Bilawal, Zardari, Fahim to lead PPP;
Will Contest Jan. 8 Polls
The Pakistan People's Party movers and shakers have annointed Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, 19, the son of slain Benazir Bhutto, as its next leader. He will continue his studies at Oxford while his father, Asif Zardari, acts as regent. The PPP will run Makhdum Amin Fahim as its candidate for prime minister, and will contest the January 8 elections (apparently they are counting on a sympathy vote, and may also be afraid the country will slip into martial law if the civil disturbances continue). The other major party with grass roots, the Muslim League-N, led by Nawaz Sharif, had said it would boycott the elections. But Sharif said Saturday he would reconsider the boycott if the PPP decided to go ahead.
Fahim is what is called in Pakistan a "feudal landlord," with a BA in political science from the provincial Sindh University. He has been parliamentary leader of the PPP in recent years. The Pakistan People's Party was created in the late 1960s by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and has all along been led by that family and its retainers. "Makhdum," Fahim's ancestral title, means "served" and is a term applied in South Asia to a Sufi leader. Great medieval Sufis were given lands to support them by Muslim rulers like the Mughals, so that in many instances their descendants are big landowners, and the family's spiritual vocation has disappeared. Fahim is a secular politician, and like a lot of the Pakistani elite, likes a good stiff drink of bourbon.
The PPP during the past two decades has been internally split between a rising middle class urban leadership and the old landowning families. An alternative to Fahim would have been the smart Punjabi lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, who was jailed for protesting the dismissal of the justices, and is admired by a lot of the urban activists. Despite Benazir's own education abroad, her instincts (and now those of her widower) was always to "run the feudals," and to depend on the landlords' ability to get out the vote among their own (largely illiterate and repressed) peasants.
The PPP leadership had a chance to become the party of the future and to galvanize the new middle class, which has spearheaded the challenge to Musharraf over his gutting of the judiciary. It has instead run the feudals again. Fahim seems to me unlikely to generate the sort of excitement that Aitzaz Ahsan would have. But then, the PPP will probably get a big sympathy vote. Once in power, however, unless it pursues policies that benefit urban classes, it will find itself eclipsed.
Barnett Rubin's WSJ op-ed on Bhutto's assassination is now available in full at our group Global Affairs blog.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/30/2007 07:00:00 AM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
Thank God the US political system is not family-run like Pakistan's.
Or else we would have the unstable moronic boy of President George (Goofy) Bush Snr running the USA now, and the nasty wife of President Bill (spin) Clinton waiting to take over.
You are absolutely right, Juan. PPP had a chance to emerge as a genuine people's party under the leadership of an able candidate like Aitzaz Ahsan. Ahsan is an eloquent speaker, and in recent days had gained even more credibility by joining the frontlines of the lawyers protests, where he endured beatings and incarceration. As a matter of fact, one reason for BB's expedited return was precisely the threat of this populist wing eclipsing the feudal leadership. For this reason, BB was pointedly cold towards Ahsan, and offered no support as he languished in prison.
By the way, you refer to BB's son as 'Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari'. His name had always been Bilawal Zardari; the decision to hyphenate it by including Bhutto's name in it was only taken today in order to thwart those PPP supporters who insist on a Bhutto leading the party (today they were all chanting for Sanam Bhutto).
Professor Cole, is there a candidate that is "clean" or is such a thing not an option in Pakistan?
Musharraf has obvious flaws, Sharif is respected but imperfect and the Bhutto family's history of corruption and possible involvement in murder really ruins the positive light shining on them.
Who, if anyone, can the people trust?
Aitezaz Ahsan and Imran Khan have the most credibility and both are honest and decent people. You would imagine that Pakistan would learn from its mistakes and allow an honest porson to lead the country. And when I say Pakistan, I refer to the ruling alliance of the West, Paksitani Army and the feudal elite that firmly believes in profit over people.
Fatima Bhutto (daughter of the slain Murtaza Bhtto) is more likely than Sanam to lead the PPP and I am aware of the hostile relationship between the Zardari and Murtaza's family. Mr. Zardari really loves his 'stache. It is sad that a man like Zardari is now leading the PPP.
Mr Cole,
I'm so pleased from reading your articles that unlike the rest of the media (in north america) you actually know what is really going on in pakistan. The media has once again blindly followed what its being fed by the whitehouse and is accepting Bhutto as some sort of savior, whereas in reality she has continued to exercise the same corrupt and fuedal-system prone style of party governance as was decades ago.
The actions of the last few weeks shows the very hypocracy that Bhutto practiced. Its not necessary for the mentioning of her husband's very corrupt past and the fact that the offspring becoming leaders is more appropriate for a banana republic or a fuedal state instead of a true democratic state, which Bhutto supposedly supported.
Re today's "Top ten"
Good advise Prof. Cole. It would work if the USA was a sovereign state.
Happy New Year.
Dr. Cole,
The Philly Inquirer carried a column this past week from a Georgetown U. prof about why not everyone is sad at Bhutto's assasination and highlighting the tribal divisions in Pakistan (e.g., Bhutto was from the Sindh ethnic minority). Your piece as well shows that the Americans know so little about Pakistan that the notion we can make policy decisions based on the events there is silly.
P.S. How can Sen. Clinton on the one hand assert she is experienced in foreign affairs because she was heavily involved in her husband's administration, but that he will have in involvement in decisionmaking for hers? Either both are involved (and she can argue she has experience) or she wasn't involved either and has no experience. And her hagiography of Bhutto was embarrassing
Congratulations Dr. Cole! You are the first commentar I've read/heard so far to use the ever so apt term "regent" to refer to Mr. Zardari.
ISLAMABAD: An emergency meeting of the Election Commission (EC) is being held here on Monday to review the current political situation in the country and the possibility of holding the general election on March 27.
EC Secretary Kanwar Muhammad Dilshad said the offices of the assistant election commissioners in Sukkur, Jamshoro, Naushero Feroze, Kamber, Shahdadkot, Thatta, Ghotki, Jacobabad, Badin and Dadu districts were set on fire after the death of Benazir Bhutto, adding that offices containing electoral rolls, transparent ballot boxes and voting screens were reduced to ashes. He said circumstances were also not conducive for holding the elections on January 8 in some parts of the NWFP. He said election preparations, including the printing of ballot papers and their transport to districts as well as training of polling staff, had been adversely affected after Benazir’s assassination.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/def...1-12- 2007_pg7_3
Now why would Bhutto supporters burn election offices? It must have been others,
One way to explain this bizarre attempt to promote democracy in the Muslim world is to take it as yet another coloured revolution a la post-Soviet space - tailored to the Pakistani situation. Well, one thing is for sure – Pakistan is nothing like Ukraine! Most importantly, opposition to Musharraf comes not from ideological zombies who post-Soviet Communists are, but from strong and determined radical Sunnis.
What is also remarkable, I never found any indications that Bhutto was a successful leader with good economic development record. On the contrary, as NYT wrote back in 1999, she and her husband were convicted for corruption.
There is little doubt that, exactly like in Israel, corruption charges against Mr. and Ms.Bhutto were politically motivated. However, there is little excuse for rallying international support for known fraudsters like Bhuttos or Chalabi! Anyway, under any close examination, this design was doomed from the very beginning, although there was no way to know how exactly it was going to fail.
Now we know that operation “Bhutto” failed in the most unfortunate way. If she just went on with empty protests, it would not be as bad as her assassination, but this is exactly what happened in real life and led to the severe crisis in Pakistan. Further, the supposedly pro-democratic PPP is now headed by Bhutto’s 19-year old son and husband.
What should be the reasonable, responsible US reaction in this situation? Sure, there are no particular reasons for anyting close to enthusiasm about Musharraf. However, in this particular situation, it could make sense to limit the reaction to expressing regret and hopes for the serious investigation as well as punishment of the assassins. As for the GOP’s general support of Musharraf, anyhow reasonably, it could be considered as a secondary issue. This way, dems would save their concerns for really critical issues like the Iraqi war.
Needless to say, as usual, Sen.Clinton’s gut reaction has nothing to do with concrete situation on the ground, but everything to do with her essentially neoconservative ideology and immediate political concerns. In practical terms, her stern condemnation of Musharraf and demand for international interference in the investigation of Bhutto’s death are doomed to end in the political dumpster.
But for Clinton this is nothing like an issue.Apparently, what really matters for her is typical simulation of political activity and distancing from the GOP in the most innocent way possible. As for the stability in the troubled region and national sovereignty of Pakistan, both crazy neoconservative revolutionaries and Hillary could not care less.
Post a Comment
<< Home