Bhutto and Corruption

Several smart correspondents have made the point that one of the other oddities of western press coverage of Benazir Bhutto is that you tend not to hear about how she's a huge crook. Corruption in a middle-income country, of course, is nothing new and Pakistan in general is not a paragon of good governance. Still, the best of my knowledge Bhutto and her husband stand out as unusually corrupt by Pakistani standards, which is precisely how she wound up ejected from power.

The Bhuttos, naturally, claim that all of this is politically motivated, but if you look at John Burns' account from early 1998 when the investigations were going down you can see that it's grounded in some pretty solid evidence and involves lots of European banks and corporation that are hardly going to be under the control of her political rivals in Pakistan. And we're not talking small change here, either, this one scam seems to have netted tens of millions of dollars. Back in the late 1990s, she even had Swiss authorities looking to get her indicted which, again, seems like a beyond-the-ordinary level of corruption rather than domestic political gambits. That's not to deny that she has a real constituency in the country, but Pakistani politics shouldn't be reduced to Bhutto versus Musharraf as there's more forces in play than just that:

Sharif urged the West to abandon Musharraf but also ruled out teaming up with Benazir Bhutto, another key opposition leader, unless she cut off talks with Musharraf. Sharif told The Associated Press that Pakistan was heading deeper into chaos and his archenemy had outlived his usefulness in fighting terrorism.

I'm not sure what the takeaway is here, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Comments

She is not just corrupt, but also has equal responsibility for the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan. Her previous tenure in govt saw the creation of the taliban into a military organization and a large expansion in the size and influence of quasi military, jihadi operations.
wikipedia has the relevant references (steve coll)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
she is no more a democrat than musharraf.

Posted by krsa | November 7, 2007 1:52 PM

Is it worth keeping in mind? Or is it the same as Andrew Sullivan et al reminding us of how corrupt the Clintons were (because in matter of ink, Whitewater is equal to waterboarding)?

Posted by Hollis | November 7, 2007 1:53 PM

For what it's worth Matt, there was an excellent analysis of the entire Pakistan situation in the (print) New Yorker sometime in the last couple months (sorry, memory fails as to author and issue date). It really sheds a lot of light on the whole interlocking class-Bhutto-religion-history-Zia-military-corruption situation.

I only bring this up because in your last three Pakistan posts, you asked questions that were answered in depth in the New Yorker piece. You might want to read it if you have a chance.

Posted by James Gary | November 7, 2007 1:53 PM

"Several smart correspondents have made the point that one of the other oddities of western press coverage of Benazir Bhutto is that you tend not to hear about how she's a huge crook"

You must be reading a particularly narrow slice of "western press coverage". The Bhuttos' past corruption has been no secret; even 'wingnuts' like Ralph Peterson have written about it. They say Benazir's husband's nickname used to be "Mr. Ten Percent" because he demanded a 10% vig on any foreign investment contract in Pakistan.

Musharraf has been savvy in not arresting Bhutto, btw. It denies her claims of martyrdom and leaves open the suggestion that she's been in collusion with him, which would hurt her in an election.

Posted by Fred | November 7, 2007 1:55 PM

Oh goodness, krsa -- that's like saying that the Clintons were responsible for the growth in the fundie movement in America! Yes they were, but not by design. Yes, jihadists of all stripes will flourish in the right environment, but there's a big difference between kinds of "corruption" and what it means for quality of life locally, nationally, and globally.

Posted by Hollis | November 7, 2007 1:57 PM

Corruption is always going to an issue in that part of the world. However, it is still preferable that there be a democratic form of government, as people can kick out the corrupt politicians and replace them with their opponents (who will inevitably become corrupt as well, and then be replaced by the former, and so on). Basic point, the people still feel in-charge.

A good example would be India. Indian democracy is dominated by the dynastic center-left Congress Party (with the Gandhi family as the anointed clan) and the right wing BJP. Both Congress and BJP have been accused (esp the former) of corruption and stealing millions in bribes and commissions. Both have been booted out of power (and reinstated) by the people. However the main point is that India has been moving in the right direction, albeit by fits and starts, and democracy and a free press has allowed the Indian electorate to hold their leader accountable. Over time Indian democracy has strengthened and finally seems to be achieving measurable success for the country.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 7, 2007 2:00 PM

Hollis-

Was the Clinton-era CIA and FBI arming fundies?

Because that's what Bhutto's ISI did with the Taliban and the Kashmir separatists.

She's at least as at fault for that as Reagan is for Iran-Contra.

Posted by Greg | November 7, 2007 2:04 PM

Matt, this morning you admitted that you've been hesitant to post on Pakistan because you don't want to pretend that you're an expert. Now, you've posted two items in which you conclude that 1) Bhutto is not actually popular in Pakistan, and 2) Bhutto was wildly corrupt. And now, at the end of this post, you seem to be suggesting that maybe Nawaz Sharif is the answer.

Wow. From layman to expert in five and a half hours. Pretty nice!

Posted by NCProsecutor | November 7, 2007 2:07 PM

For some reason, I am able to put Bhutto's corruption off to one side. To me, the enormity of the fact that a charismatic woman could be elected the leader of a Muslim country with huge numbers of Islamic fundamentalists within its population outweighs the negatives. She's an olive branch to the non-Muslim world, in the same way that if we elected Obama, it would be an olive branch ot the Muslim world.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 7, 2007 2:14 PM

"From layman to expert in five and a half hours."

See also 90% of other topics Matt posts on foreign affairs.

Posted by Dave | November 7, 2007 2:15 PM

The takeaway for me is "no one has any clue what we should or shouldn't be doing in Pakistan".

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 7, 2007 2:23 PM

Matt, the "Western Press Coverage" Bhutto corruption stories link isn't working over here.

I wonder if it is/was working for Dilan and Dave so that they could post fully informed comments?

Posted by ferd | November 7, 2007 2:30 PM

Hollis,

Bhutto is an incredibly corrupt and hugely opportunistic player within Pakistani politics. That is she considered thoroughly corrupt in Pakistan, a country that usually winds up dead last (often with Nigeria) in UN indices of corruption, should suffice for why the US can't possibly support this lunatic.

As to her fundamentalist credentials, rest assured that both her and her father, Zulfiqar, supported the Afghan Mujahideen. Her father actually nurtured super hardcore fundies like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the 70's to create havoc in Afghanistan, which in 70s was a secular republic. More recently, she appointed General Hamid Gul as head of ISI. Hamid Gul is widely known within Pakistan and the region as the main sponsor of Islamic Jihadi groups in Kashmir, as well as the main supporter of the Taliban and Mullah Omar in the mid-90s. He also made crazy statements like "God will destroy America" after 9/11. Don't forget that the ISI is most powerful part of the Pakistani military apparatus, so Bhutto's appointment of Gul was not a trivial matter.

Posted by PersianReader | November 7, 2007 2:58 PM

Dilan,

Given "the enormity of the fact that a charismatic woman could be elected the leader of a Muslim country with huge numbers of Islamic fundamentalists within its population"--and I remember the hopes entertained when she was elected and just how excited people in Pakistan were, which I learned about through my uncle who lives there--wasn't the corruption that ensued that much worse, a case of letting the side down very badly?

Posted by J | November 7, 2007 3:37 PM

Well, Bhutto apparently has now decided to throw in with the opposition to Musharraf - which of course is exactly what he's been waiting for.

Now she can be arrested and either deported or imprisoned yet again.

The whole point of his coup was to get rid of Bhutto who was a threat to his control.

Now, having said that, it's fairly clear that Bhutto, despite her promises, is in little better position to do anything about the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the tribal jihadists than Musharraf is. She was brought in at US insistence just to put a "democratic" - if corrupt - face on the Musharraf dictatorship.

Now the whole concept appears to be collapsing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 7, 2007 3:49 PM

I'm coming also from a position of almost total ignorance on the subject, but one question leaps to mind: If she's so corrupt, why doesn't she just stay in Europe and enjoy her Swiss bank accounts instead of coming back to Pakistan where every day she risks getting her ass blown off?

Posted by Virginia | November 7, 2007 4:23 PM

Yup.

And Nawaz Sharif is EVEN worse - truth be told, his ouster by Musharraf wasn't exacty the swapping of a democrat for an autocrat, as Sharif himself was grossly abusing the political process and attempting to seize control of the Supreme Court.

Pakistani politics puts new meaning into the term "cesspool."

Posted by Kumar | November 7, 2007 4:37 PM

Virginia,

Megalomania and corruption are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Bhutto's whole identity, since she was the child of the former megalomaniacal prime minister Zulfiqar Bhutto, is wrapped around her being a pivotal character within Pakistani politics.

With the increased criticism of Musharraf and increased awareness of Pakistan's mixed role in supporting and supposedly fighting Islamic Jihadi forces, Bhutto, like Nawaz Sharif, saw an opportune time to re-enter Pakistani politics, while Musharraf's support within the West shows signs of cracking. She clearly sees that providing an alternative and seemingly democratic face to Pakistani politics will be welcomed by the West. As a result, she is willing to risk life and limb to restore her status within Pakistan. I don't believe for a second she is doing this for Pakistan's own good, or that she has any major differences to General Musharraf, as far as any of us are concerned.

Matt rightly states that Bhutto's opinions towards the Taliban, Pakistan's strategic posturing toward India, it's strange and pathological relationship with homegrown Islamists, and most importantly, the grotesque role of the military within Pakistani society will not be noticably different from Musharraf. She knows that their differences are ultimately differences of personality and questions of who should hold the thrown, not actually policy differences.

Posted by PersianReader | November 7, 2007 4:39 PM

The "rule of 10%" is a mark of relatively well-governed countries. Allegedly, one a report on the activity of Highway Fund in one of Nigerian provines was limited to a pithy statement "the expenditures did not result in any activity". Yes, 100% was somehow lost.

Seriously, both main political parties in Pakistan were implicated in serious corruption, and in case of Sharif, he also tried to impose cersorship (or at least harrasment of newspapers). Yet, dictatorships tend to be worse.

Musharraf should go mostly because of his style. He chsnges the constitution, he packs Supreme Court and than he sacks the Court and suspends the Constitution. Please! Even absolute rulers are supposed to pretend to be consistent.

Perhaps someone like Chavez would be a better choice that any of the main political parties in Pakistan, but this is really not a question for us to answer. Some pressure should be applied toward out client state that commit gross violations of their own laws.

Posted by piotr | November 7, 2007 9:47 PM

The current mess is a logical consequence of trends from more than a couple of decades. One thread of this begins with the geniuses who decided to create the afghan narco-terrorist complex to fight the Soviet Union. A second thread is that Pakistan has been always controlled by a combination of the Army and a tiny feudal elite, almost from its independence. Both Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are from the feudal elites of Pakistan. Bhutto is from a family that controls vast amounts of property in Sindh province, and whose grandfather was the Prime Minister of one of the larger princely states in British India. Nawaz Sharif is from a family who have large industrial holdings in Pakistani Punjab.
The Pakistani army has always been extremely powerful in Pakistan, and decades of power, and the Afghan narco-terrorist complex have made it very rich and corrupt. Currently, serving and former Pakistani military officers have acquired control over a wide range of industries, and also number among them some extremely wealthy drug lords. The underground narcotics economy in Pakistan is quite large. This aspect of the situation in Pakistan bears similarity with the narcotics trade in Colombia.
Another vital thread in all this is the creation of a parallel military organization consisting of jihadi irregulars, from whom the Taliban, among many other such organizations was created. These irregular forces were created to serve multiple purposes:
1. "Strategic depth" for the Pakistani military in Afghanistan, for enhancing their posture vis-a-vis India.
2. The Afghan Jihad in the 1980s.
3. Irregular, "asymmetric" warfare against India in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere.
4. Control over vital narcotics and arms smuggling routes through Afghanistan and to the rest of Asia.

One way to think of these irregular forces is that they resemble private mercenary organizations. As a matter of fact their jihadi recruits are paid salaries, and their families compensation on their death or injury. These jihadi organizations are backed by a strong ideological infrastructure, in the form of Islamic schools abd universities headed and staffed by religious fundamentalist ideologues, who recruit and indoctrinate the jihadis. They also serve as a vital conduit between the political/military classes and many ordinary Pakistanis, especially in rural Pakistan.

The success of the Pakistani army and political establishment in achieving objectives 2-4. listed above is contingent on their maintaining complete control over the irregular military formations. Given the feudal composition of the political elites, they neither endeared themselves to the military, nor to the ideologues who disagree with them on cultural outlook as well as often, social class. As a result of this, the power of traditional feudal power centers like the Bhuttos has been slowly eroded, with the military taking over their role. However, the irregular armies have grown larger and more vocal,are less willing to completely submit to the Pakistani Army 's diktat, and are now demanding that the radical ideologies for which they commit acts of terrorism outside Pakistan, be applied even within Pakistan. Additionally, the military is no longer buffered against political and economic pressures that are normally faced by political formations, since they (the army) have taken over administering Pakistan.
This has weakened the military's position, to the extent that Musharraf had to order the storming of the Red mosque in Karachi, which in my opinion is the proximate cause of his current troubles.

All this is a very longwinded way of saying that the problems in Pakistan can no longer be simply resolved by replacing Musharraf with either Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif. These (traditional) mechanisms have broken down, and the current fight is with a newly powerful constituency, that is a combination of islamic fundamentalist ideology and populist sentiment against the state of affairs in Pakistan. US policy options are limited because the political constituencies cultivated by it have weakened, and there is little influence over this new power bloc. And to be fair to President Bush, this situation is not entirely of his making.

Posted by krsa | November 7, 2007 11:40 PM

Nice summary, krsa. and agrees with everything I've read lately on the subject.

Bottom line: Bush screwed up again, getting the US involved in that mess just to get bin laden and Al Qaeda, which could have been done more effectively by engaging the Taliban in Afghanistan or going around them in a less military way, at worst.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 7, 2007 11:59 PM

Mr. Hack, I share some of your concerns, but "Bush screwed up again" is hardly the story here. Pakistan has been a catastrophe since it was cobbled together Frankenstein-like from the scraps of the British Raj. The principle problem here is that NONE of our leaders, going back many decades, have had a clue about the place or how to insure our vital interests there. We need to be a lot more targeted and accountable in terms of aid, but the last thing we need to do is isolate Pakistan from Western, including US, influences.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 8, 2007 4:07 AM

Much as i would like to blame GWB for this, I can't. His administration chose to engage Musharraf rather than antagonize him. Pakistanis know that the US will hold M as an ally till the job is done (and M will make sure it is never quite finished). The alternative would be no support for M, and some zealous fundamentalist in charge, which is not a good option for ANYONE.
The facade of holding elections is ridiculous - they did that in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nothing really changed. Countries have to have a mindset and the institutions to support US-style democracy, or it is doomed to failure. Also, we dont always like other countries' democratically elected leaders, do we?

Posted by VFielding | November 8, 2007 4:10 PM

I am guessing this is the New Yorker piece mentioned above.

Posted by Tom Maguire | November 8, 2007 5:54 PM

Bhutto is a woman posing as a progressive crusader in a world of corrupt male generals and military coups. It's a story made in heaven for a large swathe of liberal tilting Americans.

Why ruin a good story?

Posted by Dr X | November 9, 2007 9:49 AM

Maureen Dowd picked up on another writer's description of Bhotto as a "kleptocrat in a Hermes scarf." that epithet hasn't gained a lot of traction, but based on this post it seems pretty apt.

Posted by Mo MoDo | November 9, 2007 1:02 PM

How big a taste has Musharraf gotten from all the billions we filtered through him the last few years? Corruptions just another day in the culture of many countries, starting with the biggest and trickling down to the smallest.

Posted by mr.ed | November 13, 2007 7:29 AM