Question: Compare and contrast political reforms of Bhutto and zia.

Secularism or Liberalism Vs conservative.

Answer:

Secularism or Liberalism Vs. conservative

Secularism

Secularism in fact is extremely didactic, while liberalism defends religious freedoms.

Secularism means not involving religion and religious beliefs in government, governance and

political affairs. A secular is one who is free of religious beliefs and has no religious affinity or is.

equal to all religious practices.

 Secular liberalism is a form of liberalism in which secularist principles and values, and

sometimes non-religious ethics are especially emphasized. Secular liberalism stands at.

the other end of the political spectrum from religious authoritarianism, as seen in

theocratic states and illiberal democracies.

The word liberal comes from the Latin word ‘liber’, meaning free. Liberalism is based on the

notions of liberty, equality, freedoms of conscience, speech, religion, and human rights, universal

suffrage, pluralism, tolerance, women’s rights, equal rights for minorities, separation of the

powers of the state and rejection of violence absolute monarchy etc.

 Liberalism A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of

humans, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of

political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy that considers government as

a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race,

gender, or class).

Conservatives

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual.

liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Believe the role of

government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

 Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve.

problems.

 Conservatives are often referred to as being on the RIGHT when put into a political

spectrum.
  Republicans are often viewed as more conservative.

Compare political reforms of Bhutto and Zia.

 Binary opposites of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) and General Zia ul Haq, to indicate two.

opposing trends of politics supported by the ideology of liberal left and religious right,

punctuated with a political disposition, Zia’s legacy has proved far enduring than that of

Bhutto’s.

 Many liberal commentators of Pakistani politics have termed the tendency of blaming.

everything bad plaguing Pakistan. Zia’s policy of Islamisation from 1979 onwards is.

extremely important to make sense of it. This takes us back to the policy options.

available to ZAB which had brought Islam to the fore as an identity marker.

 ZAB’s emphasis on Islam cannot be uncertain. However, he hesitated at finding solution.

to political and economic problems in religious edicts. To him, Islam was the religion,

democracy was the factor shaping his politics, and economic problems were to be.

addressed through the principles of socialism.

 During his 11-year-long reign, Zia over stressed the role of religion in all walks of life.

With religion having moved to the center stage of public and political life, religious.

clergy gained unexpected strength. Steadily, along with army generals, maulvis became.

the most significant spurring force in the socio-political landscape of Pakistan.

 Religious militancy was the most glaring of all the effects that beset Pakistan 1980s.

onwards. Zia and his coterie of advisers promoted sunnification in Pakistan at the behest.

of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, a factor noticeably absent during Bhutto’s reign.

The Zakat and Ushr Ordinance in 1980 drove a religious slice into the body politics of

Pakistan. Along with pushing Pakistan in the swamp of Afghan jihad, this Ordinance was.

the most tragic step ever taken by any Pakistani ruler.

 The 1985 elections marked the end of politics of ideology. Anybody espousing liberal left.

was harassed and victimized. The base fact of Pakistan’s political history is the obvious

fanaticism showed by the right wing towards liberals and leftists. Under Zia, these

elements were virtually embraced out of politics if not out of existence.

 Bhutto had treated his opponents in a despicable manner, but Zia perfected the art of

damaging his rebels. Besides, Zia encouraged businessmen politicians to forge alliance.
with priests to prevent the liberal left from emerging as a tough force. That alliance

resulted into an advent of another phenomenon, signifying the accumulation of capitalism.

and Islam which along with other things corrupted the priests.

Analyze

We Pakistanis are not only ahistorical in our overall sensibility, worldview and political choices but
we are apolitical too.

For most of us, politics is a vice, an art of deception and duplicity. The assertion that in our political
choices, we are apolitical to the hilt is contradiction in terms. However, the validity of the above
stated claim, as I will be arguing below, can hardly be doubted.

While talking in binary opposites of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and General Ziaul Haq, to signify two opposing
trends of politics underpinned by the ideology of liberal left and religious right, punctuated with
apolitical inclinations, Zia’s legacy has proved far enduring than that of Bhutto’s. Despite being
known for his antipathy for politicians, Zia’s political progeny dominates the scene even after 28
years of his death, attesting him as the most influential figure in political history of Pakistan.

Thus, the recent modes of Pakistan politics had its initial source in a figure that was essentially
apolitical if not altogether anti-political.

But that is not the only legacy of Ziaul Haq that has remained with us three decades after his death.
Analytical appraisals of some of his policies form the theme of our today’s deliberation, which have
impacted the state apparatus as well as people’s social behaviour.

Many liberal commentators of Pakistani politics have termed the tendency of blaming everything
bad plaguing Pakistan religious fundamentalism, leading to terrorism and intolerance towards
people of other faith and sect on Ziaul Haq as far too simplistic an analysis. They have a point
because contextualising things like Zia’s policy of Islamisation from 1979 onwards is extremely
important to make sense of it. This takes us back to the policy options available to ZAB which had
brought Islam to the fore as an identity marker.

ZAB’s emphasis on Islam cannot be disputed. However, he balked at finding solution to political and
economic problems in religious edicts. To him, Islam was the religion, democracy was the factor
shaping his politics, and economic problems were to be addressed through the principles of
socialism. During his 11-year-long reign, Zia over-emphasised the role of religion in all walks of life.
With religion having moved to the centre-stage of public and political life, religious clergy gained
extraordinary strength. Steadily, along with army generals, maulvis became the most significant
galvanising force in the socio-political landscape of Pakistan.

Afghan jihad made the maulvis particularly of Deobandi persuasion impregnable. Now Pakistan is

Such institutions have given unnecessary power to clerics many of whom are absolutely out of sync
with the needs of the 21st century. Blasphemy law in the 1980s is yet another legacy of Zia. Bhutto, I
reckon, could not have conceived of enforcing such a law.

Sectarian militancy was the most glaring of all the repercussions that beset Pakistan 1980s onwards.
Zia and his coterie of advisers promoted sunnification in Pakistan at the behest of Saudi Arabia and
other Gulf States, a factor conspicuously absent during Bhutto’s reign. The Zakat and Ushr Ordinance
in 1980 drove a sectarian wedge into the body politics of Pakistan. Along with pushing Pakistan in
the quagmire of Afghan jihad, this Ordinance was the most disastrous step ever taken by any
Pakistani ruler.