This has been a shatteringly bleak week for Pakistan, but not one that
condemns it to being a failed state. The return of Benazir Bhutto,
overshadowed by the bomb that killed 140, is a step forward. But although
she has been championed in Europe and the US, she is a long way from being
the solution to her country’s savage problems.
Pakistan dominates Britain’s foreign worries, officials say, and they are
right. It is not just that terrorism is on the increase – as well as the
capacity of extremists, in this age of eight-hour direct flights and the
internet, to cause mischief in the Pakistani community in Britain. But with
165 million people, Pakistan is six times more populous than Iraq or
Afghanistan, and has nuclear weapons.
But it is worth starting with reasons for optimism, because they are too easy
to forget in alarmist sketches of Pakistan being the “Taleban with nukes”.
The country is far better material for becoming a modern state than, say, an
Arab autocracy. The military, the Civil Service, the courts – the pieces in
place at Partition 60 years ago – do work and are getting better. And it
gave itself a written Constitution in 1973, although it has been suspended
during military rule.
It is to the credit of that framework that the Supreme Court, which has
clashed with Pervez Musharraf, is now hearing petitions against his
re-election as President while he remains head of the army. True, many
expect a fudge – a split panel or one verdict for him and one against.
“Everything is political, except a road accident,” said one lawyer when
asked whether the verdicts, expected next week, could be free of politics.
But it is encouraging that President Musharraf’s attempt to sack the Chief
Justice in the spring brought bigger protests than his suppression of the
Red Mosque extremists in Islamabad. Fundamentalist parties have barely
reached double figures in polls. The heart of the country is moderate.
You could add to the list of reasons for optimism: economic growth of more
than 6 per cent (although some stems from US aid); the swelling middle class
(although many hover an hour’s flight away in the Gulf); the investment by
expatriates; the falling birthrate. The raucous health of the media is
another; President Musharraf has permitted two dozen private television
channels to launch, even though many of them denounce him.
Despite last week’s carnage, it is remarkable how little violence there is in
a country so divided and so poor. There have been bombs on many days near
the Afghan border, but the big cities, easy targets, are largely spared.
But there optimism runs out. Terrorism is spreading from the always lawless
tribal areas to the settled Swat valley. Pakistan’s income per head is two
thirds of India’s, and its infant mortality rate double. Half of its people
can’t read; it has failed to educate a generation, and risks doing the same
with the next – 37 per cent of Pakistanis are younger than 14.
And people have no one to turn to but the old, imperfect leaders. Fatima
Bhutto, Benazir’s niece, and a viscerally angry critic of her, says: “We are
told there are only four” – Benazir Bhutto, head of the left-wing Pakistan
People’s Party, Nawaz Sharif, leader of the conservative Pakistan Muslim
League, President Musharraf and the MQM party, which runs Karachi.
Benazir Bhutto is the most likely to be the next prime minister after next
January’s elections, and the reason for the West’s enthusiasm for her is
clear: she is secular, liberal, educated, female. But doubt has been cast
this week on her judgment. Even to fans, the recklessness of choosing, for
her return after eight years away, a procession crawling for 14 miles
through a crowd of a million, smacks of vanity. Her decision to hold her
first press conference in English was received poorly at home. Her
accusation that three government officials had plotted the bomb attack
seemed hotheaded.
Her party retains its feudal character; the huge crowds that greeted her were
brought to Karachi by the machinery of patronage as well as love for her.
Local party workers were rewarded for bussing in supporters; even the
pro-Bhutto graffiti were paid for. But the amateurism that the Pakistan
People’s Party otherwise shows, a kind of exuberant fatalism, is worrying if
it returns to government. The day after the bombing, there was only a
semblance of security at her house, directed at foreigners, with known faces
and women waved through.
Nor is it easy to overlook the record of the two governments she led. Ms
Bhutto dismisses corruption allegations as politically motivated, but the
Supreme Court next week may quash the amnesty that President Musharraf has
granted her. In the slums of Lyari in Karachi this week, one party worker
was indulgent about complaints that she had done little for the poor: “She
had too little time.” But Nasreen Jalil, Karachi’s deputy mayor, a one-time
opponent and now uneasy ally, argued that President Musharraf has been
“better for women than Benazir”, stopping rape being treated as adultery and
guaranteeing women parliamentary seats.
Mr Sharif is the only one who could beat Ms Bhutto at the polls, but as Prime
Minister he took the country towards Islamism and might do so again. In any
case, he is stuck in Saudi Arabia, where President Musharraf deported him
last month when he tried to return home. The President seems in no rush to
let him back, despite Western desire for the elections to be properly
contested. A fudge is possible, allowing Mr Sharif back just before the
elections so he has no chance to put up candidates.
The MQM is the only party that is secular, urban and middle-class. But it has
run Karachi as its fiefdom in a cloud of corruption allegations; it is no
model for the future.
And President Musharraf? He has helped Pakistan’s stability, and his instincts
are liberal; he is a “dictator-lite”, as Fatima Bhutto put it. But he has
preferred a military solution to problems better dealt with politically, and
at this point even bad politicians seem better than more military rule.
Pakistan has been resilient in righting itself after each crisis, but now the
crises are coming without respite. The institutions, the elites, the
military cannot hold it all together for ever without progress on education,
poverty and terrorism.
The best hope is that the next prime minister, probably Ms Bhutto, with Pervez
Musharraf as President, makes some inroads into solving these problems; that
the economy grows; and that the middle class shakes off its disdain for
politics and produces better candidates to lead a modern country. But if
Pakistan cannot get to grips with its problems within another generation,
then it could finally fulfil the alarmist predictions of being the largest
failed state in the world.
Benazir Bhutto looted her country for years. She gave Pakistan a terrible debt rating, no perceptibly improved human rights, chronic instability, and more poverty. America was very, very lucky that Bhutto was disposed of in a timely manner.
Musharraf has delivered enormous growth for Pakistan and has probably performed the most amazing balancing act of any head of state on the planet this decade, while at the same time vastly increasing the strength of Pakistani secular civil society and paying down its debt.
Would Pakistan have a free press, a vibrant civil society, a stable economy, or a remotely pro-Western alignment at any level of society without Musharraf? Because that's the only question that matters.
Alex Forshaw, St Louis, Missouri
I agree with Mr. Ian Wilson (Perth), and resonate PM's (UK) hopes.
RR, Horsham, UK
I am quite agree with Bronwen that despite the bleak circumstances in Pakistan there is ray of hope.With the empowering of powerful media and the activism of civil society ,Pakistan is expected to emerge out from this mirky situation.
Tarique, London, UK
The Islamist extremists are waiting in the wings for the return of "democracy ".Benazir Bhutto,sponsored by G.W.Bush and Condi Rice,is their Trojan horse.The irony is the so-called democracy in Pakistan will be far more dangerous to the world than the present dictatorship there.
Jabli Izvesti, Singapore, Singapore
Deceit and deception is the hall mark of USA and Israel. They do not any excuse to grab other lands as they have done with the native Indians and now the palestinians.,
Syed, Brampton, Canada
Islam is in need of a lobotomy.
Charles, Houston,
Mr Vijay and others with same old Indian rhetoric of United India. Given the failed state of Muslims of India and there status as a second class citizens at time which is one of the most progressive in Indian history, Pakistanis cannot thank enough its leaders for securing a Nation state. It may be a state in turmoil, but it is their own independent and sovereign state they can fix. Look at recent highly publicized studies on Indian society and one will know how Muslims and other low class Indians are missing the boat only to add to existing economic disparity. I am glad Jinnah understood this 50 years ago. Also just to correct our Indian well wishers history. the ideology of Pakistan came from Iqbal not Jinnah. He too thought " Hindustan Hamara" but realized quickly what Gandhi and Nehru were up to. Indian democracy is as good as 30% elite population it serves. Trust me we understand you now and we understood you then. Its time you should recognize and accept Pakistan as a nation.
AIntel, Toronto,
Mr Krishna, thanks for getting on the band Wagon. Not surprised to see Indians overwhelming support of Balochistan. You will be pleased to hear that Khalistan, Nagaland, Kashmir, etc, has same aspirations to get out of oppression and mess they are in - called India.
AIntel, Toronto,
The root of the problem is that republic of Pakistan was proclaimed in the name of Islam and has a constitution that is secular. In Pakistan's first government there were Hindu ministers. The man Jinna, who pursued this bizzare paradox was himself a secular thinker. He lived a life that did not conform to what one would describe as an islamic way of life. His full name was Mohammed Jinnabhai Punja. The last two names are typical Gujarati hindu names. And this to me is the perfect example of why the existance of Pakistan is a superfluous one. Until the people of Pakistan re-discover their history before the imposition of Islam on the peoples of the Indian sub continent they will never be at peace with themselves or with their neighbours. Islam alone cannot and never has been able to to give an identity to a people whose civilisation began long before the idea of Islam.
Shailesh Parekh, Solihull, UK
There is a big lesson in all of this for Pakistan. You should never start a fire in your neighbours house because it won't be long before your own house becomes an incontrollable inferno
Shailesh Parekh, Solihull, UK
This was a country created on ego`s of Jinna who demanded country on basis of relegion then try to tell them relegion has nothing to do with state in his first speech. if he was true secular then he would have better of working with Ghandhi and Nehru for betterment of his muslim brother in united India. He crated failed state which breeds terorist.and exports
it to world
Vijay, Leicester , UNITED KINGDOM
Bronwen Maddox: Unusually, a very balanced article!
"to cause mischief in the Pakistani community in Britain."
A very valid fear and this is the biggest threat Britain is facing. Britain has got into this mess by permitting reckless immigration of tom, dick and harry from extremist Islamic prone, Pakistan instead of selective immigration as in the US! Besides, US, UK and some more have the illusions that Pakistan is a good friend!
A Baloch, New york & Quetta has made a very valid point. Islam could not hold Bangladesh earlier. Better break it up into Pashtunistan, Baluchistan, Sindhistan, Shiastan, Punjab and some more. This is the only way out of the present mess in Pakistan.
Almost all sections are bitter that Punjabies, military and corrupt leaders are milking them.
Also, the US, UK and allies have to be very careful about Pakistan, a training ground and spring board for Islamic jihadies to other nations!
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
Many incongruities in your article but a bold attempt to paint Pakistan in a positive light. Indeed Ian Wilson (from Perth) has painted a more realistic picture of Pakistan today. As a person of Indian origin, I have every reason to look at Pakistan with disdain and even anger perhaps for their sustained terrorism campaign over 20 years. However, Indians have moved on and today, whilst an average Indian may hate Pakistan, he will find some resonance with the life of an average Pakistani. Why? Simply because citizens of either community live in hope. Time (centuries not decades) has taught South Asians to live in eternal hope for a better tomorrow. Bhuttos of Pakistan and Gandhis of India (dynasties) will rise and fall but that has nothing to do with an average citizen. What India is today is because of average Indians and what Pakistan will be tomorrow will be because of average Pakistanis. My other eternal hope is that an average Pakistani sees an average Indian in the same light.
PM, UK,
I like what Wasim Ali says. BB is not above criticism, but she will only get back to power if she is elected by people of her country. When she took power nearly 20 years ago, she was very young and inexperienced. She is 54 now. That might be a help. Salman Rushdi once said that she is a bad news, but compared to others on the scene, she is a jewel. Pakistan being Pakistan, you cannot expect much better.
SharifL, Nidder, Austria
I have never witnessed a more egotistical political act than her very deliberate use of crowd hysteria to further heighten her profile. Ms Bhutto preens herself in a manner befitting an 18th century princess. How is this even remotely secular and democratic? Pakistan is possibly the most schizophrenic country in the world. The middle classes pride themselves on their secularism and western ways, but do nothing to help the poor and disadvantaged. The military prides itself on the fact it can match the much larger India in wartime, but can’t or won’t deal with a rag-tag bunch of talibanistas tearing the country apart. A state founded on the non-secular aspirations of Mr Jinnah, another extremely vane and egotistical politician, seems to be have been doomed at it’s very inception. The various military rulers post ’47 have tied themselves to US arms for survival, whilst India gravitated to the USSR. Both countries festered in this state until India was released from her mindless socialism by the collapse of the USSR. If the west is to prevent an outright catastrophe in the region it should do everything to support and bolster the world’s largest proven secular democracy, India.
Ian Wilson, Perth, Australia
It makes more sense for Pakistanis to re-examine the wisdom of continuing as a single nation. The Pakhtuns of NWFP have nothing in common with the Balochis, Sindhis and Punjabi all of whom have nothing in common with each other. Islam has failed to be a glue throughout the Muslim world because it does not address the needs of modern life. Balochistan and Sindh should be given their independence and NWFP should
The Balochis have always wanted to be independent. We never wanted to be part of Pakistan. The Pakistan government is supporting Islamist groups close to the Taliban in its attempt to suppress the freedom fighters of Balochistan. Pakistanis are using a divide and rule policy to rule policy to suppress the Balochis. It is time to let us go free. It is time to let the Pakhtuns and the Sindhis go free.
A Baloch, New york & Quetta, USA & pakistan
And why is Fatima Bhutto important, please? She has never been elected to office, is too young to run and her only claim to fame is that she is the estranged niece of Benazir Bhutto.
Also, I am a bit bored with this line of "flawed politicians" about Pakistan. What country has perfect ones?
Also, Ms Maddox obviously doesn't speak a word of Urdu, Sindhi or Punjabi. Benazir Bhutto spoke at her press conference in English for people like her. She had addressed the people at her welcome reception, where million turned out to hear and see her. So who precisely are these people who got upset at Bhutto addressing her first press conference in English?
It is time to focus on the reasons why despite corruption allegations and charges of leading a failed government Bhutto remains more popular than other politicians. Maybe there are pakistanis who speak only by attending rallies and voting and do not talk to visitng foreign correspondents.
Wasiq Ali, New York, USA