The crowds that turned out to cheer Benazir Bhutto on her return to Pakistan yesterday may not have been of the extravagant size that some of her supporters claimed in advance but it was still an impressive gathering. At a minimum, it demonstrates the continued power of her name and the organisational strength of her Pakistan People’s Party even though its leader has spent most of the past eight years in London and Dubai. The understanding which she has struck with President Musharraf makes it quite plausible that she will will contest and win parliamentary elections due in January and serve for a third time as the Prime Minister of her country. The explosions directed at her and her entourage last night, killing dozens of people, indicate the continuing danger that she will face now that she is at home.

Ms Bhutto is, nonetheless, in the circumstances, the best short-term hope for Pakistan. She is a moderate and instinctively pro-Western politician who has earned the enmity of extremists of many Islamist ilks as much for her gender as her policies. She understands that Pakistan has to be a more modern society if it is to fulfil its undoubtedly enormous potential. It is a tragedy that a country whose exiles have generated so much wealth in so many places beyond its borders remains a comparative economic laggard. If Ms Bhutto were to concentrate on encouraging enterprise and dismantling a heavy-handed State, there is an immense amount of positive good that she could achieve, as well as having the benefit of symbolising Pakistan’s transition from a comparatively benign dictatorship back towards something approaching a normal democracy.

To do this, however, involves her acceptance of past failures. Her two times as Prime Minister were not, to put it mildly, an unalloyed success. The accusation of corruption was not merely a charge whipped up by her enemies but one that was acknowledged by those who wished her and Pakistan well. Even if her administrations had been completely clean, few would claim that she was especially effective in implementing her agenda. This was in part because of an inclina-tion to do business through personal and party circles rather than reach out beyond her base in Sindh province to the nation as a whole. There was also, in fairness to her, considerable obstruction of what she sought to promote based on her being a woman with a link to the West as much as any other factor. It would be naive, though, to assume that this opposition will not be repeated.

A Musharaff-Bhutto accord will only function, therefore, if each person recognises the strengths and weaknesses of the other. The President has retained the loyalty of the bulk of the army and the intelligence services and has engaged in bold personal diplomacy, not simply with the United States, but, crucially, with India and Afghanistan. Ms Bhutto would be wise to recognise this achievement and not to interfere unnecessarily with foreign policy. She, on the other hand, has a political legitimacy that he has never secured and, if she takes the correct path, could direct social and economic reform. At best, the combination of these two figures can transform Pakistan. At worst, it could end with irreconcilable conflict (or the assassination of President, Prime Minister, or both) which fanatics would exploit with catastrophic consequences for the region.