Much has been written about the 12th President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari; people have been confused over what to make of him. He’s been described as a wily politician, ‘Mr. 10 percent’, ‘a Nelson Mandela in the making’; people have also talked about his meteoric rise in Pakistani politics since the death of his wife Benazir Bhutto last December. The bottom-line is that, since the time Asif Zardari married the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the heiress to Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), he has been at the centre of controversies, whether it has been for the numerous charges of money-laundering, for the charges of Murtaza Bhutto’s murder, for his comments to US Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin or for the time he spent in jail. He has been criticized for his recent comments terming the ‘mujahideen’ in Kashmir as terrorists and for his statements declaring India as being neither a threat, nor an enemy.

Asif Zardari was instrumental in keeping the PPP together after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27th, 2007. According to her will, Benazir had ‘bequeathed’ her party to her son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari; Asif was called on to become the co-chairman of the party, to help Bilawal. The PPP won the February 18th general elections on the crest of the resulting sympathy wave, albeit not with a majority. Since then, Zardari has played his own brand of politics of ‘reconciliation’ to get where he stands today.

He made the right statements about saving Pakistan and avenging his wife’s assassination through the return of democracy. He never missed out on a photo opportunity with PPP’s arch nemesis Nawaz Sharif that showed the two leaders determined to put behind their enmities to work together for a stable coalition government. Zardari was even successful in getting rid of General Pervez Musharraf who had ruled the country for the last 8 years with the help of coalition parties. He also reiterated, numerous times, that he did not have any ambitions to power; that he did not want to become the President of the country.

Contrary to what his critics say, Zardari has proved himself to be an astute politician. He has managed to contain Nawaz Sharif and his party ML (N) to the opposition benches. He was successful in gradually breaking-up the lawyers’ movement that had been pushing constantly for the reinstatement of their hero, ex-CJP (Chief Justice of Pakistan) Iftikhar Chaudhary. Going against the promises the coalition government had made in the ‘Murree Declaration’ earlier this year, Zardari has not allowed the reinstatement of his nemesis Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary; he fears that Chaudhary could open up all the cases pending against him and question the National Reconciliation Order (NRO) which offered indemnity to Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari against the cases pending against them. Asif Zardari also successfully evaded going in for Musharraf’s impeachment even when Nawaz Sharif and his gang were baying for Musharraf’s blood. He has also successfully sidelined PPP’s senior members like Makhdum Amin Fahim who could have questioned his policies or could have proved to be a threat to his political ambitions.

With a long history of being in controversies, Zardari has managed, once again, to be at the centre of all discussions. His recent statements about the government giving consent for US drone attacks in the tribal areas and about the Kashmiri mujahideen have drawn him great flak from all fronts, especially from religious parties. His push for bilateral relations with India has also been criticized in the Urdu media. Zardari has talked about cross LoC trade through the Srinagar-Muzafarabad and the Poonch-Rawalkot routes, and about opening the Wagah-Attari road link and the Khokrapar-Munabao railway line for trade; he also seems keen on easing visa restrictions between the two countries. Barring some Kashmiri leadership, no one else in Pakistan has raised objections to Zardari’s position about bilateral trade relations with India. In all, his stand on the issue with India seems even more non-conformist than that of his predecessor’s. All this has, of course, also raised hopes of an actual and peaceful settlement to the Kashmir issue.

Asif Zardari has taken oath as the President of Pakistan at a time when no one can envy him; Pakistan today is in a very messy state of affairs. With the US increasingly pushing for an operation in Pakistan’s tribal areas to pursue Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives and with the increasing number of terror attacks within Pakistan, Zardari has his hands full. Musharraf’s 8 years in power have left Pakistan in a very sad state, both politically and economically. Pakistan’s economy is very close to bankruptcy; inflation is over 24%, and the dollar reserves have fallen to less than a month’s imports. The government is being forced to sell off its money-making public sector assets like Qadirpur Gas Fields and the Jamshoru Steam Power Plant. Foreign investors have been rapidly pulling out. President Zardari has been forced to issue an official SOS to the international community for an emergency bailout of USD 10 billion. Pakistan’s fragile economic health has only made it more vulnerable to conditions that accompany aid packages.

All thanks to the dictatorial regime preceding the civilian government, the President of Pakistan today has the power to appoint the chiefs of armed forces and to dissolve the parliament as per the 17th amendment to the Constitution. Although Zardari has promised to end this amendment to make the parliament all supreme once again, it still remains to be seen whether he will willingly cut his own powers as the president. Many doubt that he will.

Essentially, all civilian power in Pakistan today rests with Asif Zardari, his powers are actually restricted. Though much has been made about the return of democracy to Pakistan and about the transfer of power from an authoritarian dictator to a civilian government, the truth in Pakistan is still the same: the establishment still rules the roost. This has already been proven a couple of times earlier this year. First was when Asif Zardari, before he revealed his ambitions for the Presidency of Pakistan, spoke about putting the Kashmir issue on the back-burner for the sake of establishing trade relations with India. At that time, the Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kayani rushed to reiterate that the Pakistan’s army’s stand on the Kashmir issue is the same as it has always been. The second time was when the civilian government under Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani, tried to place the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) under the Interior ministry. This move was said to be in response to international calls of reining-in the ISI, post the Kabul Indian Embassy bombing. The army was not happy at this and as a result, the civilian government was forced to take back the decision less than 24 hours later.

Hence, Asif Zardari’s powers as the president of Pakistan are limited. It is clear that as long as Zardari and his men function within the limits set by Pakistan’s establishment i.e. Pakistan’s army and the ISI, they will be allowed to remain in power. If they try to take foreign policy decisions especially concerning the Kashmir issue or decisions pertaining to the armed forces in their hands, the army will move in.

Decisions about the US led ‘war on terror’ are not under President Zardari’s control. The only role that Zardari plays on this issue is to act as the poster boy; decisions are taken elsewhere and he is there to convey them. Though the Urdu media in Pakistan still blames Musharraf for getting Pakistan involved in a war that was never Pakistan’s to begin with, Zardari and company have successfully managed to change the public opinion. Now, more and more people have started considering it as Pakistan’s fight to survive. The resurgence of terror attacks in Pakistan, after a lull, post the February elections earlier this year, has only helped in this goal.

The US attacks within Pakistan’s territory have increased over the last few months, even with the Pakistan government voicing its protests against such incursions. Recently, the US drones were fired at; a move that earned the Pakistan army, support from the tribal population in Bajaur, Khyber and Khurram agencies against Taliban and the pro-Taliban groups operating in the area. So while Zardari has become the face of the civilian democratic government that is dealing with the US demands from Pakistan in its ‘war on terror’, essentially it’s the army that is calling the shots. This arrangement also seems to suit the US administration fine.

Asif Zardari seems keen on promoting Pakistan as a liberal, pro-western nation that is engaged in a war for the sake of humanity. It seems like it will also be his job to convince Pakistan of the necessity of foreign help in countering the very real threat of growing terrorism facing the nation. He has already started speaking of a joint Pak-Afghan-NATO force to guard the borders with Afghanistan. All this has earned him condemnation from religious parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami that accuse him of continuing to follow Musharraf’s ‘pro-American’ policies. He is also on Taliban’s hit-list for various reasons including the ongoing military operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The Kashmir issue has had the Pakistan army’s sympathy ever since the formation of the nation; wars have been fought with India over Kashmir. Though under General Musharraf, the army and ISI had to stop their overt support to jihadi outfits operating and being trained in Kashmir, the issue is still close to the army’s heart. The fact that the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir died down post Musharraf’s pledge to remove jihadi training camps bespeaks his authority and control over the army and ISI. However, the current army chief may not be thus inclined. Hence, Zardari’s stand over the Kashmir issue has not gone down well in the army ranks; but as long as he limits himself to making correct statements at appropriate times and takes up photo opportunities over improving trade relations with India, without touching the burning issue of Kashmir, he and his government are safe.

Owing to the current security, economic, social and political turmoil in Pakistan, the government as well as the establishment will just have to work around the existing situation. As far as the US ‘war on terror’ is concerned, it is clear at present that for the next 5 years at least, whatever are the results of the US elections in November, US presence in the region is guaranteed. Pakistan cannot afford to say ‘no’ to US demands since it cannot match up to the US militarily. Plus, their present economic position has made them dependent on foreign aid, a big chunk of which is bound to come from the US. For this, Pakistan has to agree to US conditions.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s relations with China have always been good. Pakistan has and will continue to use its relations with China as a covert blackmail tool to get its demands met by the US. It will be Zardari’s job to convince the US of Pakistan’s eligibility of being more than just US’s ally in the ‘war on terror’. Pakistan wants more; in form of perks like a nuclear deal similar to the one the US signed with India. There have already been talks about a civil nuclear agreement between China and Pakistan; this might irk the international community since Pakistan’s proliferation record is far from clean.

With India, Pakistan’s policy is trickier. Historical adversaries, Pakistan and India have been working on a dialogue over the Kashmir issue for the past few years. But today the situation is different; the status-quo has changed. With the signing of the nuclear deal between India and the US, India has entered the elite world of nuclear powers. For that reason and for the fact that now US-India relations are at their all time best, Pakistan cannot afford to have adversarial relations with India. Economically, India is much stronger than Pakistan at the moment, so Pakistan also stands to gain by encouraging cross-border trade with India. While it cannot ignore the Kashmir issue, Pakistan cannot pass up the opportunity of better relations and bilateral trade with India either.

Hence, the next few months are bound to bring an increase in trade between the two countries. Asif Zardari as the civilian president of the country will have to walk a tightrope; using bilateral trade as a confidence building measure between India and Pakistan can work out to Zardari’s advantage internationally. 

Meanwhile, the establishment in Pakistan will remain keen on providing support to the Kashmir issue; they can provide covert support to Kashmiri separatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir and to jihadi outfits operating in other parts of India. The possible easing of visa restrictions between the two countries as well as the loosening of borders is bound to increase the threat of jihadists entering India through other routes. As it is, the infiltration bids have increased along the LoC since the beginning of this year. Zardari will not have much say in all this since the Kashmir issue remains out of bounds for the civilian administration of Pakistan. On occasion, Zardari might have to issue statements, pledging his government’s commitment to routing out all forms and sources of terrorism. He might have to publicly promise to ‘look into’ sources of funding of jihadi groups operating in India in a bid to clamp them. But other than that, Zardari will have no control over the situation.

Asif Ali Zardari is a new president. Maybe, in time, he might just be able to absolve himself of the derogatory nicknames of his past; he might even be able to bring together various opposing political forces within Pakistan to turn it into a strong parliamentary democracy. For Pakistan, Zardari might just prove to be a messiah, in case he is able to establish a strong working relationship with the establishment and is able to pull up the nation’s economy by providing it with a strong, stable government; he will also need to save himself from the threat of Taliban and the ‘mullahs’. Internationally, Asif Zardari will continue to be what civilian presidents of Pakistan have always been: a pawn in the hands of the country’s establishment.