Would Bhutto have broken into national politics in modern-day Pakistan as he did in 1970?

[Slog]

People often term Bhutto (and PPP's) win in West Pakistan as a seminal moment in Pakistan history. They cite a man and a party which had never contested an election before succeed in winning the 2 biggest provinces of West Pakistan and also getting representation in NWFP. For Bhutto's win he managed to get people of Sindh on his side and also people from all over Punjab to vote for him.

Today in Pakistan we see a very divided party where it is nigh on impossible to imagine a party with roots in Sindh winning in Punjab (at best PPP would compete in South Punjab where it does have strong roots) or a Punjab-centric party winning significant votes in Sindh (Karachi or interior).

Id wager that even in KPK, where a Punjab based party ie PTI won, it would be tough for a purely Punjabi party such as PML-N to win big. Ofcourse our brothers up north have shown time and again to be more capable than the rest of Pakistan to be able to hold politicians accountable and vote them out on basis of performance. But its also incorrect to act as if PTI's Pashtun tilt or the fact that Imran Khan has part-Pashtun ancestry doesnt have anything to do with the affection people from KPK may have for PTI. I'm sure they might vote them out if they have to but it is true that MMA, ANP and other previous winners all have had strong roots in KPK. (Though PPP and PML-N have also had some success so have to give credit to the people of KPK)

Anyways the reason for my somewhat rambling note above is that its not incorrect to say that the following conclusion is more or less a hallmark of our current political state: Pakistani society is extremely polarized on politics and more than likely each region will only consider leaders and politicians from their own area. And as such the chances of a national leader or party emerging are negligible?

Now I do not know the minute details of Bhutto's rise but it is true that he managed to capture the attention and support of majority of the West Pakistani awaam. The question is that were he present in today's society would he have been able to replicate that?


On a side note:
I have always personally felt that Bhutto's win against the odds is given a lot more spin than it was. People often discount that it was the FIRST general election held in Pakistan. Prior to that no general election had been held at national level. And the Muslim League had been disintegrated by that point. So in a way Bhutto and PPP were competing in an open field. There were no entrenched families winning elections in constituencies for generations like you see today. Any new party or movement today will not have this crucial advantage which Bhutto had. Yes a lot of his wins in 1970 were with new candidates but those candidates too were often competing against first-time election candidates and asking votes of first-time voters with no long-standing loyalty to any political dynasty or family.
[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION] [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION] [MENTION=2071]saadibaba[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION] and others

 

[Black Zero]

- IK is arguably the most popular political figure in Pakistan at the moment after NS
- very few would disagree that IK had been politically naive during last 25 years.(he has been used by almost everyone)
- Bhutto was atleast ten times the politician if we compare him with IK.
- no one could ever full fill the gap for national leader. (Both NS and IK are just local leaders ), so vacuum is still there.

So, I am confident that he would have similar success with the people and at polling both.

 

[hafeezrocks]

- IK is arguably the most popular political figure in Pakistan at the moment after NS
- very few would disagree that IK had been politically naive during last 25 years.(he has been used by almost everyone)
- Bhutto was atleast ten times the politician if we compare him with IK.
- no one could ever full fill the gap for national leader. (Both NS and IK are just local leaders ), so vacuum is still there.

So, I am confident that he would have similar success with the people and at polling both.

Why would you call IK a local leader when he has decent to extreme popularity in all the provinces? NS can be classified as a local leader as most of his supporters are Punjab based.

 

[Black Zero]

Why would you call IK a local leader when he has decent to extreme popularity in all the provinces? NS can be classified as a local leader as most of his supporters are Punjab based.

Lol
In that case, IK will be a third rate national leader.

Back to the topic, there is a vacuum of leadership in pakistan, that it would have been walk in the park for bhutto to checkmate everyone considering army decided to remain in background.

 

[Slog]

Lol
In that case, IK will be a third rate national leader.

Back to the topic, there is a vacuum of leadership in pakistan, that it would have been walk in the park for bhutto to checkmate everyone considering army decided to remain in background.

Find that hard to believe

 

[Pakistanian]

People often term Bhutto (and PPP's) win in West Pakistan as a seminal moment in Pakistan history. They cite a man and a party which had never contested an election before succeed in winning the 2 biggest provinces of West Pakistan and also getting representation in NWFP. For Bhutto's win he managed to get people of Sindh on his side and also people from all over Punjab to vote for him.

Today in Pakistan we see a very divided party where it is nigh on impossible to imagine a party with roots in Sindh winning in Punjab (at best PPP would compete in South Punjab where it does have strong roots) or a Punjab-centric party winning significant votes in Sindh (Karachi or interior).

Id wager that even in KPK, where a Punjab based party ie PTI won, it would be tough for a purely Punjabi party such as PML-N to win big. Ofcourse our brothers up north have shown time and again to be more capable than the rest of Pakistan to be able to hold politicians accountable and vote them out on basis of performance. But its also incorrect to act as if PTI's Pashtun tilt or the fact that Imran Khan has part-Pashtun ancestry doesnt have anything to do with the affection people from KPK may have for PTI. I'm sure they might vote them out if they have to but it is true that MMA, ANP and other previous winners all have had strong roots in KPK. (Though PPP and PML-N have also had some success so have to give credit to the people of KPK)

Anyways the reason for my somewhat rambling note above is that its not incorrect to say that the following conclusion is more or less a hallmark of our current political state: Pakistani society is extremely polarized on politics and more than likely each region will only consider leaders and politicians from their own area. And as such the chances of a national leader or party emerging are negligible?

Now I do not know the minute details of Bhutto's rise but it is true that he managed to capture the attention and support of majority of the West Pakistani awaam. The question is that were he present in today's society would he have been able to replicate that?


On a side note:
I have always personally felt that Bhutto's win against the odds is given a lot more spin than it was. People often discount that it was the FIRST general election held in Pakistan. Prior to that no general election had been held at national level. And the Muslim League had been disintegrated by that point. So in a way Bhutto and PPP were competing in an open field. There were no entrenched families winning elections in constituencies for generations like you see today. Any new party or movement today will not have this crucial advantage which Bhutto had. Yes a lot of his wins in 1970 were with new candidates but those candidates too were often competing against first-time election candidates and asking votes of first-time voters with no long-standing loyalty to any political dynasty or family.

[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION] [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION] [MENTION=2071]saadibaba[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION] and others

He's full pashtun by heritage.

 

[Slog]

He's full pashtun by heritage.

im not sure.

i think from his mother's side he is a muhajir (or thats what he claimed last year)

either way he has been based in punjab for generations so its hard to call him a proper pathan and likely doesnt have roots there

 

[King-Misbah]

im not sure.

i think from his mother's side he is a muhajir (or thats what he claimed last year)

either way he has been based in punjab for generations so its hard to call him a proper pathan and likely doesnt have roots there

A muhajir does not only mean Urdu speaking person.

 

[Slog]

A muhajir does not only mean Urdu speaking person.

Where did I say it does?

 

[JoniInsafian]

Why?? So he can further ruin Pakistan with his socialist **?? The guy was worst of Socialism and worst of Wadera culture rolled together... Set Pakistan 10 years back and responsible for break up of country...

 

[Nostalgic]

I should tag @KB here. I'm sure he can offer insights that escape the rest of us.

[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], the ethnic angle that you allude to in your post is an intriguing discussion, given how by the looks of it, barring KP, the rest of the country votes for their own ethnicity. I would add that there's a sectarian angle too. It would be unlikely for Bhutto, were he to be around today, to secure the bulk of the national vote, at least in part because of his sect.

Even back in his day, he felt compelled to label his New Left-inspired ideology as "Islamic" socialism. In spite of having no real competitors, he felt compelled to defer to the maulvis on certain constitutional matters, e.g. the Ahmadi issue. Towards the end, he was actively trying to prove his Islamic credentials, ergo the alcohol ban, the Friday holiday etc. Part of this could be explained by how his socialism, such as it was, was suspect, and I'm not sure if there was an outright sectarian angle in the opposition to him, but I wouldn't be surprised. If so, it has only been exacerbated in the decades since his death.

 

[Nostalgic]

Another detail that may go against him is his colorful personal life. He did have at least one known mistress, there's the alcohol, hence his famous statements that he "only drank a little bit," and that "he drank (alcohol), not the awaam's blood."

I say it may go against him, not that it necessarily would, because even today, in spite of the puritanical bend of so many, Imran Khan continues to be popular in spite of the peccadilloes of his past. However, it should be remembered that both men, Bhutto and Khan, have had to take certain measures to distance themselves from this aspect of their lives, so they both understood (and understand in the case of Khan) that the public would prefer someone leading an apparently pious life, even if they are willing to overlook it if need be.

 

[Black Zero]

Another detail that may go against him is his colorful personal life. He did have at least one known mistress, there's the alcohol, hence his famous statements that he "only drank a little bit," and that "he drank (alcohol), not the awaam's blood."

I say it may go against him, not that it necessarily would, because even today, in spite of the puritanical bend of so many, Imran Khan continues to be popular in spite of the peccadilloes of his past. However, it should be remembered that both men, Bhutto and Khan, have had to take certain measures to distance themselves from this aspect of their lives, so they both understood (and understand in the case of Khan) that the public would prefer someone leading an apparently pious life, even if they are willing to overlook it if need be.

Pro: "Good" politician will always find a way to trick the general public.
Con: “The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.” -- Oscar

 

[DW44]

Dawn ran an article by NFP a few days ago arguing that Imran is pretty much the modern day Bhutto. The writer made some compelling arguments. Here's the article:

SMOKERS’ CORNER: IMRAN AS BHUTTO'S HEIR


Recently Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan has been referencing former prime minister Z.A. Bhutto (ZAB) to contextualise his political standing. Ever since his dramatic rise in 2011, Khan has often compared the dynamics of his party’s populist upsurge with those of Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in the late 1960s.

It is quite apparent that Khan has been studying the early history of the PPP to explain and even understand his own rise, and more so, what to do with it. This was not the case before 2011 when Imran’s party was a tiny entity which — since its birth in the mid-1990s — was more of a reactive lobby of sorts, and a political expression of a man who had abruptly discovered a world which he had hidden himself from as a flamboyant cricketer and an ‘international sex symbol.’

In 2011, Khan’s political status and party began to experience a sudden lift and momentum. This thrust was aided by the social and political ruptures which had been created by an unprecedented rise in terrorism; the tense relations between the Zardari regime and the military establishment; a buckling economy; and a growing but increasingly restless urban middle class that couldn’t transform its cumulative economic influence into political leverage. Some political scientists have described this new middle class (in the Muslim world) as the ‘blocked elite.’

Khan was unprepared after the 2013 election when the PTI rose to become a truly animated populist enormity. And this is when Khan’s references to ZAB began in earnest. After sailing through an entirely secular, glamorous and apolitical existence as a popular sportsman and a so-called ‘playboy’ in the 1970s and 1980s, Khan rolled over to the right after his retirement from cricket in 1992.

He was initially mentored by far-right figures such as the former chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the late Gen Hamid Gul. Later, he fell in with the political philosophy of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). However, once hit by that sudden wave of populism after 2011, Khan was quick to realise that the dynamics of populist politics are not compatible with the right-wing elitism and exclusivism advocated by Gen Gul and the JI.

This is when Khan began to closely study the rise of Z.A. Bhutto because he felt that he was now in the same furrow that Bhutto had been in when he rose rapidly as a populist entity in the late 1960s. When Khan promised a “naya (new) Pakistan” in 2011, he was simply exhuming a slogan which Bhutto had used in December 1971. Author Phillip E. Jones in his essay on Bhutto in the History of Pakistan — edited and compiled by Robert D. Long — points out that Bhutto promised a ‘new Pakistan’ immediately after taking over as president from Gen Yahya Khan.

But when Bhutto used this expression, he had done so to explain a country which was already new, having lost its eastern wing (East Pakistan) in a civil war. What was once West Pakistan was now the only Pakistan and Bhutto described it as “naya Pakistan.” So Khan rehashed this slogan in the context of a different reality.

But he did see similarities between the violent ethnic militancy in the former East Pakistan and the post-2007 mushrooming of religious militancy in the Pakhtun-majority tribal areas (Fata) and in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). This perception greatly angers Pakhtun nationalists. They see Khan naively echoing a now-eroded perception which explains religious militancy in KP and Fata as an evolutionary expression of Pakhtun nationalism.

Pakhtun nationalist parties such as the Awami National Party and the Pakhtunkhawa Milli Awami Party have insisted that (between the early and mid-2000s) certain sections of the ‘establishment’ proliferated this perception in order to neutralise the Pakhtun nationalist sentiment. This perception has now largely evaporated, mainly due to the unprecedented belligerence of extremist militant outfits against the state, and the continual mainstreaming of established Pakhtun nationalist parties.

When Khan saw his party become a large and boisterous outfit after 2011, he was forced to expand the party’s message. For this he again went back to Bhutto. In his speeches between 2011 and 2014, Khan often praised the social welfare model on which the economies of various Scandinavian countries were constructed.

PPP’s 1967 founding documents too praised the ‘Scandinavian model.’ The PPP used this to explain the party’s meaning of socialism. But Khan adopted the other aspect which the founding documents also emphasised: i.e. an admiration for the economic policies encouraged by various established social democratic parties in Europe.

But economics alone did not contribute to the making of European welfare states. Social democracy also advocates various left-liberal ideas in the social sphere which are entirely anathema to the more conservative sections of Pakistani society. Once again, Khan returned to Bhutto to address this dilemma.

Jones in the aforementioned essay wrote that when the PPP came under attack by the JI for ‘promoting atheistic socialism’, Bhutto encouraged Hanif Ramay to insert the term ‘Islamic Socialism’ in the party’s manifesto. Bhutto began to describe the party’s socialism as Masawat-i-Muhammadi. Christophe Jaffrelot in The Pakistan Paradox wrote that Bhutto often explained Masawat-i-Muhammadi as the just and egalitarian system implemented by the Prophet (PBUH) in seventh-century Madina.

Khan has adopted this posture word for word. While Bhutto was constantly attacked for being ‘anti-Islam’, Khan — apart from being hailed by a large section of the quasi-liberal middle classes — is championed by a new breed of religious conservatives.

I believe this is due to the one thing which Khan did and Bhutto did not: Practice religious ritualism in public.

For example, Mehboob Hussain in his paper “Islamisation of the Constitution” wrote that in 1973 when Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam chief Maulana Noorani wanted the Bhutto regime to amend the constitution to make certain Muslim rituals compulsory, the government responded by saying: “Pakistan was not created to uphold the rituals of Islam, but to implement Islam’s economic system that was egalitarian.”

Khan left this bit out from his continuing usage of Bhutto’s rhetoric and ideas. Instead, he began performing the namaaz on stage during his rallies. At least this is one reason why his social democratic rhetoric has drawn a more positive response from conservatives than Bhutto’s did.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1355342

 

[Pakistanian]

im not sure.

i think from his mother's side he is a muhajir (or thats what he claimed last year)

either way he has been based in punjab for generations so its hard to call him a proper pathan and likely doesnt have roots there

That just means immigrant, his mother is Pashtun. His maternal cousin is Majid Khan.

 

[Pakistanian]

Where did I say it does?

a lot of people from east Punjab migrated to Pakistan after 1947, that included pathans that were living on that side.

 

[Markhor]

You've partly answered your question yourself but just to add:

1) Bhutto came to power at a time of acute national crisis and was able to exploit popular discontent. Ayub was greatly discredited after the Tashkent Agreement and Bhutto used that moment to break with Ayub even though he was part of the government during the 1965 war. The "decade of development" was stalling as food prices rose and mass demonstrations erupted, especially in East Pakistan where tensions were running high leaving the country on the brink of civil war that led to the secession of the Eastern Wing in 1971.

Bhutto then was able to consolidate power after 1971 by presenting himself as a national figurehead who could heal the wounds of a humiliated nation, that experienced two wars in six years, and moved closer to the Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Libya who in return provided money for the nuclear programme.

Pakistan has its many problems but Bhutto would not benefit from such unique circumstances today.

2) Bhutto inherited the authoritarian tendencies of his predecessors. Bhutto was not a great democrat despite what those who romanticise his era say, he was intolerant of opposition and introduced measures like the High Treason Act. Civil society is more vibrant today, the judiciary and media is more willing to assert its independence so I don't think Bhutto would handle the increased scrutiny well.

3) Bhutto even in 1970 didn't win in KP and Balochistan so that would've been another obstacle.

 

[KB]

You've partly answered your question yourself but just to add:

1) Bhutto came to power at a time of acute national crisis and was able to exploit popular discontent. Ayub was greatly discredited after the Tashkent Agreement and Bhutto used that moment to break with Ayub even though he was part of the government during the 1965 war. The "decade of development" was stalling as food prices rose and mass demonstrations erupted, especially in East Pakistan where tensions were running high leaving the country on the brink of civil war that led to the secession of the Eastern Wing in 1971.

The context is indeed vital. Bhutto’s rhetoric resonated in a particular context in the aftermath of the Ayub Khan years.

The Ayub years may have been hailed as the ‘decade of development’ but it was also an era of where for many labourers real wages failed to increase significantly, where there was an intensification of income disparities and a concentration of economic power in relatively few hands.

When Pakistan achieved independence, its industrial inheritance was meagre. Therefore, in the initial decade policymakers focussed on industrial development but neglected agriculture, even though this was the source of livelihood for the majority of Pakistanis. During the Ayub years, industrial development continued at an impressive rate but the so-called Green Revolution also fuelled substantial agricultural growth. Of particular significance to the Green Revolution was the growth in irrigation principally through tube wells. This was supplemented by the diffusion of high yielding seeds, chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

But the agricultural growth was highly uneven and benefited the relatively more well off in particular regions. The cost of installing tube wells meant that it was installed by landowners with at least 25 acres or more. In the NWFP and Baluchistan, the mountainous terrain made it to costly to sink tube wells. In Sind, much of the ground water was saline. Similarly with tractorisation it was the larger landlords - those with more than 100 acres - that were able to acquire tractors. Even within Punjab, therefore, inequalities tended to accentuated by the Green Revolution. It is true, that land reforms in 1959 were enacted, but the evidence points to only a small amount of cultivable land being handed over and a very small portion of this ending up with the landless.

The overall economic philosophy was one where concepts of ‘social utility of greed’, ‘trickle down theory’ and ‘functional inequality’ were ascendant and as Pakistan’s economy was highly dependent on foreign aid in these years, with all the unwritten conditions that attach to it, insufficient attention was paid to distributional considerations. As the working class began to wilt under price rises, there was reported to be an astonishing concentration of wealth in relatively few hands. Mahbub ul Haq, Chief Economist of the Planning Commission at the time stated that 22 families controlled two-thirds of industrial assets and 87 per cent of banking and insurance assets.

In the late 1960s, a popular slogan was said to be:

Kon bachaye ga Pakistan?
tulba, mazdoor aur kisaan

Ayub Khan’s regime progressively lost legitimacy in the face of popular mobilisation that sought a greater levelling of the field.

Stepping into the opening created by this 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.” His rhetoric in the run-up to the 1970 elections had a purchase precisely because of what had gone before. Bhutto indeed 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.

 

[KB]

For a balanced assessment of the Ayub Khan years, and a useful summary of its consequences, see the political economist, S Akbar Zaidi's, recent article :

https://www.dawn.com/news/1355171/special-report-the-changing-of-the-guard-1958-1969