Bhutto Versus Sharif

One of many things I don't really understand about Pakistan but that seems worth commenting on if only to point out, is that Benazir Bhutto's strong personal connections inside the West seem to be an important factor here. Bhutto, let's recall, wasn't driven from power by Musharraf's coup. Rather, she simply lost power to a rival political party led by Nawaz Sharif in a democratic manner. It was Sharif who Musharraf deposed.

Nevertheless, it's Bhutto who went to Oxford and Harvard, it's Bhutto who once made People's most beautiful people list, it's Bhutto who the Bush administration tried to push Musharraf into agreeing to share power with, it's Bhutto who pens op-eds for The New York Times, and so on and so forth. These things are all interrelated and it should probably be kept in mind that an opposition leader's popularity among western elites whose institutions of higher education she attended and her popularity on the ground aren't necessarily the same thing.

Comments

except in bhutto's case, she actually does have a following in pakistan. sharif does too, but it is bhutto who has been building support among the pro-western secularists in pakistani society, perhaps because they perceive the former PM who musharraf didn't depose as the one most likely to be able to cut a deal with the current government for a return to civilian rule.

Posted by upyernoz | November 7, 2007 9:19 AM

They tried to kill her in her bomb proof semi after an hours-long crawl from the airport through adoring throngs. I don't know what that says about her popularity on the ground, but it seems to be saying something.

Posted by cw | November 7, 2007 9:22 AM

Yes, Bhutto does have a following. Like India, there is popular support in Pakistan for a secular politics.

That said, there is also a backlash against such things in both countries.

Posted by Marshall | November 7, 2007 9:23 AM

Bhutto hired Mark Penn's lobbying group, didn't she?

I thought Bhutto's recent lobbying campaign in Washington was pretty funny. She seemed to think that winning power in Islamabad meant campaigning in Washington DC. She might be right.

Bhutto is a glamorous, well-connected woman, and in 1988, when she first came home, there was a lot of euphoria. But Pakistanis have actully lived under two unbelievably corruot Bhutto government. She would still win at least 30% of the vote (I think), nad has some die-hard supporters (who often show up on blogs), but she's not a saviour any more.

She's in the model of Jayalalitha, or Sheikh Hasina. Charismatic dynastic South Asian female leaders.

Posted by Ikram | November 7, 2007 9:30 AM

I think there is still a lot of residual feeling for the Bhutto family in general and especially for Benazir's father Zulfikar who was deposed and executed by the military back in the 1970s. To many people, the Bhuttos are the "first family" of Pakistan and are identfied with the state and greatly revered. It's not as if Benazir is some artificial creation of the West super-imposed on the country without representing a genuine constituency.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | November 7, 2007 9:32 AM

"Nevertheless, it's Bhutto who went to Oxford and Harvard, it's Bhutto who once made People's most beautiful people list, it's Bhutto who the Bush administration tried to push Musharraf into agreeing to share power with, it's Bhutto who pens op-eds for The New York Times, and so on and so forth."

And, as Ikram notes, it's Bhutto who's paying big dollars to Mark Penn to lobby Washington.

Posted by Petey | November 7, 2007 9:47 AM

The choice for the US has always been among a selection of corrupt politcos. For all of Oxford and Harvard, Ms Bhutto comes from a family that is part of the governing triumvirate: the Bhuttos, the Sharifs and the Army.

Wanting Pakistan to be a counterweight to India during the Cold War the US has always tilted towards Pakistan. Recall Kissinger sneaked into China via Pakistan. But selecting a compliant leader has always been a problem. The educated classes may have serious problems with the Taliban and Fundamentalists. But they only look to the West for scholarships and aid. They have no wish to work on behalf of US interests

Posted by Alan | November 7, 2007 10:24 AM

There are only three Pakistani leaders that have the power base to lead the country.

Musharraf (excepting the possibility of a second military coup against him), Bhutto, and Sharif.

Sharif essentially ordered Musharraf's plane top crash before so Musharraf toppled Sharif, so they won't work together. That leaves Bhutto if you want a peaceful succession. The PPP is not that strong anymore, so Washington is her power base.

If it looks like a violent succession is inevitable, and considering how Sharif's branch of the Muslim League has surged in public approval, Sharif may re-enter the picture.

Also, this Ayad Allawi, Benazir Bhutto formula for installing national leaders through American lobbying cannot be a good phenomenon. Will Harvard educated Iranians come out of the woodwork?

Posted by harry | November 7, 2007 10:32 AM

Bhutto who went to Oxford and Harvard, it's Bhutto who once made People's most beautiful people list, it's Bhutto who the Bush administration tried to push Musharraf into agreeing to share power with, it's Bhutto who pens op-eds for The New York Times, and so on and so forth.

She's also the Pakistani politician you'd rather have a beer with.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 7, 2007 10:40 AM

I'd go even further to say that for exiles support among foreigners is correlated to low domestic support because, frankly, the exile politicians with low domestic support have much greater need for foreign support and will do what it takes to secure it, including taking positions unpopular back home.

Those with a strong home base tend not to get exiled in the first place, and when they do are much less willing to whisper sweet nothings into Washingtonian ears.

Posted by skyler | November 7, 2007 10:56 AM

I think the Bhutto name does in fact carry some cachet still.

Plus, mere "corruption" is probably starting to look pretty damn good to the middle-of-the-road Pakistanis. It's not like the present government is non-corrupt, and then you add in states of emergency, deposing the chief justice, etc.

Posted by Anderson | November 7, 2007 11:00 AM

Bhutto is popular in Sindh and within the PPPP, which is the second-biggest group in parliament. Would she win a national election? Almost certainly not. Would we hear about her in the press if she wasn't an attractive woman who was educated in the west and spoke fluent English? Again, probably not. But it's important to remember that Bhutto does have a legitimate base of popular support which is greater than the sum of its PR, unlike say, Ahmad Chalabi.

Posted by GiantDuck | November 7, 2007 11:02 AM

"But Pakistanis have actully lived under two unbelievably corruot Bhutto government. She would still win at least 30% of the vote (I think), nad has some die-hard supporters "

Corruption is often the means for gaining die-hard supporters.

Posted by Njorl | November 7, 2007 11:10 AM

Bhutto, as has been previously noted, has a big following. Recent polling suggests that she would win a three-way race between her, Sharif, and Musharraf. The latter two are tied for second, six points behind her.

Posted by Minipundit | November 7, 2007 11:28 AM

Rather, she simply lost power to a rival political party led by Nawaz Sharif in a democratic manner.

That's a bit misleading. You make it sound like she lost in a democratic election. Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister twice and removed both times on allegations of corruption (possibly fabricated by her political rivals).

She was sent into exile in 1998 under threat of prison if she returned. That's why she hasn't lived in the country for nearly the past decade.

That's the description of a power struggle, not a description of the democratic process.

Posted by Jinchi | November 7, 2007 12:29 PM

Bhutto hails from the state of Sindh and is extremely popular there because of her family name. Sharief is (I think) from Punjab and has some following there. Of the two, Sharief is more religious and less westernized, and it is not surprising that he hasn't been canvassing for support in the West. I not 100% sure but I think Sindh is bigger in size and population, while Punjab is the more important state in terms of political clout. Of course both Bhutto and Sharief have support outside their strongholds but Bhutto might be more popular overall given that Sindh is bigger.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 7, 2007 12:43 PM

Punjab has 80 million people, while Sindh has 56 million. Sindh does contain Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and principal port, while Punjab is the location of the capital, Islamabad, and most of the other large cities - notably Lahore.

Posted by John | November 7, 2007 1:27 PM

and some 70% of the army is punjabi.

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

Is an Islamic country with a pro-western, pro-democratic element less frightful than an Islamic country without one?

What about an Islamic country with nuclear weapons?

What makes people think more democracy would not lead to civil war in Pakistan as it did in Iraq?

What makes people so sure less democracy will be able to prevent civil war in Pakistan?

Posted by Linus | November 7, 2007 1:59 PM

What makes people think more democracy would not lead to civil war in Pakistan as it did in Iraq?

You don't need democracy to have a civil war and I think its a pretty loose reading of the situation in Iraq to claim that democracy lead to civil war, rather than the fact that the Iraqi government installed by the Americans has never had any significant power over the country. It's just one of the players in the civil war not the central one.

Elections don't make a democracy and Iraq has neither the legitimacy, the authority or the basic institutions necessary to make a nation work.

Posted by Jinchi | November 7, 2007 2:53 PM

She's a woman so she gets a lot of coverage in the Style section and the like of newspapers. That contributes to making her seem super-important to the people who write in the News sections.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 7, 2007 5:38 PM

There's been a general trend toward dynasticism across southern and southeast Asia for a few decades. Having royal families may be a natural stage in political evolution.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 7, 2007 5:40 PM

Punjab has 80 million people, while Sindh has 56 million. Sindh does contain Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and principal port, while Punjab is the location of the capital, Islamabad, and most of the other large cities - notably Lahore.

Thanks

Posted by Sohbet | November 9, 2007 9:07 AM

Thank you for web site

Posted by Chat | November 9, 2007 9:09 AM