Pakistan has seen too many coups to applaud when a man in uniform declares one.
Yet Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s recent video proposing a coup to the people of Pakistan was met with acclaim. Unlike previous army takeovers, this one would involve no guns, uniforms, or military microfactions; rather, it would be purely cultural. Having launched his political career on a stance of cultural revival and opposition to the Taliban, Bhutto Zardari is branding himself as a voice of hope for Pakistan’s future. It remains to be seen, however, whether he can represent change while inheriting the mantle of a 60 year-old political dynasty.
Bhutto Zardari is the son of the late prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, and former President Asif Ali Zardari, as well as the grandson of late Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He was named chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) after his mother’s assassination by the Taliban in 2007, while he was still studying at Oxford University. Having recently turned 25, Bhutto Zardari is now old enough to run for office in Pakistan. This February he organized a cultural extravaganza by the ruins of Mohenjo Daro in the PPP’s home province of Sindh, and he has used the resulting media attention to increase his political presence. Despite asserting that he does not want to run for prime minister in the 2018 election, he is certainly laying the groundwork up for a long-term political career.
A Hope for Change, or a Lasting Grip?
Bhutto Zardari has set himself apart from his political rivals by taking an open and unequivocal stance against the Taliban. He has condemned the group for taking the country backwards and flatly rejected the terrorist organization’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Meanwhile, other politicians’ meekness out of fear of Taliban reprisal has allowed the organization to grow in power and influence. Bhutto Zardari has reproached his political rivals for this docility and supports using unforgiving military force against the Taliban. This approach would fundamentally alter the state of Pakistan’s domestic politics and foreign relations.
Yet Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s recent video proposing a coup to the people of Pakistan was met with acclaim. Unlike previous army takeovers, this one would involve no guns, uniforms, or military microfactions; rather, it would be purely cultural. Having launched his political career on a stance of cultural revival and opposition to the Taliban, Bhutto Zardari is branding himself as a voice of hope for Pakistan’s future. It remains to be seen, however, whether he can represent change while inheriting the mantle of a 60 year-old political dynasty.
Bhutto Zardari is the son of the late prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, and former President Asif Ali Zardari, as well as the grandson of late Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He was named chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) after his mother’s assassination by the Taliban in 2007, while he was still studying at Oxford University. Having recently turned 25, Bhutto Zardari is now old enough to run for office in Pakistan. This February he organized a cultural extravaganza by the ruins of Mohenjo Daro in the PPP’s home province of Sindh, and he has used the resulting media attention to increase his political presence. Despite asserting that he does not want to run for prime minister in the 2018 election, he is certainly laying the groundwork up for a long-term political career.
A Hope for Change, or a Lasting Grip?
Bhutto Zardari has set himself apart from his political rivals by taking an open and unequivocal stance against the Taliban. He has condemned the group for taking the country backwards and flatly rejected the terrorist organization’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Meanwhile, other politicians’ meekness out of fear of Taliban reprisal has allowed the organization to grow in power and influence. Bhutto Zardari has reproached his political rivals for this docility and supports using unforgiving military force against the Taliban. This approach would fundamentally alter the state of Pakistan’s domestic politics and foreign relations.
Bhutto Zardari has uniquely defined his opposition to the Taliban not only in territorial terms, but also in the battlefield of culture. While the Taliban propagate a culture in which Islam
is pitted against the West, Bhutto Zardari favors one that mixes Islamic and Western values. Dr. Ahmad Balal, former consul for Pakistan and current fellow at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center, suggests that the key to this approach lies in the Sufi-influenced, mystic Barelvi tradition that most Pakistani Muslims follow but that the fundamentalist Taliban do not. He explains, “One vision of the anti-extremist forces is to go back to the Sufi tradition, and Bilawal has expressed very radical thoughts against the Taliban in favor of this.” The recent festival Bhutto Zardari held highlighted this cultural shift by emphasizing traditional Pakistani culture within a modern celebration.
Yet all the talk of change cannot hide the reality that the sole enabling factor for Bhutto Zardari’s political career is his family. His grandfather, mother, and father all led Pakistan, and he appears to be following in their footsteps. The PPP is centered on the Bhutto family, and Bilawal’s ascension to power could be interpreted as merely an inheritance of a political crown, not an indication of merit. With little display of administrative ability to support his political pedigree, there are serious concerns about Bhutto Zardari’s ability to lead a large political party, let alone a country in crisis.
is pitted against the West, Bhutto Zardari favors one that mixes Islamic and Western values. Dr. Ahmad Balal, former consul for Pakistan and current fellow at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center, suggests that the key to this approach lies in the Sufi-influenced, mystic Barelvi tradition that most Pakistani Muslims follow but that the fundamentalist Taliban do not. He explains, “One vision of the anti-extremist forces is to go back to the Sufi tradition, and Bilawal has expressed very radical thoughts against the Taliban in favor of this.” The recent festival Bhutto Zardari held highlighted this cultural shift by emphasizing traditional Pakistani culture within a modern celebration.
Yet all the talk of change cannot hide the reality that the sole enabling factor for Bhutto Zardari’s political career is his family. His grandfather, mother, and father all led Pakistan, and he appears to be following in their footsteps. The PPP is centered on the Bhutto family, and Bilawal’s ascension to power could be interpreted as merely an inheritance of a political crown, not an indication of merit. With little display of administrative ability to support his political pedigree, there are serious concerns about Bhutto Zardari’s ability to lead a large political party, let alone a country in crisis.
Bhutto Zardari will face an uphill battle to win elections. His years studying abroad in Dubai and Oxford and his heavy security detail alienate him from the average Pakistani citizen. He is even attacked by his rivals and some in the media as a poor Urdu speaker. With Pakistani youth reportedly growing more conservative, claimed Dr. Dan Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations in an interview with the HPR, “the overall electorate is shifting rightwards, not leftwards,” and Bhutto Zardari’s liberal values may not strike a chord with citizens. The rising popularity of cricketing hero-turned-politician Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party could also split the voter base Bhutto Zardari aims to win. Balal adds that “there is an enlightened liberal progressive elite of Pakistan which Imran Khan has managed to attract. Bilawal, for the time being, cannot compete in charm and charisma.”
Keeping it in the Family
There is, however, a larger, underlying issue revealed by Bhutto Zardari’s political ascension: the tendency of Pakistani democracy to allow and reward dynastic politics. The continued preeminence of a few political families is conducive to high levels of corruption and bribery within an administration, which has wreaked havoc on Pakistani development. These were the very issues that haunted Bhutto Zardari’s parents throughout their political careers.
The culture of political dynasties also discourages reform and the rise of other potential candidates, particularly within the PPP. The party’s five years in government under Asif Ali Zardari were marked by corruption and ineffectiveness, and it was decisively defeated in the 2013 election that brought Nawas Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League into power. The PPP remains relatively weak outside Sindh province, and while Bhutto Zardari may be able to rejuvenate the party temporarily, in the long run, it may never become more than the ‘Bhutto Party’ if its leadership continues to be dictated by genes rather than ability.
Sharif himself is grooming his Cambridge-educated daughter Maryam to be his successor, while his nephew Hamza Shahbaz Sharif is already the deputy chief minister of Punjab province. As Harvard Business School professor and the director of the South Asia Institute Tarun Khanna notes, “The good news here is that this generation tends to be quite exposed to the wider world, but we can’t assume they have the monopoly on wisdom.”
A Widespread Phenomenon
This problem is not, however, simply restricted to Pakistan. The scions of political dynasties have traditionally dominated politics across South Asia. India’s Nehru-Gandhi family, the Maldive’s Gayoom family, Sri Lanka’s Bandaranaike and Rajapaksa families, and Bangladesh’s Sheikh Mujib family have all monopolized their respective political arenas for decades. This has instilled a sense of entitlement and lack of accountability within many polities, leading in some cases to widespread infringements on civil rights. These leaders weave a tangled web of nepotism, corruption, and bribery, handing out political positions and business favors and undermining economic growth and development. This environment also prevents unconnected but potentially visionary leaders from achieving recognition in the public arena. Visible nepotism disheartens voters and makes them distrust the democratic process, which destabilizes democracy throughout the region.
Keeping it in the Family
There is, however, a larger, underlying issue revealed by Bhutto Zardari’s political ascension: the tendency of Pakistani democracy to allow and reward dynastic politics. The continued preeminence of a few political families is conducive to high levels of corruption and bribery within an administration, which has wreaked havoc on Pakistani development. These were the very issues that haunted Bhutto Zardari’s parents throughout their political careers.
The culture of political dynasties also discourages reform and the rise of other potential candidates, particularly within the PPP. The party’s five years in government under Asif Ali Zardari were marked by corruption and ineffectiveness, and it was decisively defeated in the 2013 election that brought Nawas Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League into power. The PPP remains relatively weak outside Sindh province, and while Bhutto Zardari may be able to rejuvenate the party temporarily, in the long run, it may never become more than the ‘Bhutto Party’ if its leadership continues to be dictated by genes rather than ability.
Sharif himself is grooming his Cambridge-educated daughter Maryam to be his successor, while his nephew Hamza Shahbaz Sharif is already the deputy chief minister of Punjab province. As Harvard Business School professor and the director of the South Asia Institute Tarun Khanna notes, “The good news here is that this generation tends to be quite exposed to the wider world, but we can’t assume they have the monopoly on wisdom.”
A Widespread Phenomenon
This problem is not, however, simply restricted to Pakistan. The scions of political dynasties have traditionally dominated politics across South Asia. India’s Nehru-Gandhi family, the Maldive’s Gayoom family, Sri Lanka’s Bandaranaike and Rajapaksa families, and Bangladesh’s Sheikh Mujib family have all monopolized their respective political arenas for decades. This has instilled a sense of entitlement and lack of accountability within many polities, leading in some cases to widespread infringements on civil rights. These leaders weave a tangled web of nepotism, corruption, and bribery, handing out political positions and business favors and undermining economic growth and development. This environment also prevents unconnected but potentially visionary leaders from achieving recognition in the public arena. Visible nepotism disheartens voters and makes them distrust the democratic process, which destabilizes democracy throughout the region.
Understanding why South Asia is so susceptible to lingering political dynasties is important. Markey considers it “a problem of non-ideological political competition.” He argues that since patronage politics supersede policy positions as a rallying strategy, “a powerful family offers tools to keep a political party together in the absence of ideals.” With the unnerving presence of an authoritative military, in some cases, the party resorts to using family to prevent internal divisions, which “would [otherwise] allow it to be eaten alive.” Balal, on the other hand, considers it a social phenomenon. He attributes the family-centric tendency of South Asian politics to the family-oriented culture of these societies. Since the family is often more central to social and civic life than in the west, leaders in power have a huge network of obligations to fulfill. They therefore expend their political capital helping those with connections to them, through what he calls a “chain of political blessings which runs from the top of society to the very end” and creates the “greatest chain of corruption on earth.”
Khanna notes that political dynasties existed even in developed countries such as the United States. Still, he explains that, compared to market-based systems in Western democracies, it is harder to climb the economic and political ladder of success on one’s own in South Asia, since “the propensity to pull upwards is difficult in developing countries” because the institutional support systems needed for an average person to propel themselves forward are still nascent.
For the Citizen
Yet for the Pakistani people, it is not the causes of South Asian political trends that matter; it is which leaders and parties can deliver the best governance and development. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari portrays himself as representing the future, and if he does eventually rise to power, he may live up to his promises of political and cultural change. Still, many question whether he can credibly hold the country’s hopes for true progress if his very name is a symbol of the past.
A famous PPP slogan reads: “Tum Kitnay Bhutto maro gay? Har ghar say Bhutto niklay ga.” (“How many Bhuttos will you kill? A Bhutto will come out of the house every day.”) However passionate that battle cry may be, the idea of a perpetual stream of Bhuttos dominating Pakistani politics cannot be a positive force for Pakistani democracy or for the Pakistani people.
Khanna notes that political dynasties existed even in developed countries such as the United States. Still, he explains that, compared to market-based systems in Western democracies, it is harder to climb the economic and political ladder of success on one’s own in South Asia, since “the propensity to pull upwards is difficult in developing countries” because the institutional support systems needed for an average person to propel themselves forward are still nascent.
For the Citizen
Yet for the Pakistani people, it is not the causes of South Asian political trends that matter; it is which leaders and parties can deliver the best governance and development. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari portrays himself as representing the future, and if he does eventually rise to power, he may live up to his promises of political and cultural change. Still, many question whether he can credibly hold the country’s hopes for true progress if his very name is a symbol of the past.
A famous PPP slogan reads: “Tum Kitnay Bhutto maro gay? Har ghar say Bhutto niklay ga.” (“How many Bhuttos will you kill? A Bhutto will come out of the house every day.”) However passionate that battle cry may be, the idea of a perpetual stream of Bhuttos dominating Pakistani politics cannot be a positive force for Pakistani democracy or for the Pakistani people.
