Every country has a government. Every country has opposition parties. In the United States, there are the Republicans (government) and the Democrats (opposition). In the United Kingdom, there is the Labour (government) and the Conservative (opposition). The government’s responsibility is to run a country to the best of its abilities based on what it understands to be the will of the people. The opposition’s responsibility is to openly discuss the mistakes of the elected government, while working towards a collaborative solution to the problems of the people. But what surprises me is that in either of these countries, the word “impeach” or “resign” is rarely used in politicial conversations. Realistically, if opposition parties were to behave irresponsibly, the United States would have seen Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush impeached based on numerous ill-fated domestic, foreign policy and economic decisions. The United Kingdom would have see Winston Churchill, Margret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair raked over the coals and removed for the same reasons.

Where would democracy be today in these countries?

In Pakistan, democracy does not work that way. In Pakistan, the “democratic” parties would like the people of Pakistan, and the world, to believe that they are unable to govern due to the threat of military takeovers. This is not even close to being the truth.

Any review of the history of Pakistan will show that every time a democratic government has come into power, it has been a time of great destruction for the nation. Starting with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif, the democratic governments have only served their own interests, never taking into account the suffering of the people. Today, Pakistan stands at the same crossroads, as the elected representatives of the political parties raise their voices to remove the Musharraf government under the guise that it is a military dictatorship. I would like to take you on a ride from the first Benazir Bhutto government in 1988 to the sitting Musharraf government to demonstrate the value of the democracy that the political parties of Pakistan are demanding today.

Benazir Bhutto (1988 – 1990 & 1993 – 1996) took the reins of Government from General Zia ul-Haq, who had ruled the country with an iron Islamic fist. As many will remember, General Zia ul-Haq removed and sentenced to death Benazir’s father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, from power over various charges including high treason. Benazir came into power with the hopes of a nation in her hands, as she pledged to work for a progressive and democratic Pakistan – guided by Islamic principles of brotherhood, equality, and tolerance. The Bhutto family has been plagued with problems from the mysterious deaths of Shahnawaz in Cannes, France in 1985, to the assassination of Murtaza Bhutto, during her second term as Prime Minister, in Karachi by a police hit squad; but one thing that can not be doubted is the feudal background of the Bhuttos, one of the largest land owners in the country. This Harvard and Oxford educated “leader” had given a speech at a Harvard commencement in 1989 stressing that she was an “opponent of leaders who use their power for personal gain, then leave the cupboard bare.” Such prophetic words from one of the most corrupt politicians in Pakistan’s history.

Benazir’s first government was dismissed twenty months after she took office in 1988 with charges of corruption and misrule. In 1987, Benazir Bhutto married Asif Ali Zardari, now known as Mr. 10% in Pakistan, which many say led to her downfall. Her second term as Prime Minister was much more eventful, plagued with corruption, extrajudicial killings, nepotism, and favoritism. Although this is the norm in Pakistan for any democratically elected government, the Bhuttos took corruption to a new level in the country. In her second term, she held two positions, Prime Minister and Finance Minister, in the democratically elected government which gave her a free hand to do as she wished. Hussain Haqqani, Bhutto’s former press secretary, once said “She no longer made the distinction between the Bhuttos and Pakistan. In her mind, she was Pakistan, so she could do as she pleased.”

Benazir, who had been given the benefit of the doubt by the voters that she didn’t know what her husband was doing in relation to the past corruption charges that led to the dismissal of her first administration, made sure that this time she knew everything, by appointing Asif Ali Zardari as Investment Minister, reporting only to her, in July 1996. His first act of business was to build a new Prime Minister’s residence, a $50 million mansion set on 110 acres in Islamabad. He then ordered 11.5 acres of protected woodland on an adjoining hilltop to be bulldozed for a polo field, an exercise track, stables for 40 polo ponies, quarters for grooms and a parking lot for spectators. When a senior government official refused to allow payment from the government exchequer, Zardari simply had him removed from his position and got the work done.

Zardari is crediting with bringing cronies into the government to review state programs for opportunities to generate revenue for themselves. Included in these transactions, according to Swiss investigators, defence contracts; power plant projects; the privatization of state-owned industries; the awarding of broadcast licenses; the granting of an export monopoly for the country’s huge rice harvests; the purchase of planes for Pakistan International Airlines; the assignment of textile export quotas; the granting of oil and gas permits; authorizations to build sugar mills, and the sale of government lands. An inquiry committee formed after the dismissal of the Bhutto government determined that Bhutto and Zardari took great pains not to create a documentary record for their role in these deals. They developed a yellow Post-It system in which favors were assigned by writing orders and attached to official files. Once the deal was completed, the notes were removed, destroying all traces of involvement.

Now in Pakistan, it is commonplace for governments to be dismissed due to corruption, but Benazir was dealt a huge blow when an independent Swiss investigation team purchased records from an informant that linked them to over US$ 2 billion in corruption. Where the files came from, no one knows to this day, but they have been credited to Jens Schlegelmilch, the Bhutto family attorney in Europe.

The files were originally offered to the Government of Pakistan for US$ 20 million, but were sold to the Swiss for US$ 1 million. When Schlegelmilch was contacted by the New York Times for comment, he declined to confirm any information other than he had not sold the documents, “It wouldn’t be worth selling out for US$ 1 million.”

What was in those documents? Statements for several accounts in Switzerland, including Citibank accounts in Dubai and Geneva; letters from executives promising payoffs, with details of the percentage payments to be made; memorandums detailing meetings at which “commissions” and “remunerations” were agreed upon, and certificates of incorporation for the offshore companies used as fronts for the deals, many registered in the British Virgin Islands. As a result, the Swiss courts have frozen 17 bank accounts belonging to the Bhutto family.

The information contained in these documents started an international investigation that uncovered an estate in Rockwood, better known as the Surrey estate, and a US$ 2.5 million country manor in Normandy, both in the UK. The United States Justice department started investigating accounts in the US, properties, including a country club and polo ranch in Palm Beach County, Florida, said to be worth US$ 4 million and the possibility that some of Zardari’s wealth may have come from Pakistani drug traffickers paying for protection, with Afghanistan shipping over 250 tons of heroin to Europe and the United States. Emily MacFarquhar, while researching the life of Benazir Bhutto, attributed accounts in at least 4 French banks, 7 US banks, 2 properties in Texas, 6 properties in Florida and several homes in France.

Benazir’s government is also credited with Operation Cleanup, headed by General Naseerullah Babar, in Karachi, which carried out targeted killings of members of the rival Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) political party.

Amazingly, the tax returns filed by Bhutto, Zardari and Nusrat Bhutto declared assets totaling $1.2 million in 1996 and never told Pakistani authorities of any foreign bank accounts or properties, as required by law in Pakistan. Zardari declared no net assets at all in 1990, the year Bhutto’s first term ended, and only $402,000 in 1996. The family’s income tax declarations were similarly modest. The highest income Bhutto declared was $42,200 in 1996, with $5,110 in tax. In two of her years as prime minister, 1993 and 1994, she paid no income tax at all. Zardari’s highest declared income was $13,100, also in 1996, when interest on bank deposits he controlled in Switzerland exceeded that much every week.

Benazir’s total corruption is estimated at US$ 2 billion and she is in self imposed exile in Dubai, UAE, but regularly travels to the United Kingdom and United States.

There is no way that I can go into details of all the information contained in the Swiss documents, but for those interested in learning the details of the corruption, you can follow the link “Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption in Pakistan,” which is an investigative story by Jeff Gerth and Elizabeth Olson for the New York Times in 1998.

Sadly, during the investigations, Bhutto shot back in shock at then President Bill Clinton that he had ignored her plight while deploring the treatment of a Burmese opposition leader and Nobel laureate who had suffered numerous persecutions by the Burmese military. Bhutto is quoted as saying, “This is the most horrendous human rights record, what is happening to me, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. It is shocking to see that the Clinton administration talks so much about Burma, when this is happening to a woman who leads the opposition here.” Tears welling in her eyes, she added, “The Bhuttos have suffered so much for Pakistan.”

More like Pakistan has suffered so much for the Bhuttos, BB.

Nawaz Sharif (1990 – 1993 & 1996 – 1999), Pakistan’s other Prime Minister, was no better than Benazir. His first administration was dismissed in 1993, by then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, on charges of corruption. Even though 6 weeks later, the Supreme Court overrulled the President’s power and restored Sharif’s parliamentary government, Sharif was accused of defaulting on state bank loans to his family businesses and laundering at least US$ 66 million of the borrowings. The Sharif family’s wealth is built around steel, paper, sugar and textile mills, and his business empire rose astronomically during the 1980s, while he was Chief Minister of the Punjab, and in the 1990s, while he was Prime Minister of the country. Nawaz Sharif and family didn’t miss a chance to pile-up money in foreign banks; amend income tax laws to defray unlawful rebates, and grow their family business. The press was attacked and controlled for printing anything anti-government, which included a very public war with the Jang Group, Pakistan’s largest Urdu newspaper, which included banning the delivery of broadsheet newspaper; and the regular kidnappings of journalists that didn’t share the Sharif’s opinion of what should be printed for public consumption. Both of his administrations were charged with defaulting on bank loans, evasion of taxes and duties, illegal appointments and promotions, concealing assets within the country and abroad, misusing his office to expand his business empire and illegally acquiring prime land in different parts of the country. Additionally, Sharif’s home city of Lahore saw massive expansion, while the rest of the country was ignored. All at the expense of the national exchequer.

The biggest blow to Nawaz Sharif came when the Observer newspaper in the UK accused him of evading taxes and siphoning millions of public dollars into personal bank accounts. The newspaper quoted a report by Rehman Malik, an investigator with the Pakistani Federal Investigation Agency, that said the Sharif family was involved in tax evasion, loan defaults and had “phantom” bank accounts. Included in these documents are 4 apartments in London’s exclusive Mayfair district, worth over US$ 5 million, accounts and companies controlled by the then Prime Minister’s family worth more than US$ 70 million.

Nawaz Sharif’s second administration was overthrown by Chief of Army Staff, General Musharraf, in 1999 on charges of hijacking and terrorism, when he attempted to have Musharraf’s flight from Sri Lanka routed to a small airport to facilitate an illegal arrest, to move a close ally into the same designation.

The Sharif family’s total corruption is estimated at US$ 1.5 billion and he was exiled to Saudi Arabia due to international outcry that he would be unfairly treated. He is now living in the Mayfair district of London for medical reasons.

This all brings us to the question, is the Musharraf government better than these past attempts at democracy? The answer is a qualified yes.

Musharraf initially ruled for the first 2 years without an elected parliament, but in 2001, general elections were called and all of the political parties were invited to participate, minus the Bhuttos and the Sharifs. Today, each of the Provincial Assemblies, of which 2 are controlled by the MMA, a staunchly religious party, and the National Assembly have numerous members of the opposition parties. The nation has been business as usual for the past 5 years.

Today, the National Assembly of Pakistan will take up a No Confidence motion against Shaukat Aziz, the highly qualified Prime Minister, and the rest of the elected government of Pakistan. The principle reason is that the President is a military general and not an elected politician, which categorizes him as a military dictator, even though there are no signs of a dictatorship. The government is accused of corruption in the privatization process of Pakistan Steel Mills, Pakistan Telecommunications Company Limited and Karachi Electric Supply Company, each drawing funds from the national exchequer to maintain inefficient operations and massive corruption. The opposition parties believe that it is the government’s responsibility to maintain its involvement within these now private organizations. The opposition also blames the government for the sugar shortage that occurred earlier this year, forgetting the fact that it was caused by members of their own parties hoarding sugar in their mills to arbitrarily inflate the price on the market. And now they have added the death of Akbar Bugti, a Baluchi warlord, calling it an military ordered political assassination to send the opposition parties a message to shape up or else.

Although Musharraf is under the gun for not removing the uniform and being an elected leader, he is credited with improving the image of Pakistan, making it one of the top 10 investment countries in the world, bringing a progressive media explosion that has seen the launch of over 30 satellite channels and true freedom to criticize the government without persecution and slowly building the basis for a true democratic union, including demanding that every member of the elected government hold graduate degrees, which was not required during the previous democratic governments. In previous governments, some elected members could not read or write and some even signed their names with a thumb print.

Think about that for a second, would you trust a government that didn’t have an education? Anyone can apply? Government is not a fast food joint or a janitor’s job that doesn’t require intelligence or logic; it requires individuals with an education, work experience and a clear understanding of how to build and run a country.

The opposition parties of Pakistan have also been the ones that have incited the people to come on the streets over any decision that they don’t accept from the government. This leads to riots in all the metropolitan cities of Pakistan that lead to cars and buildings being burned to the ground, looting of stores, and the deaths of numerous innocent individuals; all for the cause of sending the government a clear message that they didn’t accept their rule. Yet, these same opposition members have no problem using their diplomatic passports and funds from the national exchequer to travel to the United Kingdom, United States, and other countries to enjoy their positions in the government. I pose a couple of questions:

If they are so against the elected government, why did they put their names on the ballot?

If they are so against the elected government, why don’t they use the government forum to discuss the problems and work towards the solution that is best for the people of Pakistan, rather than their own interests?

On Monday of last week, the opposition in the National Assembly defeated a bill that would control the spread of HIV and AIDS; while passing a bill that re-instated the serving of food at wedding ceremonies, which was banned by the Nawaz Sharif government. Which is more important to a nation? Stopping AIDS or serving food at a wedding? You decide.

On Tuesday of last week, the religious parties shredded a bill that would give women rights under the law, including revising the rape laws and ending the controversial honor killings. Currently in Pakistan, if a women is raped, she must provide 4 eyewitnesses to have the police register a rape case. Yes, you read that right: 4 eyewitnesses to register a rape case. In addition, the bill included 11 references to the Quran, 17 references to the Hadiths, and numerous mentions of the Prophet (SAW) and Allah’s name. According to tradition, a Muslim is not allowed to touch the Quran with dirty hands, whereas the religious parties ripped the bill up and stepped on it. Many parties have asked that blasphemy cases be registered against each of the individuals that were caught on camera desecrating the Holy Quran.

When politicians are more interested in serving wedding meals rather than solving the spread of AIDS or giving women protection under the law, it is easy to understand why Pakistan has not seen a democracy develop.

Imran Anwar said it best in his article “A Cure or Certain Death,” when he said “The political parties Pakistan has is like having AIDS and Cancer together, not only is each one capable of causing death, together they promise to make it a wasting away on the outside, while being eaten away on the inside.”

What would you do if this was your country?

Further Reading:

- Then and Now

- Who botched the transition to democracy?

- A Cure or Certain Death?

- Pakistan: A History

- What Went Wrong With The Muslim Promised Land?

- Talk About a Mess – Nawaz Sharif is under siege

- Signs of our limitless inanity

- 80 cases pending against Nawaz

- Eleven Reasons Why I Still Believe In Pakistan

- Where Corruption is a way of life