NEW YORK, Aug 11: Former prime minister Ms Benazir Bhutto “sees herself as the solution to President Pervez Musharraf’s problems” provided he concedes to some of her demands, says the Wall Street Journal.

“In Pakistan there are two fault lines,” the newspaper quoted her as saying. “One is dictatorship versus democracy. And one is moderation versus extremism. So while we are on opposite sides of the spectrum on the one end we have something in common on the other end. So we have been meeting with Gen Musharraf to see how we could agree on a plan to move Pakistan in the direction of credible elections and the restoration of a truly democratic government.” The WSJ reported that “Ms Bhutto plans to return to Pakistan quite soon, perhaps within a matter of weeks”.

Ms Bhutto told Dawn that she plans to return by the end of “November or December”.

Ms Bhutto, the WSJ said, expressed fears that “(Gen) Musharraf could have her arrested, or that he will declare a state of emergency,-- or that he will use brazen or subtle methods to rig the elections.

“She is plainly confident that her party will score big at the polls if given a fair chance, and that, whether as prime minister or from behind the scenes, she will be at its helm. In a life marked by the sharpest reversals of fortune, it's another turn of, and at, the wheel,” the WSJ said.

Analysing the situation, the WSJ says: “Mr Musharraf’s problem, in effect, is that he is attempting to oblige two opposite constituencies: on the one hand, (religious) political parties, on whom he depends for parliamentary support and as a bulwark against Pakistan’s democratic forces; on the other hand, the US, on whom he also depends for financial support, international legitimacy and a genuinely shared interest in combating Al Qaeda (though not necessarily lesser terrorist groups).”

Ms Bhutto, the WSJ says, on her part also offered a more subtle and cohesive analysis, in which she describes as President Musharraf’s “ambiguity of policies” toward religious extremism. “The military regime,” she argues, “needs the threat of Al Qaeda and the militants to justify military rule, to justify the derailment of democracy … and also because it brings the money in. You see, if there is no threat, there is no money”.