PAKISTAN may or may not be the world's most dangerous country, but it is certainly the most difficult one to govern. Considering its many problems, it is a source of constant wonder that so many people aspire to the top job.
Soon after the coalition government was formed in Islamabad following the February elections, I received many emails from readers complaining that Asif Zardari was calling the shots from behind the scene, although he did not hold an elected office. These same people are now whinging over the fact that he has been elected as president. There's just no pleasing some folks. I, for one, would rather have the person in charge to be in a visible, elected and accountable position.
In the western media, op-ed and leader writers have made much of Asif Zardari's past, with his long stint in prison on unproven charges featuring prominently. As I have said in this space before, 11 years is a long time to be on trial. If the legal system has been unable to convict a suspect due to lack of evidence in over a decade, surely it's time to move on. And Bhutto-haters should please note that for the entire duration of this process, the governments of the day were hostile to Zardari, and did their worst to find him guilty. I have no way of knowing whether he committed any of the crimes he was accused of, but I do believe that we should abide by the dictum "innocent until proven guilty'.
When I have made these points before, I have been accused of supporting the PPP. This is not a charge I have ever denied. In Pakistan today, there are four broad power groupings: the army, the religious parties, the various manifestations of the Muslim League, and the PPP. Out of all these, I find the PPP's goals closest to mine, even though the party has not usually lived up to them.
Another reason I have stood by the PPP is that whenever the army has overthrown a civilian government, it has consistently opposed martial law. But when it has been in power, I have often been very critical of its leadership and its policies. In politics, you have to choose, and I have supported the PPP since it came into being four decades ago. The other option is to sit on the sidelines and snipe at everybody, but this is the easy option, and one that requires no hard choices and no responsibility.
My leftwing friends have often complained of the PPP's deviation from its ideological moorings. However, a party's philosophy has to evolve to keep pace with changing realities. Nevertheless, it needs to be anchored in certain core beliefs. In a country like Pakistan, with so much injustice and inequality, I firmly believe that decent, thinking people must be concerned with changing the status quo. Unfortunately, the only group that is motivated by revolutionary fervour today is made up of militants who have rallied to the banner of an extremist, hate-filled vision of Islam that excludes all notions of reason and humanism. It also relegates women and the minorities to a second-class status. Above all, it allows no dissent and no opposition.
With these barbarians knocking at the gate, it would seem to me that we should put our political differences aside and face the common foe. But if one were to follow the Pakistani media closely, it would seem that Pakistan's biggest problem was the election of Asif Zardari as president. Judging from comments appearing in Pakistan and abroad, professional PPP-haters are unwilling to give him a chance.
Some commentators are already predicting ‚ and hoping for ‚ yet another military coup. Others are busy inventing justifications for an army intervention. My old friend Ardeshir Cowasjee, writing in this space last Sunday, has taken issue with Benazir Bhutto's advice to her son, Bilawal. He quotes the young man as recalling his assassinated mother as saying: " taking into account the sufferings and "sacrifices' made by the party of the people, "democracy is the best revenge'."
Cowasjee then continues: "If we are to have a majority bent upon revenge of any sort, may the Good Lord come quickly to our aid If his [Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's] heirs, including Zardari, have revenge in mind, then the game is lost before it is begun."
This is the kind of thinking Benazir Bhutto had to contend with during her political career. Her words have no relationship to her meaning. What she urged her son to do was not to seek revenge from those who had wronged her and her father, "as democracy was the best revenge". Thus, usurpers would be marginalised by voting them out of power.
Indeed, in her lifetime, I often disagreed with Benazir Bhutto because she overlooked so many wrongs done to her, and forgave her sworn foes so readily. In this, she was probably unique in our hate-filled, no-holds-barred, vengeance-driven politics. To give a different meaning to her words because of one's own grievances against the Bhuttos is to be guilty of what the PPP is being accused of.
Other countries have strong disagreement over which individual and which party should lead them. The ongoing electoral battle in the US is a case in point. But once the dust has settled, and the people have spoken, the victors are allowed to get on with it. Of course, policies and even personalities are attacked by the media. But nobody invites the army to step in and throw out the democratic order. Silvio Berlusconi has been elected as prime minister of Italy for the third time despite a number of allegations against him. In Israel, four recent prime ministers have faced corruption charges. But the media in neither country is asking their armies to take over.
It is high time we began behaving with a little more maturity. It is entirely possible that Asif Zardari and the PPP will be unable to rise to the challenge. Should this happen, the electorate will vote them out of office five years from now. But until then, it is both irresponsible and self-destructive to work to destabilise the system just because one doesn't like Asif Zardari or the Bhuttos.
