TIME alone can provide the necessary detachment for an objective assessment of the life, achievements and failures of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Zulfikar Al Bhutto, who was executed or Wednesday last.
No one — not even the most impenitent of his political foes could have wished Mr. Bhutto to have ended as tragically as he did. But, such a fate was made almost inevitable by the fact that he was found guilty as charged and the death sentence passed on him was finally upheld by the highest judicial forum in the land.
The judicial verdict notwithstanding, concern over the fate of a man of Mr. Bhuttos political stature and importance was only to be expected. There were appeals from foreign heads of State and governments and other dignitaries for show of mercy on humanitarian grounds, just as there were pleas within the country for executive clemency from a large cross-section of people - and not only from the ranks of Mr. Bhuttos partymen and admirers.
These pleas were in no way a reflection on the judicial verdict in the Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan murder case as such, nor could they all in reason be interpreted as attempts to obstruct the operation of the course of justice in the country.
For the most part they were motivated by humanitarian concern which is a natural impulse. Legitimate political considerations having a bearing upon the countrys internal situation and stability as well as those flowing from developments in Pakistans immediate neighbourhood, too, must have weighed with a section of foreign dignitaries and local leaders of opinion in making a plea for clemency.
Such considerations cannot entirely be ruled out in the particular context that presented itself when the judicial process in Mr. Bhuttos case finally ended and the ultimate decision whether to implement the verdict as pronounced, or to commute the sentence if warranted by extenuating circumstances or other factors, rested with the President because extra-judicial considerations and factors, including the larger interest of the community, are often involved in implementing judicial decisions in criminal cases, almost all constitutions in the world have provisions for clemency vesting the executive authority with the discretionary power to grant pardon or commute a sentence on grounds other than judicial.
In the case of Mr. Bhutto, the question of extenuation and other pertinent considerations must surely have been taken into account in such matters, the perspective for decisions cannot but be of the widest range and if, in that context, the weight of arguments tilted against Mr. Bhutto, one hopes that those arguments will prove right and the final decision to let Mr. Bhutto pay the forfeit of his life will come to be accepted as well-judged.
It is possible to have more than one opinion on Mr. Bhutto — not just because he was the countrys Prime Minister during one of the most fateful periods of its crisis-ridden existence. The main reason lies in the complex make-up of his personality and leadership and his style of government which were unique in many respects.
The key to a proper understanding of this highly gifted and dynamic political figure perhaps lies in his utterly feudal background; which was often at odds with his modern vision and outlook, his populist brand of politics, and his penchant for change and modernisation. As many events and developments spanning his long political career from 1958 clearly showed, often enough he failed to resolve the conflicts rooted in that fact and mad mistakes which were other wise not possible to make.
Some of his outstanding qualities as a leader — his brilliance, his capacity to sway the masses and his enormous capacity for work — must be weighed against some of his glaring weaknesses — his despotic manner, his lack of scruples and, most of all, his total intolerance of any dissent.
He set out to bring about fundamental and far reaching socio-economic changes — without a coherent philosophy or a proper scheme of priorities and without having the necessary cadre or any defined concept of social control. As a result, while no worthwhile success was achieved in the promised direction, in the process, the nations economy was gravely impaired and suffered jolts and dissipation it is still trying to recover from. The same story of ineptitude and serious gaps between promise and performance is true of many other reforms and changes that Mr Bhuttos Government introduced during its tenure in office.
Perhaps the most tragic of Mr. Bhuttos failures — and in a way the countrys — was the historic opportunity he missed for giving Pakistan a viable and well-adjusted democratic system which was, and still remains, the countrys foremost need. The time for it was most propitious in 1971 when he came to power as an elected leader with wide mass support, a comfortable majority in the House and, what is more, against the dark background of repeated failures and bunglings of successive dictatorial regimes.
But he spoilt it all by his autocratic method and policies and by smothering all criticism and dissent. Even within his own party he would demand complete conformity and obeisance, so that the party itself remained a helpless creature of his own will.
His last fatal blow to the nations democratic prospects was the rigging of 1977 elections which sparked off countrywide turmoil and unrest and led to yet another democratic derailment. It was perhaps in the area of external relations that the former Prime Minister was at his best. He was eminently qualified for the job, having seen the countrys Foreign Minister for a number of years under the Ayub Government.
In that capacity he played a crucial role in the shaping of some of the fundamental aspects of the countrys foreign policy which have since remained more or less unchanged. During his Prime Ministership, too, he generally pursued a correct policy, except that his drive for a leadership role in the Third World was overambitious, with its target greatly transcending the limitations of the countrys political, economic and diplomatic potential. No less important, the fact needs to be acknowledged that there was a positive aspect to the populism that he reached.
To be sure, he promised too many things to too many people and could not deliver the goods. But the fact that as head of government he confirmed the people, the correctness and legitimacy of their aspirations for a better life gave the ordinary people a sense of power and dignity they did not possess before. Many people rightly or wrongly, thought it to be a gift from him and were willing to cherish a most-dated cheque that they knew could not be encashed in the immediate future. The trend is an important and, in a historical perspective, irreversible development. It is a material force and will not disappear with, Mr Bhutto. Political leaders with vision and prudence will do well to recognise this change and seek to absorb this populism into the democratic polity that we seek to build.
We are yet too close to the events and emotions of the last phase of Mr. Bhuttos life to be able to make a balanced assessment of him as a person and as a politician. It will be quite some time before people can overcome the hold of extreme emotions that he and his actions always generated among his critics and admirers and begin to appraise him in an objective frame. How history will judge him is difficult to visualise. But when it does, it will be possible to have a complete picture of the man, who dominated Pakistans political scene for long years and who, with all his drawbacks and failures, remained a towering figure till the end of his life.
