Daily Times

One evening a couple of weeks ago, Mr Asif Ali Zardari had a long meeting with Maulana Fazlur Rehman during which the latter got the impression that the president was not feeling well. He was said to have lost consciousness for a few seconds. His life had reportedly been under threat and he did not feel safe enough in a Pakistani hospital. He went to an American facility in Dubai for examination and treatment. This caused a lot of agitation and speculation among the media people and the general public. They wanted to know how sick he was, if he would live, or whether they would have to look for someone to replace him. Private television channels issued conflicting reports about the state of his health and his movements every few hours. All of this went on until he returned to Karachi on December 19. Different versions of how he had occupied himself during his absence from Pakistan continued to circulate.

According to the constitution, the president is the head of the state and a symbol of the federation’s unity, and as such he swears in ministers and receives foreign emissaries. But he has no functions or powers whatever in the domain of governance. Yet the present incumbent, Asif Ali Zardari, is one of the country’s most powerful political figures. His power derives from his position as head of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), whose notables and possibly also the rank and file take him as their leader. That role may however be problematic.

Two broad categories of leadership come to mind, namely transactional and transformational. A candidate for election to the National Assembly solicits votes in his constituency, promises to bring roads, schools, clinics and other facilities to the area. Once elected, he delivers the services he had promised. A deal was made and fulfilled. Neither side owes anything further to the other. This is a case of transactional leadership. The next election will be another ball game. In another situation a candidate may not only promise to deliver services to his constituents, he may also want to change their political culture, i.e. their attitudes and modes of action in politics. This person is exercising transformational leadership. In our recent history, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was such a leader during the earlier years of his rise to power and rule.

Where in these categories is Mr Zardari to be placed? He is by no means a reformer. He takes the present patterns of societal interaction as given and has little interest in changing them. He is more likely a maker of transactions and as such he is one of a kind. He will make a bargain with a certain politician or group but that does not prevent him from making a contrary arrangement with its rivals. It may be no exaggeration to say that he is pre-eminently a handler, or let us say manipulator, of men and situations.

He has not turned out to be a shining success even as a handler or manager. The party he heads, the PPP, is in a shambles largely because of mismanagement on his part. It has been sliding down ever since he became its co-chairman following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. The party is not wanting in men and women of good sense and honour. They have been set aside and driven out of its decision-making process largely because they were close to Benazir. He has surrounded himself with those whom she had kept at a distance. An explanation may be that he wants to be fully able to disregard her legacy. In his public statements he professes to honour her and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s values and goals. He has given many observers the impression that actually he has no use for the traditions and values that they had stood for and struggled.

Mr Zardari’s posture and style have made him one of the most unpopular figures in politics. ‘Go Zardari, Go’ has become a common demand. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and several other groups have vowed to drive him out of power. The Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) have pledged to support him but they are known to be fickle and may abandon him when they find it to be more expedient. It should be a fair assumption that Mr Zardari is aware of his shrinking and languishing support base. But he appears to be taking no action to mend it.

It is possible that Mr Zardari expects to be re-elected as president when his term expires in 2013. It is more likely that politics is not his chosen vocation, that he is not a politician and does not intend to be one in the years to come. Politics is indeed a struggle for power, which is to be attained through superior force, manipulation, or popular support. In any case, the question will arise what one intends to do with it. It could be used for self-aggrandisement or for promoting the people’s well-being. This latter objective could mean enabling the people to actualise the potential with which God has endowed them.

It is probable that Mr Zardari has little interest in improving the human condition. His rivals, such as Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif, have undoubtedly their share of blemishes. But in the more general perception these are of much smaller proportion and consequence than those of Mr Zardari. Just the other day (December 23) his prime minister, Mr Yousaf Raza Gilani, moaned and groaned in the National Assembly that his government was threatened by conspiracies and implied that the army chief and head of the ISI were hatching them. It is true that this government’s writ does not travel much beyond the prime minister’s house in Islamabad. Many observers feel that it would be wiser for it to quit voluntarily instead of waiting to be driven out. In conclusion, it may be said that neither the president nor his government merits the media attention that it is getting. It may be best to leave them alone.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net