Benazir Bhutto Leadership in Pakistan

Source: www.nation.com.pk

Benazir and the Green Revolution	23rd October 2007
by General (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg

Benazir Bhutto landed at the Karachi airport on October 18, 2007, dressed in ‘green’, heralding the ‘Green Revolution’, so carefully planned by ‘America and the Army’ – a reminiscent of the Ukrainian rose revolution. The media blitz portrayed her, as the homecoming of an exiled leader, like Imam Khomeini, who would change the destiny of the people of Pakistan. The jialas from all the nook and corner of the country started pouring into Karachi to welcome her. At the time of her arrival, the crowd had swelled to over a million. The Sindh government, tried to pull-down the welcoming banners and buntings, but was admonished by the UK government not to create any hindrance in the way of the welcome guest, who was accorded a royal welcome, as well as a fool proof security. The procession started from the airport at a snails speed and in six hours it had travelled a distance of about six kilometres, on Shahrah-e-Faisal, when a roadside remotely controlled improvised explosive device (IED) went off killing over hundred and forty and wounding many more.

The blast first hit the police van, which took the brunt, and then the bullet proof truck, which was carrying Benazir and her party leadership, who got wounded, but Benazir remained unscathed, as she was resting in the lower compartment of the truck. This happened at about fifteen minutes past mid-night and Benazir was whisked away, safely to the Bilawal House and the crowd gradually melted away, taking the dead and the wounded. It is very surprising that Benazir paid no heed to the advice of the government and came, as scheduled. She also refused the offer of a helicopter and decided to lead the rally. She put all her eggs in one basket (truck) and herself sat into it and embarked upon an eighteen hours journey to her destination. She was lucky that the attacker did not use a rocket from some distance which could otherwise have blown-up the entire leadership in a split second. Perhaps our leadership is obsessed with the record twenty-eight hours rally of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and attempts to break it. Nawaz Sharif had all the intentions to perform this feat, but the Government of Pakistan came in his way.

Who committed this crime, is the moot question? Certainly, it was not the act of a suicide-bomber. The crater on the side of the road tells a different story. Baitullah Masood has denied having given any such warning to Benazir. Who wanted to kill Benazir and her top party leadership? Such a blast happened last year in Nishtar Park, killing the entire top leadership of Ahle-Sunnat-waljamaat. Or was it intended to be a cruel message for ‘hands-off Karachi’, like the May 12, 2007 carnage? Interestingly, a jungle also has some implicit laws, which animals tend to observe. This is called by ethnologists (who study animals in their natural habitat), the ‘territorial imperative’. As long the animals honour this law and do not transgress into others’ territory, they are safe, but when they violate it, they invite trouble.

Some such law also operates in big cities (often known as jungle of the concrete). This heinous act of bombing has political bearings, and will cast deep imprints on the political landscape of Pakistan. However, this incident has to be seen in the context of the existing socio-political and ideological polarisation in Pakistan and its impact on the forthcoming elections in January 2008.

Such a polarisation can be identified in ‘three distinct forms’, each competing with the other, as well as in serious conflict. One group is totally subservient to USA’s demands – justifying it as the imperative of what they call ‘pragmatism and ground realities’. This group considers itself ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’ and ‘liberal’ – the ardent advocates being General Musharraf, the Muslim League ‘Q’ and MQM. To join them are the so-called liberals like PPP, whose leader Benazir Bhutto gets full support and patronage of USA as of today. The western agenda of ‘social engineering’ and transformation of our culture and civilisational roots, is being implemented through them. The second group, which is not prepared to reconcile to western game of social engineering, has opted to confront and resist foreign influences in the educational institutions including madrassas. Thus, it comes in direct conflict with the enlightened, secular group, resulting into open armed conflict in the areas of Waziristan, Swat, Bajaur and Balochistan.

The third group comprises middle-of-the roaders, who are not averse to the West and are prepared to accept what is positively beneficial but discard all that is not congruent to their value system. This group seemingly is going through a leadership crisis. Their leader Nawaz Sharif is forced into exile. The All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) are aligned with this group, and comprise moderate Islamic forces and the regional parties of Sindh, North West Frontier Province and Balochistan. It truly represents the federation of Pakistan, and enjoys the support of the lawyers, the bar and the media, besides a vast chunk of civil society. It represents the main psycho-social and political current in the national psyche.

The struggle for power between these groups has entered into an interesting phase. Benazir Bhutto has been designated as the leader of group one, who has returned to Pakistan, under the glare of the media, as if the entire Pakistani nation from Chitral to Karachi stands mobilised in support of her.

Visibly, the American support network is behind Benazir, as in the past it had supported Bhutto against Ayub; Zia against Bhutto and Musharraf against Nawaz Sharif. As Benazir’s support base swells, the more it will be at the cost of General Musharraf, MQM and PML-Q and the greater will be the urge on part of the second and third groups to draw closer to each other, in a common bond of anti-American, anti-Musharraf and anti-Benazir, sentiments.

In short, ours is a polity, where any semblance of stability, if it appeared on the surface, has been the authoritarian rule - unadulterated martial law, or its variants - controlled democracy, basic democracy, nizam-e-shoora, uniformed democracy, or whatever. We have thus remained a primitive praetorian society, where legitimate is one who usurps power and the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’, helped the brute power of the gun to undermine the quintessential values of people’s participation in the process of governance. Thus the people did not integrate into taking collective decisions with consensus. Despite all the crises that Pakistan has had to face in the past, today’s ordeal and challenges are much too grave and deeper as they affect the very core values that sustain our identity – the raison d’etre. At this defining moment, the apex court, and its verdicts will act as the catalyst. The dye is cast, and we stand at a choice point of history, to witness the process of regime change, which may not be what the Americans desire. Definitely the change will occur, but the arbiters will be the people of Pakistan, who will welcome a ‘meaningful engagement’ with USA, who already have lost ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The renaissance of Pakistan spirit is in the offing and a silent revolution is in the making, which under the glare of big events, remains blurred. But great historical changes occur due to the cumulative impact of slow but real determinants of social transformation, which means, that the nation has to be empowered to govern itself, as Theodre White rightly said: “If men cannot agree how to rule themselves, some one else must rule them.” Let this not happen.