Zardari in the context of history

by Ayaz Amir

We have a developed talent, honed over the years, for counting the trees and missing the larger picture. This leads to false conclusions and the begetting of great tragedies.

Let us for argument’s sake accept that Asif Ali Zardari, the luckless president of a luckless country, is the author of a thousand villainies, the darkest thing to have happened to the Islamic Republic. But let us at least weigh his real or presumed infamy in the scales of history before coming to a judgment about what he deserves.

Has Zardari done anything which comes close to the unbeatable folly of the 1965 war?

If anything undid us it was that foolish call to arms. We had set out to conquer Kashmir. At Tashkent we ended up lowering the casket of the Kashmir cause into the ground. Do Zardari’s alleged crimes measure up to the folly of General Yahya Khan who presided over the break-up of Pakistan? We couldn’t stand the notion of meeting East Pakistani aspirations half-way, just as we are having a hard time now understanding Baluchi aspirations.  

The frenzied crowds, which poured out in 1977 to protest the alleged rigging of the elections by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto called for the establishment of Nizam-e-Mustafa (the teachings of the Prophet). Like the supposed reformers of today who think they are battling corruption, the enthusiasts of 1977 were convinced the promised kingdom was just a step away if only that incarnation of evil, Bhutto, was taken care of.  

Bhutto was taken care of and eventually hanged but the frothing crowds were no nearer Nizam-e-Mustafa or anything like it. Instead, for their pains, they got General Ziaul Haq and the long night of his dark tyranny. Zia first proclaimed his aim as Islamisation. Then it was accountability. These were pretexts for suppressing democracy and perpetuating his rule. Zia was perhaps the greatest disaster to befall Pakistan. We are still living with the consequences.  

Nothing in our history has been more dangerous than the simplicity and innocence of our good intentions. It is scarcely an accident that many of the voices now earnestly urging the Supreme Court to embrace an ever-widening agenda of reform were early supporters of Musharraf’s military rule.

Imran Khan, to his lasting chagrin, was also part of the Musharraf-welcome crowd. At least Imran has the decency to say he was wrong. Others are not so coy. There was indeed a time when prominent media pundits, now in ultra-reformist mode, conducted themselves virtually as Musharraf spokesmen.

Zardari may deserve all the pejorative adjectives in the dictionary but has he committed any crime, which comes close to the enormity of the disaster that was Kargil? That adventure was meant to seize advantage in Kashmir once again. It ended up exposing Pakistan to fierce international criticism and giving birth to the term cross-border terrorism, the stick with which Pakistan has been regularly beaten ever since.

Talking of Musharraf’s military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO.  

Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover for the second time in 2005.

Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility.

And if we accept the logic that there can be a transformation in the nature of things, that people who did questionable things once-upon-a-time can undergo a conversion on the road to Damascus and become knights in shining armour, dispensing light and so on, should not some of the same indulgence, the same benefit of doubt, be extended to others?  Zardari cut deals and for his talent earned the sobriquet Mr Ten Percent. You reap what you sow. So if Zardari is haunted by the ghosts of his past, and if his past keeps popping up in conversation and national discourse, he has only himself to blame. But now, whether we like it or not, he is something more than a mere replica of his past. He is the constitutionally elected President of the Republic.

For his failings in government, for his mistakes as President, for incompetence or inadequacy—if these are the charges brought against him—he can be pilloried and even ridiculed. This is part of democracy, part of the political process. 

But when hidden forces with their hidden agendas go about manipulating things, pulling strings from behind, and if elements in the media or other distinguished places become witting or unwitting partners in this game, then it is not democracy being served or strengthened but intrigue and conspiracy.

The Supreme Court judgment on the vires of the 2007 PCO came on the 31st of July, 2009. But the knives were out for Zardari much before that. Zardari of course heads a team with no shortage of incompetents on board.

In a land even otherwise dedicated to mediocrity they seemingly outshine all competitors. President Zardari can also be his own worst enemy. Who told him to deliver the speech he did at Naudero on BB’s second death anniversary? There were things in it, which were best left unsaid.

Their lordships are all men of honour and rectitude who stood up to Musharraf’s dictatorship and gave hope to the country. But their lordships are just one part of the national spectrum. If they are men of honour it doesn’t automatically follow that everyone else in the equation is also playing by the same rules.

Cleansing the national stables is a laudable aim and makes for a heady slogan. But as our history demonstrates, good intentions, unsupported by a sense of reality or a sense of proportion, lead to unforeseen consequences.

The temple of democracy is a cohesive whole. There is no such thing as smashing one pillar and hoping the rest of the structure will survive. It won’t. And when the slabs come crashing down, we will be the losers while those who have always operated in the shadows will have the last laugh. So Happy New Year. Our curse is to live forever in interesting times. May the New Year be a bit less exciting than the one which has just gone by.

Ayaz Amir is a distinguished commentator and Member of National Assembly. This column was first published in Khaleej Times

2 thoughts on “Zardari in the context of history

  1. Thank you Mr Mir for the article. I don’t think you are an admirer of Mr Zardari but one must give the devil the credit for not attacking Kashmir or breaking up Pakistan!

    BUT and it’s a bigger BUT than ever before – will he be equal to the other cuplprits (you have mentioned) once he has succeeded in making a small meal of what’s on his platter?

    I am not looking forward to that (Mr Zardari being considered equal to Gen Yahya) but you have definitely a way of saying things (am sure which Mr Zardari likes).

  2. A wise man once said;Around a man who has been pushed into the limelight,a legend begins to grow
    as it does around a dead one.But a dead man is in
    no danger of yielding to the temptation to nourish
    his legend,or accept its picture as reality.I pity
    the man who falls in love with his image as it is
    drawn by public opinion during the honeymoon of publicity.
    Your errors of the past make your relation to others difficult when the present shows you that you might repeat them.
    Both these quotations reflect on the personality
    under discussion in this article.The wise man was
    an ardent follower of sufi thoughts was a Swedish
    Diplomat and Stateman who died in 1960 while serving as UN Secretary General.Should we dig the
    culprits of 1965, 1971 and 1979 and place them on
    trial in the Supreme Court now it is Independent or take steps to prevent what is present and likely to commit far greater blunder/s that would
    not leave any tears to wipe off.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *