Transcript

Host: This is “On the Line,” and I’m Eric Felten.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said she would resume campaigning for the parliamentary election scheduled for January, even though she has received new death threats from al-Qaida. Ms. Bhutto suspended her campaign after terrorists attacked her and her supporters at a political rally in Karachi. The suicide bombers murdered some one-hundred-forty people. The former prime minister had just returned to Pakistan after eight years in exile, and her homecoming procession attracted hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Ms. Bhutto suggested that some in the government of President Pervez Musharraf may be implicated in the attack. For now, Ms. Bhutto says she will avoid holding large-scale political rallies. “How do we bring the election campaign to the people,” she wrote in the Wall Street Journal newspaper, “under the very real threat of assassination and mass casualties of the innocent?”

What are the prospects for democratic reform and elections in Pakistan in the face of terrorist violence? I’ll ask my guests: Kevin Whitelaw, a senior writer at “U.S. News & World Report”; senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, Lisa Curtis; and joining us by phone from Hong Kong, Colum Murphy, deputy editor of the “Far Eastern Economic Review”; and by phone from Tangalle, Sri Lanka, Irfan Husain, a columnist for the “Dawn” and “The Daily Times” newspapers. Welcome. Thanks for joining us.

I’d like to go first to Sri Lanka, to Irfan Husain. Irfan Husain, can you hear us?

Husain: Yeah, absolutely, sir.

Host: What’s been the reaction of people in Pakistan to the attack on Benazir Bhutto and her supporters?

Husain: I think people have been appalled and stunned. But unfortunately there is an element which is blaming Benazir for having come back, ignoring government advice and so on. To me, it’s a bit like blaming the victim, because this is what the terrorists want. They want a halt to the democratic process, and I think Benazir has done a very gutsy thing by going ahead and campaigning and being with the people who support her.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, what’s your sense of how this is affecting the prospects for an election going forward in Pakistan?

Whitelaw: The whole run up to this election has obviously had all kinds of drama surrounding it. There’s been drama on the political side. There’s been the drama surrounding negotiations between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf. There’s been the drama of another former prime minister who tried to return to Pakistan, Nawar Sharif. There’s the continuing fighting out in the tribal areas and the militants out there. And there’s also, of course, been the drama with the Supreme Court and its various rulings affecting the political fates of a number one. So there’s a whole set of things, and this just adds one more element that sort of puts this into doubt. And I think the overriding factor all along has been President Musharraf’s very clear determination to stay in power, and one way or the other. So I think a lot of this is still going to depend on how comfortable he feels in the end about his standing and his ability to remain in control.

Host: Let’s go to Hong Kong. Colum Murphy, are you there? Can you hear us?

Murphy: Yes, I am.

Host: What’s your sense on where this attack on Benazir Bhutto fits into the political situation in Pakistan?

Murphy: Well, I think that Benazir Bhutto and her party will enjoy some kind of political capital from this because now she has a perception in Pakistan of being very courageous and brave, and this will definitely help her to solidify her voting base amongst the rural poor in Sindh, which is already quite strong, and also will help her to expand her popularity in other critical provinces, such as Punjab. So I think it will have a major impact and puts her in a very strong position, a stronger position than she could ever have hoped for before she came back to Pakistan.

Host: Lisa Curtis, what do you think about that?

Curtis: Well, I want to emphasize what Irfan Husain mentioned, which is you can’t blame the victim. Clearly, the extremists see Benazir Bhutto and what she represents as a threat to what they’re trying to do, which is implement a theocratic state in Pakistan. She represents democracy, modernity for the country. So clearly this is an attack on democracy and the political process, and it has to be condemned in unequivocal terms. We have seen some unhelpful statements by senior Pakistan government officials, which seem to be justifying these attacks, and I think this is very unhelpful. I think this is a time for Pakistan to pull together, for there to be unity and unequivocal condemnation of this kind of violence and attacks. And to its credit, the Musharraf government did say this won’t threaten the schedule for the general election, which, I think, is the right approach. It is difficult. The campaigning is going to have to be different because there clearly are security threats. But I think it’s important to keep the election schedule on track and to go ahead and hold the general election by mid January, as scheduled.

Host: Irfan Husain, what is the sense in Pakistan about the ability of the government to provide security for Benazir Bhutto and also to investigate the attack and find the perpetrators?

Husain: I don’t think the government can really provide security for the kind of rally that we had last week when Benazir Bhutto came back, with hundreds of thousands of people, and anybody could have driven up and detonated a suicide vest. Now, I don’t think that the government can really provide security in a nationwide election campaign because there are going to be all kinds of rallies and street-corner meetings and so on. And any nut, any fundamentalist can drive up on a motorbike or a car and -- same problem. And this is what they’ve been doing in the tribal areas in the north of Pakistan for some months now. So I think it’s going to be a fairly bloody election campaign. Having said that, I agree with the previous speaker. It should not be postponed. It should go ahead, because this is the only way these people can be confronted and democracy put back on track.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, how do you pursue a democratic election? Benazir Bhutto has written that the Pakistani style of campaigning -- what people know in Pakistan of democracy -- is very much involved with mass rallies, with caravans, with a sort of grassroots approach to politics, where people expect to see their leaders, to hear them directly -- not the sort of thing where, in the West, people are used to getting television commercials and telephone calls and this sort of thing. So, how does this affect Pakistan’s ability to get back into the swing of democratic politics?

Whitelaw: It clearly is going to be a difficult problem for her. The one thing that she has going for her is there was a pretty strong demonstration of support by just the mere turnout at this one rally, despite some of the risks. And I think that, at least, will give her a bit of comfort that her various political negotiations with Musharraf might not have harmed her popularity quite as much as some people have suggested. I think, in the meantime, you’re seeing some of the politicians start to talk about: “Are there are ways to use the Internet?” or “Are there ways to use other technology?” In a country like Pakistan, that’s obviously going to be very difficult to sort of reach everybody, but it might actually help her to reach some of the kinds of supporters that she most needs to be able to reach. So, there’s a few ways around this. In the end, though, she’s going to have to continue to take some risks. Before she left she was always saying: “Look, I pray for the best, but I prepare for the worst,” and I think that you’re going to see that she’ll probably still have to take some calculated risks on how to proceed. But, you know, as we said, despite the thousands of security folks who were there from the government and despite several thousand more that her own party provided, it certainly wasn’t enough to stop the attack.

Host: Lisa Curtis, let me ask you. How do you think that conflict now that you see between Benazir Bhutto and the government over the issue of her security and whether the government might have been implicated -- whether that affects whatever kind of agreement Musharraf and Bhutto may have had that sort of paved the way for her being able to return?

Curtis: I think it certainly makes it more difficult, but let’s face it. This agreement has been difficult from the beginning, and it’s really a miracle that it has lasted this long. And I think, you know, President Musharraf understands the importance of developing some kind of power-sharing arrangement. Benazir Bhutto, who would prefer, of course, to have just open democracy, I think understands the reality of what she’s dealing with in Pakistan and that the military is very much in control there. So she is looking at this agreement as a way to transition to democracy. She’s kind of taking a pragmatic view of the situation, but certainly this bombing is really going to cause major divisions. She had already talked about the fact that there were people surrounding president Musharraf who did not want her to come back. She has now openly accused them of being complicit, or at least not trying to stop the bombings. So, this is a serious problem. She may want to make the agreement work. President Musharraf himself may want to make it work. But if they are already having problems and accusing people surrounding Musharraf of actually being involved in the bombing, this is an extremely serious issue. But the hope is that they will focus not on pointing fingers for political gain, but take this opportunity to show that the government really does need to take an unequivocal stand against the extremists. It’s not useful to have a tactical approach. You need to have a strategic approach in dealing with this problem of extremism. So that’s my hope, is that they will focus on this issue.

Host: Let me ask Irfan Husain. What’s your sense of the political situation in Pakistan now between Musharraf and Bhutto?

Husain: I think they’re both walking a tightrope here. I think both of them are pragmatic people. Despite their personal aversion to each other, they do need each other. And they need to know that even if Musharraf wasn’t on the scene, she would still need the support of the army who can trounce the militants in the tribal areas. So, here, Musharraf, who had the support of Washington -- She is willing to go into a partnership with him, and for him, he needs to widen his political base. He’s been saying for a number of years that he should form a partnership with the secular elements in Pakistan. Instead, he has been cozying up with the fundamentalists, and now the chickens are coming home to roost, in a sense.

Host: Irfan Husain, what’s your sense of how much support the fundamentalists have in a democratic situation in Pakistan? Are they in a position to have much impact in a free and fair election?

Husain: No, in terms of numbers, very little. There are fundamentalists, and then there are the terrorists. I don’t think we should necessarily imply that all fundamentalists believe in violence. But the extremist parties have never won more than ten percent of the vote in any election in Pakistan. So, I think, in a free and fair election, although such a thing is difficult to imagine in Pakistan currently, I think the Islamic party will do quite badly, especially after their performance in the government of the provinces of the Northwest Frontier and Balochistan, where they performed very badly. So, I think a lot of people are fed up of them, and I think in the election they will do quite badly.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, what needs to happen to get a free and fair election in Pakistan, then?

Whitelaw: It’s a really good question, and it’s not even clear how free and fair this election can be at this time, especially given the new constraints on the political campaigning. But we’re already looking at a situation where a lot of the various candidates have a number of constitutional impediments to getting to be where they want to be. We’re looking at --

Host: What do you mean by that?

Whitelaw: We’re looking at Musharraf, who’s still trying to get around the constitutional impediment of serving as both army chief and president. That’s something that there’s – he’s said he’s going to step down at that point, and we’re still waiting for that --

Host: Step down from the military?

Whitelaw: Step down from the military role. We’re still waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on that fate. That’s pending. Bhutto herself was prime minister twice. That’s the limit, according to the constitution. So she’s looking for a constitutional change there to try to enable her to serve against as prime minister. There’s a number of those kinds of things that are happening, and I think it depends on how you define democracy, as to whether you think that makes for a free and fair election. And then, of course, there’s Washington’s attitude towards this whole thing. One of the advantages of Bhutto’s return is that it might actually help prompt the United States to broaden its policy and stop sort of this focus on Musharraf and really sort of -- this over-personalization of policy towards Pakistan. It might actually help, sort of prompt the U-S to really keep the pressure on Musharraf to make this a more democratic and open election.

Host: Lisa Curtis, let’s talk about that. Have policymakers in the U.S. adjusted what they’re looking at in Pakistan, seeing that maybe there’s more to support in Pakistan than just President Musharraf?

Curtis: I think they are, but I think they have been slow to understand the ferment for democracy in Pakistan. But I do think in the last few months we have seen the U.S. shift its policy. Go back to when Secretary Rice intervened to stop Musharraf from declaring emergency in the country. I think this was a helpful step. I also note that U.S. officials behind the scenes have been encouraging President Musharraf to remove his military uniform by the end of the year, as he has pledged. So, I do think that if the Supreme Court rules in Musharraf’s favor, he has to --

Host: This is the Pakistani Supreme Court.

Curtis: The Pakistani Supreme Court, obviously. He has to remove the uniform. He cannot renege on that pledge like he did in 2004. I think there would be tremendous backlash domestically, and I think there would be international condemnation there, as well. So, yes, I do think that the U.S. has evolved its policy. I think it has been slow to do this, but it does understand that we need to have an election in Pakistan. We need to transition to civilian democratic rule, and this is good for Pakistan. I think they were concerned six months ago that perhaps an election in Pakistan would bring a religious-fundamentalist government. They looked at what happened in the Palestinian territories; in Lebanon, but I think there is a realization now that Pakistan is different. It has a tradition of democracy. It does have strong, popular, secular parties. The religious parties have never received more than ten percent of the vote, as Irfan indicated. And I think there is a greater understanding of this, both in the administration and on Capitol Hill.

Host: Let me ask Irfan Husain. Do you think it’s important at this point what the U.S. and other western governments do with regard to Pakistan, what messages they send?

Husain: I think they should just maintain a holding pattern here. I don’t think they should get involved at all, because currently it’s the kiss of death in Pakistani politics to be identified to closely with Washington. This is one of the crosses Benazir Bhutto is bearing at the moment. She’s being accused of being Washington’s representative in Pakistani politics. There are a lot of right-wing people, not necessarily terrorists, but who are very into the political Islam who resent the fact that Musharraf is fighting America’s war and killing Pakistani participants in the process. So, I think the West needs to just observe and try and make sure the elections are as transparent as possible by sending in monitoring teams, but should not voice support for any one candidate.

Host: Colum Murphy, do we have you back on the phone?

Murphy: Yes, I’m here.

Host: Yes. What’s your sense on that? Is there a role for the U.S. and other countries in the West to play in promoting a free and fair election in Pakistan?

Murphy: I believe so. A lot of people I spoke to when I was I Pakistan last week -- they brought up again and again the issue of election rigging, and this is something that many people told me is beyond the level of just election rigging at the ballot-box stage, but much more sophisticated methods may be used if the outcome of the election is not to the favor, particularly, of President Musharraf. So, I would say that, yes, there is a role for Western countries to continually drive home the message that these elections must be as free and fair as possible. Otherwise, the results will be illegitimate, and there will be even more problems for Pakistan.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, what’s your sense of U.S. willingness at this point to really invest in getting that message across -- an expectation that these elections be free and fair?

Whitelaw: Well, I think you’re going to see it certainly at a rhetorical level. There’s certainly going to be a fair amount of private diplomacy. I think that U.S. has to tread carefully. They’re more comfortable with sort of the known of President Musharraf than they are with the unknown of something else, and so they don’t want something that’s going to sort of upset the apple cart too much. They also have been very eager, though, to avoid any sort of martial-law declarations, which was something that Musharraf has reportedly been considering at one point. So, I think they want to have this continuing to look like a step towards democracy. But at the same time, you’ve already seen the opposition parties wanting the U.S. to get a little deeper involved in some of the various disputes. There’s a dispute, for instance, over the election roles and who’s on the list to be eligible to vote and who’s not and allegations of many missing people. That’s something -- you’re not seeing the U.S. willing to get into that level of detail. They’re saying: “Pakistan needs to make this a fair election,” but they’re not going to get into that level.

Host: Lisa Curtis, we just have less than a minute left. Let me ask you what your sense is on the impact that this election and the political process in Pakistan is going to have on the larger issue of the fight against terrorism in the world.

Curtis: Well, I think if the election goes forward as planned in mid January, it’s perceived as credible -- which, of course, there are a lot of issues that still need to be dealt with. The voter rolls apparently don’t include millions of voters. So this is one issue that is going to have to be dealt with as soon as we get over the hump of the Supreme Court making its ruling on President Musharraf and the presidency. We have to start dealing with these issues -- the voter rolls, the election commission, the interim government. They’re trying to decide who the caretaker government will be to oversee these elections, and that has to be perceived as a transparent process. So, these are all critical issues, and if that happens, I think it will be a tremendous blow to the extremists -- if a credible election in which you have good participation -- hopefully the violence can be limited. I think this will be a tremendous blow for the extremists and a tremendous step forward for Pakistan.

Host: I’m afraid that’s going to have to be the last word for today. We’re out of time. But I’d like to thank my guests: Kevin Whitelaw of “U.S. News & World Report”; from The Heritage Foundation, Lisa Curtis; joining us by phone from Hong Kong, Colum Murphy of the “Far Eastern Economic Review”; and by phone from Tangalle, Sri Lanka, Irfan Husain of the “Dawn” and “The Daily Times” newspapers. Before we go, I’d like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On the Line,” I’m Eric Felten.