By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on January 1, 2008
It was a sad day for Pakistan, and South Asia, when Pakistan’s former Prime Minister and the first Muslim woman Prime Minister in the world was assassinated at a rally in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. There have been many articles and much analysis of the Bhutto legacy. However, there are many dimensions which most analysts and policy makers still do not understand fully and completely.
Names and symbols matter in politics; however much the policy makers and elite might wish otherwise. People still vote for the name of the Kennedys in the United States, in the name of the Gandhis in India and in the name of the Bhuttos in Pakistan. This is because these names are not just names for the masses, they stand for something.
The name Kennedy, for many voters, stands not just for one of the most popular and charismatic Presidents of the United States but also for the way the Kennedys always reached out to the masses and seemed to care about them. The name Gandhi stands not just for a family which helped India gain independence and helped it anchor itself in the initial years but also for the ‘roti, kapda aur makan’ policies which endeared the Congress to India’s poor. The name Bhutto stands not just for a family which has given Pakistan two of its most charismatic Prime Ministers but rather for the way they changed Pakistani politics.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has been much maligned for his landlord background and his personality. But Zulfikar Ali Bhutto too will be remembered for helping bring Pakistan back from the brink after the devastating civil war of 1971; of helping Pakistanis feel like a nation again and of ensuring the integrity of the country in such chaotic circumstances. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s lasting contribution was his giving the masses a voice in politics – he appealed to them and spoke their language and made them feel that they had a stake in the running of the country.
Yes, Bhutto had many flaws but then so do all great leaders. What these analysts forget is that when history remembers people it remembers not their quirks but their contributions. Gandhi and Nehru both had faults but when we discuss their contributions to India we talk about what they did for the country, not what their personal flaws may have been. Napoleon too is remembered not for his overpowering ambition and his autocratic personality but for his crafting of France and modern Europe.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s daughter, Benazir, who was close to and accompanied her father, like Indira Gandhi and Pandit Nehru, and also believed in the same principles. Yes, she was Harvard educated but she could speak to the masses of Pakistan with the same fervor and passion as her father. When she returned to Pakistan both in 1988 and in 2007 the millions of people who came out to greet her are proof itself of this.
The civil-military-technocratic establishment which rules Pakistan has never been comfortable with politicians, especially those who are popular. This is because there is a belief that the ignorant masses do not know what is right for them and that politicians only manipulate these masses. If that were true then India would not have had democracy for the last 60 years – around 30% of the Indian population still lives below poverty and the literacy rate is still only 65%.
The only politicians the Pakistani establishment is comfortable with are those who either have a very small ethnic or provincial base or are creatures of the establishment itself. Politicians like the Bhuttos, Zulfikar and Benazir, who had a national following, were never fully accepted by the establishment. Efforts to demonize them in order to shrink their populist base took various forms – from attacks on their personality — Zulfikar’s short temper and fondness for drinking to Benazir’s foreign education – to attacks on their policies — blaming Zulfikar for the break up of Pakistan in 1971 and Benazir for either trying to come too close to United States or not doing enough on Kashmir.
Even now, just a few days after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto efforts to diminish the importance of her legacy are on. Some analysts are saying that there have not been enough street protests in Pakistan, especially Sindh, and that this shows that she had lost a large part of her earlier support base. What these analysts forget are the 3 million people who came out on the streets in Karachi on October 18, 2007 to welcome her back home. Each and every election rally Benazir Bhutto attended from Sind to Baluchistan and NWFP (the fatal Rawalpindi rally was her first in Punjab) was attended by hundreds of thousands of her supporters.
What analysts critical of Bhutto need to understand is that though rallies and protests are the way to show either joy or grief in South Asia, it is a different context whether you are protesting in a democratic or autocratic state. As long as the average man on the street knows that he will not be jailed and will be able to earn a living he will participate in rallies and protests. Therefore there were 3 million people on the streets to welcome Benazir Bhutto back on October 18 because there was little worry about getting arrested. But there will be fewer people willing to participate in riots or street protests.
In the end, however much the Pakistani elite might like the voting public to be rational the reality is that people vote according to how they feel and vote for those they feel they can identify with. Both Zulfikar and Benazir Bhutto were leaders whom the Pakistani masses identified with and they were willing to forgive their minor failings in the name of ‘roti, kapda, ilm aur naukri.’ (Bread, clothing, education and jobs).
It may be difficult but hopefully someday just as the sacrifices and contributions of the Kennedys and Gandhi-Nehrus are now considered to far exceed their failings, the Bhuttos too will be given their due credit in Pakistan and the world.