Pakistan: fixing leadership

A couple of years ago, Tony Blair was putting up a number of possible heirs as alternatives to Gordon Brown. This saw a procession which included Alan Milburn, John Reid, and Charles Clarke all being dispatched as fast as they arrived on the scene. What we know now is that Blair missed a trick - he should have anointed Cherie, with Euan the longterm successor. The Labour Party would have clapped it through.

Those eulogising about Benzair Bhutto's democratic credentials must have been severely embarrassed when the contents of her will were read out. I have to at this point share something - before the succession was announced, I was half thinking that Mohammad Sarwar might announce he was going for the Pakistan People's Party leadership. As the PPP's highest profile UK supporter, he's standing down as an MP here, he was over in Pakistan when the assassination happened, and he enjoys a lot of popularity in the country as the first Pakistani to make it in Westminster.

It would have been a great fit. UK-Pakistan relations would be superb, and despite my numerous disagreements with the man, I could see him bringing something different to the political mix over there. That was a half-way serious thought, but in my second generation Pakistani naivity, I didn't fully take on board the level of feudal dynastic privilege in the country. It's the same kind of thinking that has seen him push forward his son as his successor Labour candidate in Glasgow Central.

Plus, he's actually Pakistani unlike Benazir, Bilawal or even Pakistan's founder - so this may actually have not counted in his favour.

What now for Pakistan? Shahid Alam guest posting at the Fanonite, puts it well when talking about Benazir's US dependency:

But did Benazir Bhutto  have an alternative?

Perhaps she did. Pakistan has a chance of averting a civil war, but only by distancing itself from the United States. This distancing is now vital for Pakistan: and one could argue, for the United States too. Only by distancing itself from the United States does any Pakistani government now have a chance of preventing the militants from overwhelming Pakistan itself. No government that cleaves to the United States and Israel has a chance of winning popular support in its efforts to contain the spread of the Islamist insurgency. Sadly, Benazir Bhutto too – like Musharraf – has cultivated the Israeli lobby in the United States.[3]

It is perhaps unrealistic to expect that Benazir Bhutto, had she had wanted to, could have done this on her own. However, if she had joined a pro-democracy and nationalist partnership with Nawaz Sharif – and perhaps some of the other parties in the opposition – together they had a fair chance of sending the Pakistani generals back to the barracks. It would not take Hazrat ‘Ali’s oratory to convince the Pakistanis that this partnership – and an independent foreign policy – were at this juncture indispensable for the integrity of Pakistan.

Lastly for just now, George Bush and Gordon Brown were both quick to leap on the war on terror bandwagon. The PM said immediately after the killing:

"This deadly attack is also a potent reminder of the threat we face from terror. Pakistan is a major ally in the global effort to combat this menace.  I told President Musharraf that the UK is prepared to sustain and build the already significant counter-terrorism support we offer his country, not least in the effort to destroy Al Qaida."

Bush said:

"The US strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who try to undermine Pakistan's democracy [sic]... We stand with the people of Pakistan against the forces of terror and extremism.

They both leaped on their own hobby-horses, but al-Qaeda have said they didn't do it, and the people are blaming Musharraf.

See also:

• Satire with Musab Bora
• Explanation of the picture above in the Mail on Sunday

Comments

[SH]

Osama, are you seriously comparing a democratic process in the Glasgow Central Labour Party to the current succession of the PPP in Pakistan.
Mr Sarwars son has been VOTED to stand as the candidate by the membership of the party - unlike the dynastic succession in Pakistan.
Lets not try and score cheap political points with inaccurate comments.......

[Shavez]

Yep, Sarwar stuffing a selection meeting full of his placemen is part of the democratic process.

Osama, Sarwar's people do seem to be taking your blog very seriously!

[SH]

In reply to Shavez

I am not one of 'Sarwar`s people' as you seem eager to point out - i am merely pointing out an inaccurate comment.

As to 'stuffing a selection meeting full of his placemen ' - The principle of democracy is that people have a free vote - whether they are aligned with one party(or person) or another is the nature of the system - that is like saying Labour is in government nationally because it got more of its voters out than the other parties - isn`t that the purpose of fair/free elections?

[Shavez]

Sure, you commented on one sentence out of this whole article in the interests of accuracy.

If it was truly accuracy you were interested in, you'll go back and read exactly what Osama wrote. He's talking about the kind of backward thinking that saw both Bhutto and Sarwar cast their eye over the entire world and come to the conclusion that the best people just happen to be their family members. It's the whole baradaree system, but even narrower.

If it was really accuracy you were interested in, you'll note that the PPP leadership committee ratified the selection of Zardari and son. Due process was followed, it just wasn't worth the paper it might be written on. In the same way, I'm sure you're not naive enough not to know how Sarwar's selection meetings work - 10 years ago, the meeting was packed full of "members" he signed up, most of whom couldn't give a stuff about Labour. The same thing happened in in 2007. Out of the whole of Glasgow Central, the meeting happened to be held in Pollokshields. The letter of the law may be followed, but is it within the spirit of it? Is it what the Athenians had in mind?

[SH]

I`m not sure what your implication is?
Do the people voting not have the freedom to choose who they vote for?
`The letter of the law may be followed` - exactly - the law has been adhered to. There was nothing stopping any other candidate bringing their supporters out to vote.
Also `Due process was followed, it just wasn't worth the paper it might be written on.` - what does this mean? I rather think you are confusing yourself.

[Shavez]

I'm well aware you won't get it.

[Umar Malik]

Word on the street in Pakistan is that Zardari was behind the killing and the will was actually fabricated. Scotland yard officers have also noted that since his release from prison a few years ago they have not been living together & their marital relations were strained, there are even rumours that they had started divorce proceedings. Also the 13 bodyguards around BB at the time of her killing were all Zardari's henchmen (& spent time in jail with him) & not part of BB's usual entourage -namely the janasheen Benazir (the fools prepared to die for BB as human shields, who bore the brunt of the Karachi attack in October). 8 of these bodyguards were killed in the attack and the other 5 are reported to be "missing". I was surprised that BB named Zardari successor knowing very well his reputation not only in the PPP but across the country.

It is unlikely that Musharraf or the ISI were behind it, although it is likely that the latter would have been aware of an impending attack, because nothing in Pakistan, especially pindi happens without the ISI knowing. Musharraf had no interest in eliminating BB.

[aineliva]

And "feudal dynastic privilege" of the male, is often and that's almost without fail, upheld and supported by religion, and claimed religious tradition.

And that lack of seperation of church, state, and the continuance of feudal and patriarchal, rights are the ones that scare a lot of people. Are you finally beginning to understand what the fears are Osama? I do believe that you do, but you are scared to actually voice that understanding.

As a coroner delivers a verdict on yet another woman, murdered by ignorance.