Standing in front of a massive gathering of his supporters, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once claimed that there were two Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos present at that particular moment - ‘ek jo yahan khada hai aur doosre aap, har ek aap mein.’ It was probably this streak of charisma which propelled him into the political limelight in Pakistan during the late 60s and early 70s.
Bhutto's journey, from the foreign minister who pushed General Ayub Khan to go to war against India in 1965 to the Prime Minister of Pakistan while being the leader of the PPP - Pakistan People’s Party - in 1972, is intertwined with the dynamism of Pakistan’s complex economy and society which have a reputation for being fraught with one crisis after another. Politics has always been dominated by the army which never proved to be extremely sympathetic towards civilian governments. Even when (actually, if) given a chance, they have run into issues with grave consequences that have always resulted in their downfall, an embarrassingly humiliating one at that.
In ‘Charisma and Disenchantment : The Vocation Lectures’, Max Weber explains how charismatic regimes are dependent upon the supreme leader’s authority. This indicates the presence of a vocation solely dedicated to politics. The charismatic ruler is held to have an inner calling to lead his nation. People accept his rule not because of customs or laws but because they believe in him. It is not difficult to place Bhutto against this theoretical and sociological narrative. He possessed a charismatic personality which was distinctly convoluted, and he went above and beyond to even use religious laws and dictums to give himself a political boost.
Bhutto's ‘Islamic Socialism’ sounds great on paper and he compelled his supporters to grasp the concept that Islam and socialism were highly compatible with each other. Islam was viewed as a social and all encompassing system by students who backed his claims, and one of them went as far as to argue that Pakistan might as well rejoin India if it was to diverge from Islam. Bhutto states, quite explicitly, that Islam was a uniting force between the right and the left in this relatively young nation and its prerogatives could not possibly be understood by the outside world. Within the ‘ideology’ of Islam itself, there was no contradiction with socialism. He desired to see a form of Scandinavian socialism thrive in Pakistan with distinctly Asian features and conditions. These words seem way ahead of their time, especially since they are coming from a archival visual source which had still not shed its colorless, monochromatic format. His educational background had prompted him to think along socialistic lines and become a firm advocate of social and economic reorientation. What followed next was rampant nationalization which transformed industries and the banking sector.
Only black and white documentaries and interviews - easily accessible on YouTube - dating back to the 70s can attest to the emergence of the ‘Bhutto Effect’ whose wave swept across students of prominent Pakistani universities. Despite having several dissidents, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had succeeded in enrapturing a major section of students. His claims of putting an end to “Buffalo Bill Capitalism” aimed to radically modify the existing economic model without abolishing or putting an end to private enterprise. He was convinced that he offered a policy which was positive, democratic and promised economic justice to the masses.
The entire period of Bhutto’s political tenure was rooted in his personal and privileged ideals. He agreed that people belonging to feudal backgrounds, like himself, often set out to reform society and bring about social justice, often identifying themselves as militant social reformers. He looked up to certain events in world history, the French and Russian Revolutions being two of them, and took cues from them to create a new society which would follow the path he espoused. However, his ‘charismatic’ personality proved to be problematic towards the end of his tenure. Scholars like Muhammad Abrar Zahoor have called him out for controlling political issues and narratives, and dealing with them like a Sindhi wadera [landlord].
Additionally, there wasn’t anything truly Islamic about his Islamic Socialism; Islam was just a catchword which was used to give credence to his socialistic reforms and to reduce the hostility by which it was previously met. Socialism was not a demonic ideology and he wanted to prove this through the anticipated success of his policies. Unfortunately, his attempts at nationalizing every economic sector of Pakistan over which he had his eyes on ravaged the entire economic structure which was comparatively stable under Ayub Khan’s military government (however, this does not justify military intervention by any means).
People suffered as a result of this poorly executed program and Bhutto’s charm began to evaporate. Business families turned against him as they began to feel extremely alienated as their assets were hit the hardest. This is that one section of the society which politicians must not have as their enemies and dire repercussions had to be faced as a result. His foreign policy of bilateralism and non-alignment did not change the prospects of Pakistan to a huge extent. He even tried to weaken the army by attacking its basic constitution by creating the Federal Security Force [FSF]. He appropriated its services to terrorize his political opponents. His self-aggrandizing tendencies faced a major blow when it was realized that his nuclear weapon policy, dubbed as the ‘Islamic Bomb’, was a result of espionage and assistance from a friendly power, not a product of a technologically advanced state. The combination of Islam and technology was just an illusion. Even though Bhutto’s populism echoed that of India’s leader at that time -Indira Gandhi- it set the stage for General Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamization which ended up distorting aspects of Pakistani culture and society. Bhutto’s downfall was, indeed, as meteoric as his rise (Zahoor).
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s promise of democracy morphed into despotism and calculated risks that ultimately led to several blunders. People of Pakistan were waylaid, once again. The gap between his political declarations and actual practices nudged the masses to drift away from his policies and personality. He utilized unprecedented political power and tactics to eliminate all those who came in his way and continued to gained more adversaries as time passed. Despite being the leader of the only civilian government to complete its tenure of 5 years, his administration cannot be viewed in a partisan manner. It glitters on paper but has a grotesque underbelly.
India can learn a major lesson from the turbulent past of Pakistan, which is groaning under the pressures of economic crisis and political fraud even in the present. It ceases to become the object of ridicule when the struggles of its citizens are brought to light. All of us, collectively, must chose to pay attention. Charismatic figures exercise a lot of clout over the political atmosphere of India and the way her citizens participate as occasional politicians during elections. They continue to have a strong presence in society.
People’s mandate should rest upon reasonable promises of efficient resolutions for real issues instead of individual charisma of a towering personality who doesn’t seem as grand or clever in reality. Worshipping these leaders must not become the norm. After all, they are not gods who can ameliorate personal woes with a snap of their fingers. They always end up to be wolves in sheep’s clothing who prey on people’s aspirations and cheat on their souls for their own benefit. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s presence in history has become even more important today. His leadership has become a symbol for what we must avoid. A leaf from our real history textbooks (those which have not yet been martyred by the process of saffronization) must be taken out for a lesson with which the present generation cannot compromise.
