.