Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a member of the regime for a long time and one of its core members, too, understood the wave of change in a critical section of the population — the youth in colleges and universities. The youth of that time was aspired to freedom, equality, social justice and democracy. It was the beginning of celebrations for the ‘decade of progress’, with seminars and conferences held in colleges to glorify the end of field marshals. The question we raised, being the youth of the time, was simple: where is the progress? The answer came from the former chief of his planning commission, Mahboobul Haq, when he critically examined the results of growth. An upper layer of business and industrial class appropriated the benefits of growth and the fragments of wealth produced hardly trickled down to the masses.
At the social level, those were progressive times that we never saw afterwards. What was progressive about those times? We witnessed free ideological debates between Islam, socialism, democracy and progress. The literacy scene of Pakistan was lively. Colleges and universities, though small in number at that time compared to what we have today, saw student activism, study circles to debate ideas and noisy elections for unions. The streets of Pakistani cities were lively with protests organised by students, labour unions, journalists and political parties of both right and left. ZAB captured that mood and he recast himself as a radical reformer with a slogan of hope and change.
Three things worked for the grassroots politics of the PPP then. The personal charisma and popular appeal was something that no other leader of any merit could match in personality, in all of Pakistan. He attracted vast crowds wherever he went. In public rallies, his rhetoric and passion ignited a mass sentiment for him. The second important aspect of the PPP then was the message itself. It was a message of hope, change and social justice. Its manifesto reflected the aspirations of the youth, labour, peasants and the common man. Understanding exactly what the people want is always the first step to connecting with them. ZAB did a great job of doing this.
Third, the PPP attracted all the progressive elements of society from one end of the country to the other. These were students, labour unions, poets, literary men and women and all those who wanted land reforms, wanted a social welfare state and supported different shades of socialism. Then, the PPP was a united front of all progressive forces with a manifesto of change.
It was the work of all of these forces — their high spirits, enthusiasm and sacrifice — that the first grassroots politics and a political party were born. Sadly, it is neither that party nor that politics, anymore.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 4th, 2012.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
This world is different than that of Bhutto's era. Now several political parties have emerged, many leaders have occupied political space. Now there is no TASKHANET to cash, there are many issues and thank God people have the choice.
Being a student of politics and precisely speaking realist paradigm, the article is a very good insight to emergence of Pakistan peoples party and its organisation. moreover i have a stance that the projections regarding PPP not to fulfill its covenants with public at large need a revision. because it is PPP which has suffered in the hands of military mullah alliance throughout the history so it can't be blameworthy in toto.
One important issue - and the one which generated a lot of sympathy for Bhutto - was the war with India in 1965. Bhutto presented himself as a champion of the rights of Kashmiris and accused Ayub Khan of having sold out the Kasmiris in Tashqand. There was not a speech in which he would not tell the people that when suitable time comes he will tell what really transpired in Tashqand during the meeting. The anger in Pakistan against what transpired in 1965 war and then its consequences was immense and Bhutto exploited it thoroughly. He blamed Ayub Khan for the defeat and all that it entailed. One only needs to look at the news papers of the time, both right and left wing, to understand the sympathies that he gained in Punjab. There were of course other reasons as has been mentioned in this article, but the issue which really crystallized Bhutto's leadership against Ayub should be given its due place when history of those times is narrated..
Professor Sahib, except for stating the obvious, isn't there anything else you want to add? this article is niether analytical nor complete.
A balanced and fair Op Ed by a scholar. Having read the reasons for the emergence of PPP and ZAB, the reason his party still wins in national elections is there is no other such option. If there were a new PPP or any other party which meets the expectations of masses the current PPP would have disappeared. The problem is in democracy we elect not we want but lesser of the evils. The other options are still rightwing and not attractive for poor masses who have developed a love affair with PPP and Bhuttos. This situation is just like the re-election of Obama. People were very disappointed by his failure to meet their expectations. However, like the PPP the other option (GOP and Romney) were even worse. Still people have some hopes with Obama being left of center and not as extreme rightwing as some GOP are. It is like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Unless there is a true revolutionary leadership in Pakistan that can mobilize, students, labor and peasants alike there would be no change.
Agreed. While I personally feel that Bhutto was nothing more than a power-hungry opportunist, I think it is safe to say that the old PPP at least claimed to represent socialist ideals. Today however, the left is dead and buried in Pakistan. Where are the marxists, the intellectuals and the revolutionaries? Imran Khan might be a better alternative than the current bunch of kleptocrats in power, but he is by no means a marxist. Has the dream died?
Sir, I expect you to write an independent and thought-provoking article on the reasons why PPP hasn't been able to continue with the legacy of its founding fathers. Is it just due to dearth of charisma and popular appeal in current leadership of the party or some external factors have compelled PPP to discard the principles and forces which helped the party gain popularity in the 70's.
Very informative article. Being from a different generation, what I often wonder about is that I hear a lot of stories about how ZAB succeeded to win the support of masses but not a scholarly opinion on what he actually delivered on, and why despite all the popularity, less than a decade down the road, when he was hanged, there was not enough angry outburst on the streets? Did his supporters have too lofty expectations or did he turn out be less effective of a leader than expected?