Attock News - PPP Slide from Sword to Sleaze

Nov

2008

PPP Slide from Sword to Sleaze

“On his first visit to Washington as Foreign Minister, Zulfi met with President Kennedy in the White House in October 1963, a month before the president’s assassination. ….. Bhutto liked Kennedy and the feeling seems to have been reciprocated, for he recalled that as the President shook his hand before leaving, he remarked, “ If you were an American you would be in my Cabinet.” Zulfi sharply retorted, “ Be careful Mr. President, if I were American, I would be in your place.” At which they both laughed heartily.’ Such was the impression of President Kennedy of a man called Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the founder of Pakistan Peoples Party as written on page-76 of a book by Professor Stanley Wolpert of UCLA, entitled ‘ Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan’. Unlike Bush, Mr. Kennedy was amongst the outstanding Presidents of USA who would always repeat to his audience with conviction George Bernard Shaw’s words “Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not!” The exhortation of Mr. Bhutto by such an idealistic person, the youngest elected individual occupying the highest elected office one can dream of, was not only the recognition of the intelligence of a person but a tribute to the people whom he represented.

With such credentials Mr. Bhutto initiated the formation of a new political party along with intellectuals like J A Rahim and Dr. Mubashshar Hassan. The Bengali-born Rahim was, in fact, the brain behind the philosophical moorings of the new party. As Mr. Bhutto wrote about Mr. Rahim later in his prison cell holograph, “His brilliance, intelligence, knowledge, grasp of Foreign Affairs, his gift of writing, his political appreciation and other qualities…He believes in socialism and in modernism. He has no time for obscurantists. He has a secular mind. Above all he, more than anyone else, made me decide to launch a new party. Actually he and I founded it in Paris in 1966. He worked hard on the Foundation Papers” J.A. Rahim, a civil servant, ambassador in France, a Bengali Nietzschean philosopher, was Thomas Jefferson of PPP. He understood the political problem of Pakistan, conceived a vision for it, translated the vision into mission, prepared a strategic plan for its realization and saw in Mr. Bhutto the leadership instincts to execute the plan. Mr. Bhutto, on the other hand, had remained in practical politics for eight years and also knew the art of leadership. He knew the art of combining the essence of modern leadership, defined as the art of getting others to want to do something that one believes should be done, with Hegel’s thought that leaders have efficacy only when they are the conscious or unconscious instrument of the Zeitgeist. Mr. Rahim probably imbibed soul and substance from the Peoples Party aka Populist Party of USA which was launched with similar objectives in the year 1890 after merger of Tenant-farmers Alliance with the Knights of Labor. Bengali intellect has been exemplary in the sub-continent. Earlier Chandra Chatterji wrote a book entitled ‘ Amandamath’ meaning The Abbey of Bliss in 1882 containing the famous devotional hymn ‘Vande Mataram’ or Hail to thee, Mother. Mahatma Gandhi was deeply impressed by the message of the book which cultivated feelings of strong attachment to the theme of ‘Mother India’. Later after 1937 elections when Indian Congress formed governments in 8 out of 11 provinces, Mr. Gandhi directed that Vande Mataram be sung as national anthem by students in all schools. The change in political thinking of Mr. Gandhi could be attributed a lot to the message contained in Chatterji’s book and hence in change of direction in Indian Congress from elitist political party into a mass political movement.

Armed with sixteen doctrines of new party charter, the charisma of Bhutto came into play and he went undaunted to face praetorian force on one hand and the pro-status quo oligarchs and obscurantist elements on the other. True to his name meaning ‘sword’, Mr. Bhutto was an embodiment of traditional sword and relished its virtues like courage, boldness, uprightness, integrity and fighting for a cause. His dynamism was unmatched and he soon spread the fourfold motto of the new entity across the streets, fields and work-houses of the country. His biggest contribution to Pakistani politics was to take politics out of the living rooms of the elite and share it with the populus. Both Mr. Bhutto and his party were soon at their zenith in all aspects of the word.

There was, however, one blunder committed in the process that proved fatal to Mr. Bhutto. As Mr. Chopra wrote in his comments on Mr. Bhutto’s book ‘If I am assassinated’, “Mr. Bhutto in the last days of his rule divided his own party and united the opposition against him.” His shear vanity could be the reason for it but another factor common to all political parties rather to Pakistani politics could be an important cause for his downfall and annihilation. Mr. Bhutto and his party did divest the elite class of absolute domination over politics but the real political power, fruit of the masses struggle, still remained the exclusive preserve of the elite. In the last days of his power, Mr. Bhutto’s camaraderie for his own elite class was fully actualized and he had un-ceremonially disbanded his squad of old lieutenants belonging to the middle strata, including the party’s visionary, replacing them with elitists. Both the theoretician and the leader,Rahim and Bhutto, shared two things in common- both served a military dictator religiously, one as politician and the other as diplomat. Both inherited imperial heritage from the British Raj as their fathers were knighted as ‘Sirs’, one appointed Dewan to Nawab of Junadgarh and the other judge of the high court by the Raj. As such exercise of real power by the masses or middle class politicians was unimaginable to them. They provided no instrument in the newly raised party charter or body politics that could provide cast-iron guarantees to the inclusion of masses in the exercise of real political power. They allowed the masses politicking but the yield of their politicking was destined to be grabbed by the elite and nobility as a divine right. They raised the slogan of ‘all power to people’ but the people were to be used only as source of power and not the repository of all power that were and still are ‘the elite classes’. It warrants a separate inquiry but suffice to write here that the real causes of instability in Pakistan political system emanate from the tragedy that political power concentrates in the fragile hands of the elitist classes who due to their own vulnerabilities are prone to manipulations by the alien as well as the native usurpers. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto has rightly highlighted in her latest book published posthumously titled “ Reconciliation, Islam, Democracy, and the West”, “They (Muslims) look around them and see a world dominated by corrupt authoritarian governments and a Wealthy Elite, a minority concerned solely with its own economic prosperity rather then national development. They see a world awash in Western-dominated culture and values in dress, music, television and movies. (p.21)” One would like to add to her list another potent spoiler in the form of ‘Corrupt Civilian Governments’ and would only wish she had practically implemented a remedy against what she considered the root cause of Pakistan problems. The real power in her own party was and still remains in the hands of elite class. It would need a Bhutto-incarnate to deliver the real political power to the commoners and only then the purpose of independence from British Raj would be fully realized. Only the vast majority and rock-solid middle class can protect the nation from internal usurpers and external hegemonies.

His adversaries blamed Mr. Bhutto for ruling in the style of an autocrat, the lesser knowledgeable like Musharraf even calling him as fascist, but not a single finger was raised on his financial integrity. Even his worst antagonist Zia ul Haq could not dig out a single case of financial impropriety against him. Mr. Bhutto was a symbol of change, a symbol of courage and uprightness and hence of sword. His financial integrity remained pristine like mountain snow till his end.

After Mr. Bhutto’s death at the gallows, the mantle of party leadership passed on to his daughter Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto who was known to be highly educated, sophisticated, cultured possessing high cognitive reserve and an intellectual of high caliber. Starting as don of a withered, battered and shattered entity, she soon matured into a polished politician customized to Pakistani political environment and steered her party to victory at the hustings. Those who have noted the political power game in the South Americas in the last decade or so can comprehend how she maneuvered to grab the apex office. Be it due to her consort’s influence or her own susceptibility to pelf, her rule was tainted with tales of ruthless opportunism. Her second stint in power was overshadowed with the stories of improbity-galore ending in premature termination with disastrous consequences for the couple. Former President Farooq Leghai told a group of invitees at a wedding function including this scribe how he was confronted with an embarrassing situation due to the horrific reports of the royal consort’s wheeling-dealing from the seat of power. According to him, the then Army Chief called on him and complained about the unsavory activities of the PM’s consort. Mr. Leghari chose a more prudent course of inviting both the Army Chief and the PM to dinner at the Presidency to discuss the issue. When the Chief initiated the talk on the thorny issue, Ms. Bhutto responded with angry denials. But the Chief had done his homework and produced reports from intelligence files to substantiate his charges. At that the honorable lady started bursting into tears and left the place. The tears rolling down the cheeks of the party leader were, in fact, the signs of the downslide of Rahim’s brainchild and piece de resistance of Mr. Bhutto’s struggle.

Some PPP stalwarts may reject Mr. Leghari’s assertions as based on prejudice and malaise but international print and electronic media cannot be blamed to relish any such biases. For example The New York Times published an article by John Burns on Jan. 9, 1998 under the caption “The Bhutto Millions” that focuses on Benazir-Zardari corruption. According to it “ On Feb. 27, 1995, a Swiss lawyer filled out an application to open a Citibank account in Geneva for an obscure company from the British Virgin Islands known as Capricorn Trading. The hand-written document identified the company’s owner as Asif Ali Zardari and listed his address as Bilawal House, Karachi Pakistan……..Mr. Zardari was amassing a fortune of more than $ 100 million in bank deposits and luxury properties abroad, much of it bought with payoffs from foreign companies doing business in Pakistan. The largest single portion- more than $ 40 million- coursed through Citibank Account No. 342034.” David Pallister wrote in the Guardian, a prestigious paper from UK on Nov. 12, 2007 under ‘ Trail of Corruption’ as “ Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari- nicknamed Mr. 10 % over alleged extortion – faced eight counts of taking tens of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks…… The controversy surrounding Bhutto’s financial affairs has been compounded by reports showing she, and her family, have worldwide assets worth about 90 billion Pakistan Rupees or $ 1.5 billion.” The paper further referred to Pounds 117,000 diamond necklace purchased by Ms. Bhutto, Rockwood Mansion, Swiss accounts held by the couple. Similarly CNN provided an update on Dec. 30, 2007 highlighting as “Bhutto’s husband haunted by a past of corruption allegations” and writing as “ Benazir Bhutto’s husband who took effective control of his slain wife’s party is a former Cabinet Minister who spent eight years in prison on corruption accusations and is known as ‘Mr. 10 Percent’ for allegedly taking kickbacks.”The Wall Street Journal (USA), however, added new dimensions to the corruption saga of the royal couple when its correspondents reflected on the aftermath of Ms. Bhutto’s assassination. Writing under the caption ‘ Pakistan’s Zardari Poses A Quandary for US’ on Jan. 2, 2008, Jay Solomon and others opined as “ Old charges of corruption and questions about policy plans dog the new leader of Benazir’s party, Asif Ali Zardari” They further wrote as “ ….But a look at his record in public affairs raises doubts about how a palatable a partner he would be for Washington should the PPP take control of Pakistan’s parliament and name the next Prime Minister. ….That such a controversial figure is now key political player in Pakistan shows the PAUCITY of choices the US faces in trying to secure allies in a country widely viewed as frontline in western efforts to combat Al-Qaeda.” The Paper further wrote as “ Current and former US officials who met with him(Zardari) during these trips describe the Pakistani politician as fixated on reclaiming power for his family in Pakistan.” According to the paper Marvin Weibaum, a former Pakistan analyst at State Department, met one-on-one with Mr. Zardari in October 2007 to elicit his sense of broader vision for the country. The paper claimed that Mr. Weibaum said he was not impressed by the response concluding that Mr. Zardari felt it was simply the Bhutto’s natural right to govern Pakistan. According to this report, Larry Robinson who served State Department’s chief political officer in Islamabad from 2003 to 2005 had several meetings with Mr. Zardari in New York, termed him as savvy but feudal Pakistani politician not a democrat leader in western sense. According to Mr. Robinson “ Though he has just a secondary school diploma, Mr. Zardari reads extensively” The report refers to some agencies as “Senior intelligence officials (US) who worked in the region at the time said Mr. Zardari was at the heart of many business dealings. Both of their administrations were marked by widespread allegations of corruption said Frank Anderson, who served as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) near east division chief from 1991-1994. According to the report former US diplomats and intelligence officials said they suspected him of skimming off a portion of many state contracts. “We used to call him(Zardari) “ Mr. Ten Percent” and in Ms. Bhutto’s second term we called him,“ Mr. 110 Percent”It is, indeed, heartening to note that Mr. Zardari reads extensively and the fact that he holds only a high school diploma is of no consequence. It is not the level or number of degrees one holds but self-education through reading and experiences that one gains political acumen. But the important factor, however, is the nature, import and essence of the reading material. From what his interlocutors have uttered about him, he seems to espouse feudalistic political psyche with penchant for books like Power Politics by Atwood or Arundhati or then Martin Wight, Prince by Machiavelli, Hitler’s Mein Kampf or then for Bill Oreilli’s Factor turning him into a neocon- Pakistani version. His self-empowerment is counterproductive to nation’s empowerment. His informal conversations with various people indicate that he was the driving force behind impelling his spouse to beg and solemnize a deal through Americans with Musharraf to reach the seat of power, the ultimate goal and exclusive preserve of the family, at any cost.

Ms. Bhutto in her book referred to hereinabove has time and again pointed towards the political woes of the Muslim countries due to the intervention and support of the dictatorial regimes by the West especially the USA. She, however, utilized the good services of the same western interventionist forces, most shockingly through Zalmay Khalilzad, a known antagonist and critic of Pakistan, to reconcile with the dictator of her time, who slandered her father as fascist and hypocrite and her as liar. The main objective of her maneuvering was to shed the sleaze-baggage and share power with the dictator. An article entitled ‘ US Nurtured Pakistan Rivals Deal’ published in The New York Times on Oct. 20, 2007 revealed as “Two year ago, Ms. Bhutto could not even get the State Department’s top officials for South Asia to show up at a dinner in her honor. A desk officer in charge of Pakistan was sent instead. But in recent months that began to change. The American courtship of Ms. Bhutto included a private dinner and a jet ride with Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to UN, and over the last month several telephone calls to Ms. Bhutto from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice….In turning back to Ms. Bhutto, administration officials said they acted with reluctance, after Gen. Musharraf’s own political missteps and the mounting opposition to his military government had weakened his grip on power and threatened Pakistan deep into turmoil. The administration concluded over the summer that a power-sharing DEAL with Ms. Bhutto might be the only way that Gen. Musharraf could keep from being toppled. It began quite nurturing the accord, under which Ms. Bhutto’s party did not boycott Gen. Musharraf’s election last month and the president issued a decree granting Ms.Bhutto and others amnesty for recent corruption charges, opening the way for her return”. Ms. Bhutto has also reflected on her reconciliation efforts with the General in her latest book ‘Reconciliation’ in these words, “The passage of the women’s bill gave momentum to the process of negotiations, although deep suspicion existed. To overcome this suspicion, I had suggested direct talks, believing that if Gen. Musharraf met with me it would demonstrate concretely that he was willing to review his public posture that there was no place for me in national politics. Throughout the process of dialogue, I kept London and Washington and a small group of PPP leaders briefed on the progress….Gen. Musharraf and I met in Abu Dhabi in January 2007….The talks with Mushaffaf remained erratic. He didn’t want us resigning from the assemblies when he sought re-election….After many, many late-night calls, he passed a National Reconciliation Order, rather then lift the ban on a twice-elected prime minister seeking office at third time which he said he would do later. In exchange for the NRO, we reciprocated by not resigning from the assemblies, although we did not vote for him (p. 225,226,229)”

Her dichotomy in words and deeds and her departure from her avowed posture on democracy versus dictatorship, exacted a heavy price from her in the form of her life. Not for the establishment of democracy but for the negation of its values, for joining hands with the abuser of democracy, she paid the price- not in coins but in blood. Stephen Lendman’s write up needs attention that appeared on the website of The Populist Party on Jan. 16, 2008 wherein he wrote under the caption ‘ Using Bhutto for Imperial Gain’ as “That was Bhutto’s chance to return, again serve in the post she twice before held, and she thought her Washington allies arranged it. May be yes or may be not. It didn’t matter that she was being used to be a democratic face and fig leaf adjunct to Musharraf’s dictatorship…. Bhutto was an unwitting part of the scheme but not the way she planned. She thought Washington needed her, and she was right-not as Prime Minister but as a martyr to destabilize the country.” One may not agree with what Tariq Ali wrote in his discourse namely “Daughter of the West” but after compromising with authoritarian forces through the good offices of the West, she lost all rights to her status as “Daughter of the East”

JA Rahim would not have envisioned it and Mr. Bhutto would not have given his sweat to launch it, if they had the slightest indication that one day their brainchild, PPP, would fall in the lap of a person nicknamed derisively as ‘Mr. 110 Percent’ not for his integrity, efficiency or output but for his iniquities. What a reversal of fortune is the PPP enduring as it was once led by a person whom the highest American dignitary would honor and proffer, now slipping to a position whence its leadership is mocked by ordinary Americans? Bhutto’s party deserves a better deal. It is for the saner elements in its fold to come forward and save it from further condemnation and devastation. As for the general public, everyone has a national obligation to stop and check the evil to spread. The people of Pakistan owe it to their country to tell Mr. Zardari, “Sir you can’t have the cake and eat it too. You have to choose between the leadership and the sleaze as the two can not coexist. Either quit the leadership or then return to the nation what you have taken from it” One can only request the good and noble people of Pakistan, “Please do not let the evil triumph, you ought to do something about it. The state with all its resources belongs to you. Save it from further demolition.” Do write to Mr. Zardari at his Islamabad address emphasizing on him to choose between the sleaze and leadership.

07-07-2008 12:57 Rais Khan Published in Articles, English Articles

This entry was posted on 07-07-2008 12:57. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. This article was favoured 14 time. You can leave a comment.
Views: 1908