Looking Beyond Bhutto

The New Republic: Former Pakistani Prime Minister Better Than Musharraf, But Not Permanently

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Joshua Kurlantzick.

---

In recent days, the Bush administration has slowly edged away from its outright support for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. "We don't want to be seen to be looking, but we want to make sure we talk to a wide variety of people," one U.S. official told the Washington Post this week. "We encourage moderate political forces in Pakistan to work together," echoed State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

The most visible of those "moderate political forces," of course, is former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, whom Washington desperately hopes can help Musharraf stabilize the country, possibly as prime minister with Musharraf remaining president. Bhutto, who enjoys an over 60 percent popularity rating in Pakistan in a recent poll, has strengthened her credentials as a moderate democrat over the last week and a half by relentlessly attacking Musharraf's decision to impose a state of emergency and by calling for him to resign. And, indeed, Bhutto would be a better solution than military rule because she stands for some of the best historical values of Pakistani democracy. Unfortunately, she stands for some of the worst, too.

Since being founded in 1947 by Mohammed Jinnah, a man who was known to enjoy a nice tipple, Pakistan has boasted politicians who have been schooled in British law and who have next to nothing in common with the firebrand clerics of today's Northwest Frontier province. Jinnah himself vowed that Pakistan would protect equal rights, civil society, and religious tolerance — and prominent civilian Pakistani leaders have generally upheld these values. It's a key reason why the country has sustained some of the noisiest media outlets and powerful lawyers' groups in South Asia. By contrast, it was a Pakistani military leader, Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who set the country on the path toward Islamic radicalism in the late 1970s and 1980s, strengthening the power of Islamic courts and supporting greater religious instruction across the country. And it was Musharraf, another man in uniform, who inked a deal with an alliance of radical groups, and on whose watch Islamic parties have managed to win a provincial government for the first time.

In her very person, the Oxford-educated Benazir Bhutto, daughter of a prime minister, embodies these values — and many of her actions have supported that image. Throughout the 1980s, Bhutto led the protest movement against the Zia dictatorship, which murdered her father, and she has since stood defiant in the face of radicals, openly backing the global war on terrorism, which is hardly popular in her country, and calling for Pakistan to cut its links to the Taliban all the way back in 1998. She speaks out against Islamic extremism in seemingly every opportunity. In an editorial she wrote before returning to the country this fall, Bhutto proclaimed, "The battle between extremism and moderation is the underlying battle for the very soul of Pakistan. Yet moderation can prevail against the extremists only if democracy flourishes."

But because she's a creature of the past, she also embodies Pakistan's worst, most embedded vices. Since independence, the country's politics have been run by dynasties, like the Bhutto family, who also tend to be the country's feudal landowners. And like feudal lords, they treat democracy as a kind of imperial system, in which they provide voters with minor spoils — some money on Election Day, or infrastructure projects — and once in power, act like they own the state. When she was prime minister between 1988 and 1990 and again between 1993 and 1996, Bhutto was no different: She presided over massive graft scandals and watched her husband allegedly build an empire on foreign investment contracts.

As a result, if Bhutto were to assume power again, it should only be seen as a short-term solution — for her country and for the United States. She could quickly accomplish a lot. With her past experience running the country and dealing with the U.S. and Britain, she'd likely preside over a smooth transition and continue the close intelligence and military relationship that has been built since 9/11. Moreover, Islamic parties in Afghanistan, which have thrived under the tacit support of Musharraf, would be exposed as a tiny minority, and militants on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could face real heat — not just empty bluster — from Islamabad. Finally, given the power of lawyers in her party, and her need to differentiate herself from Musharraf, you can expect Pakistan's online, broadcast, and print media to flourish, while its judicial system regains some semblance of order.

But Bhutto is not the person to create the kind of democracy that would make Pakistan a more reliable ally in the long-term. Her traditional political style hasn't ingratiated her to many educated Pakistani students, a vital group in an unusually young population — in a 2005 survey, 71 million of the country's roughly 160 million people were under 18. Many of these students, the people who might break the country out of its feudal landlock, have turned instead to new political forces like Imran Khan, a magnetic former cricketer turned politician.

The former prime minister also does not seem to have learned much from her past travails. All the way through Musharraf's term, she has continued to run her party, the Pakistan People's Party, like a landlord or a queen, refusing to allow new blood and ideas to flourish. As the New York Times noted in a recent profile of Bhutto, she has appointed herself head of the party for life and has "frozen out" Aitzaz Ahsan, another leading member of her party who has led the lawyers' protests against General Musharraf.

With so few Pakistan experts left in the administration, the United States might choose to rely solely on Bhutto, just as it did with Musharraf. That would be a mistake. Washington needs to build a relationship with a broader cross-sector of Pakistanis, like the students and lawyers who led protests while Bhutto was still in exile. Without that, America, just like average Pakistanis, will remain locked into a Sophie's choice between generals and feudocrats.

[ozonmojo]

It is unlikely that the terrorists on the Afghan-Pakistan border will face the heat if Benazir Bhutto comes to power.The author of this article over-rates the political capability of Bhutto to control the Jihadists,who will once again have a field day once "democracy " is established under her stewardship.She is clearly not the person to replace Musharraf.She is too flawed,though all of her flaws could be typically Pakistani.Her big mouth is misleading a lot people in Washington and elsewhere.

Bhutto is a bigger dictator than Musharraf ever was. She may fool the romantic west desperate for a friend in the region but not the people of Pakistan. Not even Imran Khan is the right man as he is too liberal minded and has a terrible personel record as a womanizing playboy and he has been too quick to defend the Taliban hoping to be accepted by the religious right.

The right mix is Nawaz Sharif who was overthrown by Musharraf, he is a sensible businessman.

Either way, most politicians have realized the menace of the religious fanatics post 911 and all are serious about confronting it, some more than others.

An alliance of Imran Nawaz would be the best ticket as they did meet in London recently.

But no matter what, I hate the US for shoving Bhutto down our throats, she is a lying, evil woman who destroyed Pakistan twice under her two terms as PM. Dont force her on us USA.

[rabi11-2009]

I fully agree with the conclusion by the author. Best bet for Pakistan and US both is Aitzaz Ahsan.

[rabi11-2009]

I fully agree with the conclusion by the author. Best bet for Pakistan and US both is Aitzaz Ahsan.

[rabi11-2009]

I fully agree with the conclusion by the author. Best bet for Pakistan and US both is Aitzaz Ahsan.

[asad795]

I wonder that how Bhutto can be compared with Musharraf and dealing with Bhutto can be similar to dealing with Musharraf. How the one with military uniform, representing none but himself can be same as the most popular political leader of a country who, by the figure of the author itself, enjoys the support of 60 % pakistanis. Talking to Bhutto is just like talking to majority of masses in Pakistan.

Imran Khan who might have support of some of the educated youth in Pakistan but he is still infant to be the leader. People here support him but not willing to vote him or yet want him to be given the chance.

I believe that west has the only option in Pakistan is to deal with the people and for that it is possible if west relies on political leaders rather than few sections or communities in Pakistan. As bhutto enjoys the support of majority of Pakistani people, i believe that she is the only option left for west at this time of crisis when militancy is on its peak after emergency.

[Redoubt]

Pakistan is the match that can light the keg that is central Asia and the Middle East.

India, China, Russia, Afghanistan and Iran all have a stake in what happens in Pakistan. In the midst of this confusion, al Qaeda and the Taliban are poised to strike the match and light the flame of war.

India will not likely tolerate any kind of militant Islamic regime, now armed with Pakistan%u2019s nuclear arsenal. It is an almost guaranteed conflict.

China will not like India interfering in Pakistan%u2019s internal struggles and use it as an excuse to threaten her from the opposite direction.

In Afghanistan, we have a rather subdued force that would be incapable of sustaining the defense of that country from anything larger than gorilla warfare. The government is not stable enough to raise an army very fast nor logistically capable of arming one.

Iran has a dangerous standing military and a belligerent regime that would thoroughly enjoy knocking the US out of the theater. Afghanistan would be ripe for such an action.

Russia, with interests in India and Iran, would be apt to sit it all out on the sidelines except for supplying arms to whoever had the cash. Their trip wire would be a wider US presence in Afghanistan that could be set off by any attempt to reinforce our ground forces already there.

It is far more dangerous than simply a General holding on to power. Bhutto doesn%u2019t have the pull with the military to hold the sails on the ship.

[quatrops]

For over a century the West (principly the US and UK) and Russia have mistakenly imagined they "understood" the psyche of the Middle East and its various tribes, powers, religious factions, alliances, etc.. In our hubris and (understandably) and our own interests we have, at various times and places, backed one regional political entity or another, throwing vast amounts of money into the effort.

Nearly all of these efforts have failed, some more dramaticly than others. Our political leaders seem incapable of seeking out the advice of historians and sociologists whose input, limited as it may be, would at least give the leaders some understanding of the consequences of proposed interferances. Our failures in post-invasion Iraq are the most recent example.

It will probably be centuries before the Middle East matures and resolves its internal historic conflicts, and it must be allowed to do so with very, very limited input from outside. The West is responsible for AlQaedas hatred and anger towards it. Bin Laden''s movement would have been internalized in the region. 9/11 would not have happened.

We must stop supporting Musharraf, Pakistan, and ANY of the players in this game with our $ and our military. Support our troops - get them out. What happens in the Arabic Middle East, happens. Whatever it is, it''s not going to be pretty, AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT ! ! !

[tbweb]

A well balanced view of Benazir Bhutto albeit minus her corruption but who is admittedly nothing more than the lesser evil.