THIS has been a truly horrendous week, what with Benazir Bhutto’s brutal assassination in Rawalpindi last Thursday. The thought of one so beautifully fragile and yet steely in determination, who had come to represent the hopes and aspirations of this country’s poor and disenfranchised, being eliminated in this shameful manner was so revolting that it has left the nation numb with fear and premonition of what lies ahead.

Pakistan has now been in existence for over 60 years, of which more than half has been under military rulers who have tried to stamp their own weird concepts on the nation’s psyche rather than adhere to principles enunciated by the founding fathers. The result is that the country today bears little resemblance to the dream that motivated millions of Muslims of this subcontinent to make the supreme sacrifice to turn their dreams into reality. A country established on the basis of a constitutional struggle and meant to be governed as a liberal democracy, where the rule of law would be supreme and where the rights of its citizens, irrespective of their caste or creed, accorded equal protection, has seen so many assaults on its physical and emotional well-being that it appears to have lost its very soul.

One military ruler showed contempt for that half of the country where the majority lived. Another was convinced that brutal suppression of this majority’s aspirations would turn them into docile creatures. The third pursued the task of making us all better Muslims in the belief that therein lay redemption for his transgressions and salvation for the nation. The next has given us a mishmash of confused thinking that has gone by the sobriquet of ‘enlightened moderation’.

The latest manifestation of this philosophy was a virtual coup against its own self, which resulted in the dismissal of over 60 judges of the highest courts and imprisonment of many of them, along with severe limitations on the media. Thereafter we were made to witness the unprecedented farce of the same person, in his dual capacity as the army chief and president, bestowing on himself powers that neither office possessed nor merited, while seeking to cover his tracks with a veneer of legality. This unprecedented mauling of the Constitution left even wizened cynics bewildered.

Admittedly, this nation’s silent majority has endured so many insults and affronts for so long that our leaders, especially those that come on horseback, have come to believe in their indispensability as well as their invincibility. After all, power is a heady wine and it is not unusual for those who have imbibed it to believe that it is only their wisdom and leadership that has kept the ship of state afloat. Many a mortal puffed up by this brew sees himself transformed into a Zeus, atop Mount Olympus, as invulnerable to the laws of nature as was the ancient god of the Greeks. But the world is littered with the remains of tragic figures who not having read history have failed to draw lessons from it.

Gen (retd) Musharraf has enjoyed absolute power for eight years, during which he has neither brooked any challenge nor permitted opposition to his philosophy of ‘unity of command’. Early this year the president’s re-election appeared to be a formality, such was the resignation with which this event was viewed. However, the president was not satisfied with being elected to a fresh term. He succumbed to an ailment commonly referred to as hubris, which according to ancient lore afflicts all those who no longer view themselves as mere mortals.

Thanks however to this overreach, his election, instead of calming the raging storm, has only inflamed passions which appear to have woken up the sleeping citizens of this land. An unprecedented polarisation has prompted the educated middle classes, generally referred to as civil society, to enter the fray. It is this phenomenon that has unnerved the regime’s supporters.

In fact the country has been in a state of perpetual crisis ever since the failed attempt to oust the Chief Justice in March last year. The general elections were expected to usher in a new order that would start the healing process, but with Benazir Bhutto’s assassination a grievous wound has been inflicted on the soul of this nation. Any effort to influence the country’s future political dispensation in the direction of ‘controlled democracy’ will be disastrous. After Benazir’s death, people will no longer countenance any such manipulation. The political leaders too bear a heavy responsibility. They have the opportunity of bringing about a genuine transformation that can usher in a democratic political dispensation, provided they eschew immediate advantages in favour of long-term national gains.

If in life Benazir Bhutto represented the link among the four provinces, in death she has become larger than life, an icon that can be used either to strengthen the federation or inflict a grievous injury on it, as evident from the deep anxiety and apprehension being expressed in world capitals. This is not only because Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons but, more importantly, because it is viewed as the ‘epicentre of global terrorism’ that could well become a ‘failed state’. In the US presidential debates, most candidates characterised Pakistan as the world’s most dangerous place, with Hillary Clinton declaring: “I think Musharraf has failed to deliver on democracy, his is now basically a one-person rule.” So much for years of ‘enlightened moderation’.

The major powers, in particular the United States, are watching unfolding events with increasing concern. After all, Benazir’s death has left Washington with no alternative plan or person on which to fashion its policy, in a country where it has invested so much of its time and money. But Pakistan’s tragedy provides the US with an opportunity as well. Its policy towards Islamabad will have an important bearing on other Muslim countries. Will the US be a force for democracy and rule of law in Pakistan or will its foreign policy remain bereft of morality and geared only towards promotion of its great power interests?

So far its track record has not been encouraging. But now is the moment for the US to redeem its pledges and recover its lost honour. It has to come out, fairly and forcefully, in support of complete restoration of a civilian, elected, democratic dispensation in Pakistan. This is what the people of Pakistan want and only such a leadership can be an effective and credible partner of the US in the war on terror.

How very strange that only a couple of days before this tragedy struck the nation, the president had spoken of his regime’s achievements and then vowed to take the country forward on the path of progress and prosperity. That same day, the Pope in his Christmas message lamented the “grim sound of arms” in the world’s conflict zones, characterising Pakistan as a “tortured region”. Many Pakistanis had been upset at what they felt was an uncharitable characterisation but today which of us would want to quibble with the Pope. Pakistan, I dare say, appears hurtling down a perilous course.

THE wound inflicted on the body politic of Pakistan by the judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has not healed despite the passage of 28 long years. Benazir was a balm for that wound. Her assassination has not only removed the balm but has opened a new wound for which there is no balm in sight.

Her assassination and the ‘law and order’ situation it has created has brought into focus a number of issues which a simple resolution of the constitutional crisis will not overcome. These issues have been pointed out by the writer many times in the last decade, especially when crises have occurred, but neither the media, the establishment nor the politicians have taken them seriously.

Two of these issues are important. The first deals with the nature of the ‘law and order’ situation and the other with the vulnerability of Karachi. Both are closely interrelated.

First, the ‘law and order’ situation. The looting, arson and destruction of property that has taken place is not a simple law and order situation. It has to be understood that you cannot create small islands of insensitive and arrogant affluence in a sea of increasing poverty and deprivation on the one hand and a ruthlessly manipulated political and judicial dispensation on the other.

In the eight years of Musharraf’s rule, already inadequate public health and education systems have collapsed. Private education is far too expensive for the poor and so is public-sector higher education.

This has effectively curtailed social and economic mobility in an era where social values are changing and new aspirations are surfacing. In the last eight years there has been no investment in social housing and people are now forced to live on the streets which they did not do before. Unemployment has doubled in low-income areas and with it organised street crime has increased enormously.

Inflation has broken the back of the poor while all around them are symbols of affluence and consumerism promoted by the media, billboards and aggressive advertising by banks and leasing companies. The world of Pakistan, has in the last few years, been clearly divided between the haves and those who can-never-have as opposed to the have-nots.

Interviews with persons standing in long queues at utility stores tell us that people wait there for hours just to save Rs50 per month while above these stores are hoardings advertising Toyota cars and luxury items.

Other interviews inform us that an increasing number of people who took a bus to work before now walk six to eight kilometres to and from work just to save Rs15 per day while they are surrounded by an increasing sea of new cars and motorcycles. One news item that the press has not carried is that during the recent disturbances in Karachi, not only cellphones but a number of bicycles were also snatched.

This is the situation in Karachi. The situation in the rural areas and small towns of our province is much worse. To put salt on these wounds our president and prime minister have informed us on more than one occasion that Pakistani society is rich and affluent since it has purchased more cars, TV sets, motorcycles and cellphones than ever before in its history.

Travelling in different parts of Karachi and from the city to beyond Ghagar Phatak via the National Highway, as I did on Dec 30, 2007, you see nothing but burnt-out cars, trucks and trailers, attacked universities and schools, destroyed factories and government buildings and banks, petrol pumps and ‘posh’ food outlets — all symbols of exploitation; institutions where the poor cannot afford to study; businesses where they cannot get jobs; government offices where they have to pay bribes and where they are insulted and abused.

This is not a law and order situation but an outpouring, not only of grief but of anger against corruption, injustice and hunger. Many of the food-carrying vehicles were looted and around their burnt remains there is still evidence of the flour and sugar they were carrying. It is important to note that along the highway no khokhas, small eating places and modest shops had been burnt or damaged.

The second issue is the vulnerability of Karachi. It has to be understood that unless issues related to political relationships, poverty, justice and equity are not resolved, this vulnerability will grow. The city depends on its hinterland for everything: water, food and livelihood for a large section of the population who work in the wholesale markets and the services sector. Government institutions, especially federal ones, that control much of the land and employment-generating assets of the city, have looted these assets for their own benefit.

The persons who man these institutions and the politicians that support them have to realise that Karachi is the capital of Sindh and as such its resources are primarily for the people of Sindh, especially for the betterment of the province’s less-developed regions. They have to realise that the city cannot survive a four- to five-day closure of the highways that supply it with food and the conduits that supply it with water, and in the absence of these there will only be looting and anarchy, the beginnings of which we have witnessed in the last few days.

Politicians have to realise that in the long run dependence on the army to guarantee the continuation of these supplies is not an option that should be pursued for it damages the democratic process and skews the relationship between the different actors in Sindh’s political drama. The only solution lies in striving for a broad-based consensus on how the province is to be governed and developed.

This consensus should not be based on political opportunism and so-called pragmatism but on an understanding of history and on moral and ethical values which alone can guarantee development and relationships based on justice and equity. In the absence of such a consensus, Karachi will remain vulnerable and the rest of Sindh will remain alienated from it.

arifhasan@cyber.net.pk

THE Pakistan People’s Party’s decision to nominate Benazir Bhutto’s son, Bilawal Zardari, as its new chairman may have ended the speculation over the slain leader’s successor. But the party is on course for a confrontation with the country’s Constitution.

According to the Political Parties Order 2002 and the Constitution of Pakistan, Bilawal is ineligible to hold any office in any political party. He is just 19 years old. He needs to be at least 25 to be an eligible candidate.

The Political Parties Order 2002 says: “Every citizen, not being in the service of Pakistan, shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party or be otherwise associated with a political party or take part in political activities or be elected as an office-bearer of a political party: Provided that a person shall not be appointed or serve as an office-bearer of a political party if he is not qualified to be, or is disqualified from being, elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-i-Shoora (Parliament) under Article 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or under any other law for the time being in force.”

According to the Constitution, one must be at least 25 years old to become a member of parliament. Thus, Bilawal is ineligible to be the PPP’s chairman.

What appears to be a big blunder could possibly be a deliberate move to counter advances by others to stake claim to the party leadership. Fatima Bhutto, the daughter of Murtaza Bhutto and the niece of Benazir, is 25. Her mother Ghinwa Bhutto is the head of a breakaway faction of the PPP, the Pakistan People’s Party (Shaheed Bhutto).

The PPP leadership is aware of the importance of the ‘Bhutto factor’ in the party’s success in the forthcoming elections. It must have felt that only a ‘Bhutto’ can keep the party intact. It was also intended to resolve the dilemma of deciding which of the three breakaway factions of the PPP — the PPP, PPP (Shaheed Bhutto) and PPP (Sherpao) — can lay claim to legitimacy.

Asif Ali Zardari, who was said to have been nominated as the chairman by Ms Bhutto in her will, quite tactfully accepted his wife’s decision, and then cleverly passed on the baton to his son Bilawal. He was renamed Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It is realised that a non-Bhutto name will not survive long and Zardari could not have been able to keep the party united. He may be accepted as the party’s leader for the time being by the senior leadership; however, when the grief over Benazir’s death subsides, it will be difficult for him to remain in full control.

Zardari is now the co-chairman of the party. In this capacity he will be the person at the helm and take all decisions. Bilawal’s chairpersonship will be at best symbolic.

Zardari proved his political astuteness when Benazir was prime minister twice. He had the ability to influence his wife’s political decisions. He has done the same after her death.

The succession episode clearly proves that politics in Pakistan is not a discipline. Political parties are not an institution. No qualifications and experience are required to be a politician. Other disciplines are far more professional. If you have to hire a butler, you would look for a number of qualities in the prospective candidate. But in politics, nothing is a prerequisite.

But does it matter that politics should be a discipline, political parties should be institutions? The fate of the people of Pakistan is not in their hands. The political parties may win elections and form governments but they never represent the wishes of the people.

They might want to change the lot of the people but they are held hostage by the dictatorial forces like the military establishment, jihadis and clerics. The best example is of the judiciary. For the first time in Pakistan’s history, the judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had started operating in an independent manner. It was not tolerated by the then in-uniform president who sacked the former under the cover of emergency on November 3.

So it really does not matter who heads the PPP — Bilawal, Zardari or any X, Y, Z. Pakistan will continue to be run by the three As — Allah, Army and America.

rageshri2@yahoo.com