To this day, Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto evokes strong reactions from supporters and opponents alike. Even here amongst thoughtful forummers such as Wazeeri, Momo and SheryarK, there is much difference of opinion.
There is no doubt that during the 1970s he inspired many ordinary people. Political consciousness was deepened and the marginalised, such as peasants and labourers, were able to assert their rights. Countless people were inspired to vote with their conscience and not swayed purely by local influence.
Bhutto’s charisma must be located within the context of the sense of crisis that many Pakistanis felt at the time. This was because the Ayub Khan years, with its focus on a capitalist led modernisation, with its emphasis on ‘functional inequality’ and ‘trickle down’ theories, lead to a grossly unequal society, with deepening social fissures. And secondly, the breakup of Pakistan in 1971 damaged Pakistani self-esteem.
Stepping into the opening created by the above was Bhutto, whose recourse to socialist rhetoric (the fact that he was a key member of the Ayub Khan’s capitalist regime was quickly forgotten), was best exemplified with the call for “roti, kapra aur makaan.”
This was an inspiring message for the impoverished of Pakistan. Bhutto styled himself as the voice of the people.
He was perhaps less ideologically committed to socialism than many of his PPP colleagues, but was the obvious choice for leadership, owing to his powerful, flamboyant oratory and ability to convey the message in populist terms.
He therefore came to symbolise the aspirations of many, his personality traits interacting with the social realities of the time.
During his rule he was more adept with foreign affairs than the handling of domestic issues.
The 1972 Simla Summit was his high point, where from position of weakness he managed to negotiate what was described in Pakistan as a triumph. It was a great contrast with the Tashkent summit that damaged Ayub Khan. He also chose shrewdly the right time to recognise Bangladesh, without facing calls of a “sell-out”, which was reciprocated by Mujib in the dropping of criminal cases against 195 prisoners of war. He also emphasised and moved towards closer ties with China and the Islamic world, thereby helping to restore Pakistani self-esteem. (Closer diplomatic ties with the Arab world also facilitated inflow of Libyan and Saudi money which was crucial for the nuclear programme.)
Unfortunately, he was not so adroit on the domestic front. He perpetuated the tradition in Pakistani political culture of authoritarianism and the viewing of opposition as illegitimate. He could be ruthless with opposition. Measures such as the High Treason Act, Prevention of Anti-National Activities Ordinance and Press and Publications Ordinance, were also used to tame civil society and strangle dissent. His treatment of opposition dissent was arguably the most damaging aspect of his regime.
The Civil War in Balochistan also revealed that little was truly learned from the creation of Bangladesh. Political dissent was not treated as a political problem requiring a political solution based on the conception of pluralism, but rather as a law and order issue to be ruthlessly suppressed by an over-centralised state.
Unfortunately the PPP could also not transform itself from a popular movement to a political party. The PPP’s patronage politics, factional rivalries, which had less to do with ideology and more to do with personality, ensured that it remained institutionally weak and thus Pakistan remained susceptible to Military renewal in politics. The fact that the PPP came to rely more on opportunistic landlords, summed up the extent to which ideology was subservient to personality and patronage politics.
His explosive language in the context of Sindhi-Mohajir relations was also distinctly unhelpful to the unity of the country. And his politically expedient concessions to religious groups laid the foundations for their later potential legitimacy.
Many have also judged his economic policies as being a disaster for Pakistan, stunting growth.
However it is also fair to point out that strong vested interests and the exogenous impact to the economy from the oil shock undermined attempts at social justice.
Nevertheless the Bhutto years represent an opportunity missed. Despite his populist rhetoric and charismatic appeal, democracy was weakened and authoritarianism was perpetuated.