Of BB, AZ, and NYT: The Corruption of Politics and the Politics of Corruption

Every Pakistani in the US seems to be talking about the expose published in

today's (January 9, 1998) New York Times about the international trail of

corruption that Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari have left behind from their

last stint in office.  Since I first read the story early this morning (the

old fashioned way, in a 'real' newspaper) I have received as many as seven

different emails inviting my attention to the NYT web-site where the story

can be read in its entirety... and more might be on their way!  Moreover,

its not just Pakistanis who seem to excited about the report. Since this

morning, I have been asked by three faculty members and one radio

journalist what is to be made about the story in the Times.  (The great

thing about teaching in a department of International Relations is that you

opinions suddenly become expertise.)

I must confess that all the attention that is being showered on the story

has left me stumped.  The reason for my surprise is not that the scale and

magnitude of the corruption detailed in the article--and the even more

appalling arrogance that underscores it--is anything but worthy of utter

scorn.  The reason for my surprise simply is that there is really nothing

new in the story!  Sure, the level of detail and documentation is more

profound than anything that had been published before but at the end of the

day there really is no 'scoop' in the report--not even the fact that Asif

Zardari happens to be two years younger than Benazir Bhutto (whatever that

might mean).  The New York Times may well be the newspaper of record for

the world, but as far as this report goes it tells us nothing that the

average Pakistani could not have told you as much as a year ago!

Having said that, maybe I have become too much of a hardened cynic,

especially when it comes to the Western media.  The story, even if its gory

details were already well known to us Pakistanis, is a significant one.

But it is significant not for what it said but for how it said it.  In this

regard, at least two important points need to be raised.  The first relates

to the person on whom the report focussed--i.e. Benazir Bhutto.  The second

is concerned with the subject of the enquiry: i.e. corruption. 

To begin with the first, the very placement of the report--on the top of

the front page of possibly the world's most influential

newspaper--signifies the end (or, maybe, the beginning of the end) of the

Western media's love affair with Benazir Bhutto.  For most of her political

life--certainly since 1990--Benazir Bhutto has been far more popular abroad

than at home.  Nowhere has she been more popular than on the pages of the

New York Times.  In many ways the real significance of today's special

report is that it implies the end of this infatuation.  One gets the

distinct sense that BB herself is aware of this changing reality and that

this pains her more than all the other allegations put together.  As one

reads the account one gets the impression that what has affected her most

is not that she has left the nation bankrupt both economically and

politically; nor the shame that the whole nation has to bear on her behalf;

nor even the insinuations about Asif Zardari's reported extra-marital

affairs; but, in her own words, "the irreparable damage done to my standing

in the world."  In a country where so many suffer an existence of constant

indignity Benazir Bhutto seems to feel that her's is the most horrendous

human rights story of all.  There is a distinct air of arrogance here that

cannot be missed.

But another thing that cannot be missed is that despite all the evidence

that it details, the New York Times is still enamoured by Pinky.  Like so

many others before it, it cannot seem to get itself to actually place the

blame on Benazir--It must have been Zardari acting alone.  If it was, then

Benazir stands guilty not just to the charge of being corrupt but also

stupid.  After all, heists of this level do not happen by themselves.  Even

if her sin was merely that of silence, a hundred million dollars is a lot

to remain silent about.  In essence, then, this was not just a story about

Benazir's desperation at seeing the Western media deserting her, but also a

story about the Western media's desperate bid to hold on to its darling.

In the end, one might  argue, the real culprit was the institution of

arranged marriage!  How rosy would the world have been if she had not been

forced to marry this polo playing playboy!  Ah!  If only!

But the story was not just about Benazir, it was about corruption in the

Third World.  And this brings us to the second point.  For the average

American reader, the moral of the story--if there was one--was that even if

the NYT got it wrong as far as BB was concerned, they have been dead right

about the terrible state corruption in the Third World.  Indeed, the Times

is not wrong on that.  Indeed, corruption does pervade Pakistan's entire

political landscape--not just the Bhuttos but also the Sharifs, the

not-so-sharif civil and military bureaucracies, and the national and

international business classes who, after all, are the source of all these

dirty millions.  But more than that the NYT report is a wonderful exemplar

of how the Western media treats the issue of Third World corruption.  The

corrupt element, the report seems to suggest, is not the French firm

Dassault who pay the huge bribes, nor the Swiss concern Societe Generale de

Surveillance SA which doled out outlandish commissions, nor US-based

Citibank which helped stash the dirty money. It is very clear that the sin

was of the Bhuttos... indeed, primarily it was... but was it only theirs?

What about the supply side of corruption?  If Asif Zardari was able to ask

for unearthly amounts as bribes, was it not because he knew that there were

people... in Pakistan and abroad who were willing and able to dish out that

kind of money.  Since when did those who give bribes become more respectful

than those who accept bribes?

Enough ranting about the NYT article.  Let us briefly talk about the story

that was not reported by the New York Times and is not likely to be

reported anytime soon.  This is the story of the new wave of colonization

that is going on around the world, including Pakistan.  The one thing that

the article did without wanting to do it was to expose how multinationals

can buy anything they want.  There will always be people like Asif Zardari

who are willing--even eager--to be bought off.  This is not an excuse for

what Zardari did.  This is an explanation.  Multinationals like the British

East India Company knew this all too well (remember Mir Jaffar?) when they

set out to colonize the world.  And multinationals today know it even

better. 

It was Benazir yesterday, it is Nawaz Sharif today, it will be someone else

tomorrow.  The faces will change, the corruption will not.  Those who might

refuse to be corrupt will not last.  Because the forces that make the

leaders of countries like ours corrupt are bigger than all of us.  And

those are the same forces that we are all so fond of admiring... the forces

of globalization (yes, I know I will be castigated for this by the

chowkwallahs).  The world today is becoming so small (not necessarily a

good thing) and the difference between the rich and the poor is becoming so

large (always a bad thing) that it is all too easy for the rich to buy off

the poor and it is all too compelling for the poor to do anything they can

(including selling their souls) to join the rich.... hence, corruption is

born (the genesis of prostitution is very similar).