Benazir’s PPP was an autocratic arrangement

By Prof Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by Prof DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

‘Though Benazir committed herself on assuming power to consensus building, she plotted the undermining of her opponents through non democratic means. Benazir was not unaware of the give-and-take of democratic politics, but believing in her heart of hearts that democracy was dysfunctional in her country, she set her sights on destroying her rival’(1)

The political vacuum created by her inability to reconcile with full consequence of 1988 elections set in motion the forces that  ultimately overwhelm the country’s democratic experiment.

‘Guided by her own inner beliefs and deeply committed to the tragic memory of her idolized father, she could not deliver on her much proclaimed promises. Many continued to believe in her, in no small part because she represented a departure from the years of military rule, but her administration was not the democratic experience Pakistanis had hoped for. Benazir’s PPP was an autocratic arrangement that had never adopted democratic practices’.(2)

On 20^th August 1990, writing in Jung, professor Husneen Kasmi said: On first December 1988, President Ishaq appointed Benazir as Prime Minster; therefore, the responsibility to strength and promote democracy became the responsibility of PPP.

 There would be no sacking if Benazir lived up to this responsibility, and tried to co exist with the opposition in Punjab and responded to the grievances of MQM in Sindh….. The attitude of PPP was in contradiction not in consonance to democratic principles. The slogan of democracy serves as rally-cry, its appeal mobilizes people; but democracy as system can only benefits people if politicians rule by justice. If parochialism, biasness, vested interest direct one’s conduct of rule, then it will unravel whole democratic process. In the history of Pakistan encroachment of authoritarianism was due to autocratic tendencies of democratically elected people. Martial law (of Zia) that led to deposing of PPP government was due to unbalanced and extreme attitude of PPP’s government, and when after 11 years PPP came into power it just proved by practicing democracy in authoritarian fashion that we learn that we do not learn from history’.

 

On 23^th August 1990 Irshad Ahmed Haqni followed balanced approach held Nawaz Shrif as well responsible for the dissolution of assembly, though not absolving Benazir either. He wrote “one another chapter of the political history of Pakistan came to an end (itself) or(deliberately) ended….absence of democratic norms, and immaturity of political leadership led to political tussle. Who was responsible to what extent would be decided by history, but it is obvious that every one is guilty. PPP tried to destabilize Nawaz in Punjab; and Nazwaz did likewise in centre and other provinces. Undemocratic means were employed to destroy each other”.

On 25^th August 1990 Dr Mohammad Waseem, writing in ‘dawn’ advice PPP in his article ‘Politics of Polarization’ that ‘Similarly, the PPP leadership must do the stock taking of its own performance in government. It must appreciate the difference between public money and private money, between arbitrary rule ad institutional rule, and between state as policy and state as patronage’  

1.            Rahman, ‘Culture and Democracy in Pakistan’, Boston, Duke Press, 2005, 421-422

2.            Wilcox, ‘Changing Pattern of Politics in Pakistan’, New York, Martin Press, 2008, P108