Friday, December 28, 2007
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Thanks: 18
Thanked 114 Times in 31 Posts
|
|
An interview of Benazir Bhutto
Dear all,
Benazir paid the cost of democracy with her. The democratic ideals of Benazir Bhutto can be found in an interview whose links are given below:
Quote:
his interview of Benazir Bhutto was first published as an exclusive at Silence sometime back. In the wake of recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto Silence is re-publishing it for its readers. The death of Benazir Bhutto is a national tragedy that has left he nation in an extreme anguish. This interview of Mrs. Bhutto is the testimony of her commitment to democracy since she paid for it with her life.
(This is an exclusive interview of Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto taken by Mr. Saeed Rid)
1. Madam how do you see “development first democracy later approach” put forwarded by Seymour Martin Lipset and others? Their basic claim is that certain level of economic development; literacy and bourgeois class are preconditions for democracy.
Ans: We believe democracy and development go hand and hand and share the ideas in the attached summary on Why Democracies Excel.
2. Do you think there is no other alternative for the Third world except democracy? If yes then how do you see Chinese model of Socialism, Does it provide any alternative?
Ans: We believe that a Federal democracy with provincial autonomy is the best model for development.
3. Politicians and democracy especially in the third world are blamed for corruption and inefficiency. You also faced the similar charges when your government was dissolved. How will you deal with this issue if you come into power again?
Ans: Corruption has often been employed by authoritarian rulers and dictators to tarnish the image of popular leaders and as collateral democracy itself. Who would know it better than the democratic opposition in Pakistan? The mainstream political parties were divided by forcing members to change loyalties threatening them with accountability and false and fabricated cases of corruption. At the same time those who joined the regime’s bandwagon had corruption cases withdrawn against them. Just as an example, Asif Zardai remained in jail for over eight years without a single conviction but the cases against those who joined the bandwagon (like Aftab Sherpao, Jehangir Tareen, Mushahid Hussain) were not only withdrawn (or put on slow track) but they were also inducted into the cabinet.
The PPP plans to deal with the issue of corruption in a transparent manner and across the board through a judicial mechanism rather than special laws and special courts.
4. It is also said that democratic regimes of the third world are paternal democracies and merit always suffers under democracies. You were also blamed for rewarding the PPP jiyalas. What is your response to this blame?
Ans: Democracy’s essence is transparency and accountability. How can merit suffer if there are institutional arrangements to ensure transparency and accountability as provided in a democracy? The allegation of absence of merit in democracy is a charade put forward by the opponents of democracy to blacken the face of democratic leaders. In the democratic governments, all appointments are made in accordance with the qualification of the job. I may add that despite enormous scrutiny, successive regimes could not find a single PPP appointment lacking qualification for an employment.
In fact merit is discarded during dictatorial rule where retiring army personnel are adjusted against posts as patronage without having any qualifications. Ironically doling out perks and privileges have taken place more when authoritarian regimes were in place to perpetuate itself in power. General Zia institutionalised corruption to create a constituency for himself. The present rulers have turned the institution of military into a real estate business corporation. The national newspapers have carried extensive accounts of how the khakis have been turned into a realtors’ paradise and I need not quote them here. Only last week the Dawn published a harrowing account of it. Tenants who have been tilling state lands in the Punjab for almost a century are being forcibly ejected so that the land is apportioned among the military officers. That is how institutional corruption has been taking place in authoritarian regimes and not in democracies.
5. In Pakistan we have the cyclical model of alternating democracy and military rule almost after every decade and Samuel Huntington describes it as the worst model because it appears to be extremely difficult to escape from it. In you opinion what should be done to make it sure that democracy is not derailed in future?
Ans: We need a roadmap to ensure Pakistan’s transition towards a fully democratic order. All stake holders should meet to hammer out a consensus on creating strong state institutions which act as a check and balance in the society. The miniaturisation of Pakistan to the exclusion of popular participation has long term ramifications that are detrimental to Pakistan’s interest. Moreover, as we have seen most recently in the case of Iraq and Taliban Afghanistan, power concentrated in one party can make peaceful change unavoidable. In the case of nuclear Pakistan, avenues of peaceful change are all the more necessary to secure Pakistan’s unity and territorial integrity.
6. How democracy can help in strengthening the economic stability and how military rule destroys the infrastructure of economic development?
Ans: Economic development requires investment and economic stability needs continuity of policies in an environment of political stability. Democracy means participation, transparency and accountability. These are the three pillars on which rest the edifice of good governance so essential for investment. The political stability promised by democracy is the best guarantee for continuity of polices and therefore for economic stability. The military rule on the other hand destroys political stability and due to it also the economic stability.
The other way in which military rule has destroyed the infrastructure for economic development is the way the military has entered into economic and commercial activities and made special rules to sustain its commercial operations to profit themselves.
The record of the PPP governments shows that democracy and development go together. Today Pakistan is not defaulting simply on the assistance and reschedulement given by the events of 9/11. Otherwise if the indicators are looked at poverty per capita has increased, there is little investment and unemployment is rampant. In contrast the PPP governments tripled the growth rate, doubled the tax revenues and brought in unprecedented direct foreign investment leading to poverty alleviation and gainful employment. PPP restructured the entire economic situation, others just carried on as the system was. For example, the PPP nationalisation policies introduced public sector control which was carried on by Zia. In 1989, the PPP’s de regulation and privatisation policies brought in a private sector based economy. The major innovations in economic or other policies only came with the PPP as a voice of the people. The country’s social, economic and political situation has remained moribound during undemocratic rule.
7. Now coming back to your party and past PPP governments. In my opinion in 1988 you were in a very strong position and you had many options available to you. But you accepted the deal with the establishment and got a limited power. At that time establishment needed you and not the vice versa, therefore, it would have been very difficult for them to keep you out of power for long. So don’t you think it was your mistake?
Ans: In 1988, the PPP got the power as reflected in the split mandate elections. The establishment managed to give the IJI the mandate in Punjab and we had to deal our cards accordingly. Democracy is about compromise in the light of electoral verdicts. Of course its another issue that the electoral verdict was tampered with to deny PPP a full majority.
We did was in the best interest of the Party and the country. I am glad we did. We lifted the ban on student and labour unions as well as women taking part in sports. We promoted dialogue with India and signed three historic agreements with India including the Non Attack on each others facilities. We energized the economy through de regulation and we released thousands of political workers who had been imprisoned for a life time in addition to other measures.
8. The success of establishment in toppling the democratic regimes in Pakistan lies in there belief that parties in power and parties in opposition can never join hands against them and establishment will surely get the support of opposition even at the cost of democracy. Politicians in Pakistan have proved this proposition absolutely correct and you did the same in 1993 and 1999. Do you accept this blame and would you like to pledge not to repeat it in future?
Ans: There are only two parties in Pakistan since 1967 of a national stature. These are the establishment and the PPP and their respective allies. Naturally the establishment makes sure that those that it helps win stay put against the democratic government. One thing is certain–military rule fails because people resist it and democracy fails because the military resists it. Unless this cycle is broken, the country will continue to go from crisis to crisis. We would like to see the international community put its weight behind the democratic process.
I know some people believe that the PPP used the establishment against the Nawaz regime in 1993 and 1999. I disagree. We genuinely tried to make the Parliament work. But the then regimes resorted to the worst kind of state terrorism with special laws and state coercion to create a one party state. In my view, PPP never created special laws or denied the Opposition its rightful role. In fact, the Leader of Opposition was given the same rights as a Federal Minister due to our initiative.
9. For a stable democracy well-established democratic institutions are a key. However strong a Prime Minister may be but if democratic institutions are weak a General can remove him quite easily. The toppling of Nawaz regime in 1999 proves this point. If you or your party comes into power again what will you do to strengthen the parliament, the judiciary, the press, the political parties and the election commission of Pakistan?
Ans: The strengthening of democracy will take a decade. A new government inherits the same military, bureaucracy, Judiciary and vested political interest of the past. It takes time for democracy to develop. We certainly intend to move the country in that direction. There are initiatives we took in the past, like introducing press freedoms. For the future we have proposed electoral reform and judicial reform in keeping with the recommendations of the International Crisis Group. We believe that a fair electoral playing field as well as an independent Judiciary is critical to the development of a democratic society. We would like to see political parties receive state funding as they do in the ScandiBenazir Bhuttonavian and other.
The sad memories of 12th May
And July 16
Will always remain vivid
In our bewildered eyes.
The darkest days when
On the streets of Karachi and Islamabad
Our bravest activists
Shed heir sacred blood to reap
Fruits of justice
And supremacy of law
For shirtless and barefooted folks.
Photo Credits Abro and Poem written in Sindhi by Ahmed Solangi and translated to English by Irfan Ansari
|
[Link Removed & Original Content Posted]
__________________
Dr Farrukh Raza
Persistence is Victory!
Last edited by Qurratulain; Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 01:08 AM.
|
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Similar Threads
