Personal guarantees by Gen. Musharraf aside, no one in Pakistan is under the illusion that the October elections will be `free, fair and transparent'. They are being seen more as a General's election than a general election.
FOR the third time in so many years, on October 10 the people of Pakistan will have an opportunity to walk up to the nearest polling station to `elect'. And by no stretch of the imagination should it be a run-of-the-mill round of elections. It is about choosing representatives to the National Assembly and the four Provincial Assemblies, and yet there is hardly any sign anywhere of election-related activity.
Neither the voters nor the parties seem to be excited at the prospect of an end to the military rule and a return of a civilian set-up. What accounts for such cynicism? In plain terms, it is the track record of the military regime under the command of Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Thanks to the innumerable new laws and the brazenly partisan conduct of the Musharraf regime, everyone seemed to be convinced that the so-called general elections constitute a mere formality and that the results are already out. Barring a handful of parties and leaders, considered close to the military establishment and hence nicknamed the `King's parties and men', there is unanimity of opinion that the contours of the new Parliament have already been drawn in the `control room' of the Generals. So the belief is that it is more a General's election than a general election.Two rounds of elections under Gen. Musharraf, and the extent to which it went to ensure the `elimination' of potential rivals from the coming round have contributed a great deal to the prevailing sense of despondency. The newly launched English-language newspaper, Daily Times, summed up the mood in its lead editorial on September 16 succinctly thus:
"That rumours remain rife about an impending government decision to call off the elections cannot be faulted, though. History, as well as the manner in which the government has gone about the whole exercise, is to blame for this scepticism. As we write these lines, and with the elections barely three weeks away, there are hardly any signs of normal election activity. Even the newspapers haven't really got into the election act. If everything goes as planned, these elections will be the most colourless in Pakistan's history.''
The repeated personal guarantees held out by Gen. Musharraf that the October elections will be `free, fair and transparent', and the presence of a record number of election observers from the European Union (E.U.) have not helped matters. The experiences of the past in general and during the two opportunities bestowed on the people by Gen. Musharraf to `elect', continue to haunt them.
The first such opportunity was the partyless election to the newly created local bodies. The exercise lasted almost a year, beginning in the latter half of 2000. At the conclusion of that round, Gen. Musharraf claimed to have ushered in a `silent revolution' by empowering the people at the grassroots level. But the `revolution' indeed remains silent, and no one else is talking about it. It appears that the General's experiment has only added to the confusion with the emergence of a new set of `power brokers'.
And then came the presidential referendum in April this year. It was meant to be an exercise to gauge the `popular mood' with regard to the political and economic reforms of the military government but ended up as a candidate-less election to the office of President. There was no voters' list and anyone could vote anywhere. A record 60 per cent turnout with 98 per cent ayes in favour of Musharraf stunned observers and the media, and for good reason. They had seen no evidence of voters outside the record number of booths that had dotted the landscape of Pakistan.
Weeks after what was dubbed a `farcical referendum', Gen. Musharraf had the grace to acknowledge the `excesses' by the overzealous bureaucracy and he even apologised to the people in a televised address. But nothing seems to have changed as far as the administration is concerned vis-a-vis the general elections.
If the 2000-2001 local body elections were partyless and the referendum on the President was candidate-less, the general elections promise to be a leaderless one. And it must be said to the credit of Gen. Musharraf that he declared any number of times that he was determined not to allow the participation of the two former Prime Ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and has stuck to his word on that. There was a great deal of confusion and embarrassment caused to the government as the election authorities acted in contradictory fashion with regard to the nomination papers of Benazir and Sharif. Benazir's papers were rejected a day after Sharif's papers were accepted, though being `convicts' neither is eligible to run for election, under a decree passed by Gen. Musharraf. However, towards the end everything has been `sorted' out and the General has prevailed.
Should anyone wonder why there is little election related activity or voter enthusiasm? The Army has always been a major factor in Pakistan politics and it is sometimes referred to in tongue-in-cheek fashion as the largest and most disciplined political party in the country. Now Gen. Musharraf, by means of certain amendments made to the suspended Constitution and the mechanism of the National Security Council (NSC), has made sure that it would have a permanent role, irrespective of the electoral outcome and of which party is in power.
As the Daily Times editorial put it: "... it is almost like the voter stands aside and allows the political drama to unfold quite independent of his existence. He is called upon to vote a government in, but since 1988 has never voted out a government. Of course, there are other factors that have contributed to the apathy, not least the absence of any ideological pull (the hallmark of Cold War years), stories of corruption in the political echelons, the rise of the non-governmental organisations as an alternative of sorts, rising poverty and unemployment, the inability of political parties to link up with the voters and create viable mechanisms for aggregation of interests, etc. Yet, things could have improved, even if marginally, if the military had stayed out of the arena and allowed the system to function.
``In many ways, this is a hopeless situation, made worse by the military government's attempts at dominating the system and further shrinking the space for the political parties. As things stand, the next Parliament is unlikely to see any one party get even a simple majority. The Alliance for Restoration of Democracy has fallen apart after its component parties failed to work out an electoral alliance to counter the King's party. Imran Khan, chief of Tehrik-e Insaf and cricket star of yesteryear, who is bitterly critical of the PPP and the PML(N), now wants to join hands with them to uncover the government's pre-poll rigging. The PML(N) has indicated it might boycott the elections. The uncertainty and confusion that has marked this exercise has not gone away. This also gives a foretaste of what can be expected after the motley crowd enters Parliament on the back of a low voter turnout.''
Consider what a thinktank has to say about the polls. After extensive interaction with a cross-section of Pakistan's society, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) has come to the conclusion that the October elections would provide a `very limited' transfer of power to civilians. The NDI delegation, which visited Pakistan in connection with the report, was multinational and bipartisan. The members included Carole Hillard (United States), Tanku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim (Malaysia), Philip Oldenburg (U.S.), Mary Cummins (Ireland), and Patrick Merloe (U.S.).
The report is full of ifs and buts on the nature and the aftermath of the elections. It said that the October 10 polls could provide a way to establish a peaceful transition to democratic civilian governance if the election process was deemed credible by the people of Pakistan and if immediate steps were taken, following the elections, to transfer full powers to Parliament and a democratically mandated government. It further said that if the people participated in the election process and their will was respected and the military transferred power immediately after the elections, the October 10 voting would come to be seen as a referendum on democracy. "And if this did not take place, the election will be a hollow exercise. The people of Pakistan desire democracy and the hope is, the country's leaders, both military and civilian, were prepared to take the necessary measures in the period ahead to ensure that this fundamental right is realised.''
The sense of despondency among the cadres of the mainstream parties has been accentuated by the `helplessness' expressed by its leaders in exile. After roaring for weeks about her determination to return home come what may, Benazir Bhutto has thrown up her hands and decided to stay put in the safe confines of her host country, Dubai. It is the same case with Sharif and his clan after the Election Commission Tribunal declared them ineligible to contest the elections.
The degree of helplessness of the big parties was evident when the PPP chose to postpone a public rally it had proposed in Lahore on September 16 on the plea that the ground where the meeting was scheduled to be held was `damp'. It was presumed that the rally would kick off the party's campaign for the elections.
There is a semblance of coordinated activity in the newly formed alliance of religious parties, Muttahaida Maslis-I-Amal (MMA). Ironically, the alliance, the only one of its kind in the history of Pakistan, became the first to hold a public meeting in connection with the elections. It was a hurriedly organised meeting after the government clamped down on the planned `election train march' of its leaders. But observers have serious doubts about the electoral prospects of the alliance.
Pakistan is no doubt an Islamic Republic and born on the ideology of Islam. However, never have the religious parties, all put together, crossed the double digit figure in the popular vote in any election. Traditionally the religious parties have had a wonderful relationship with the Army, but there are cracks in the kinship after September 11, 2001. The MMA could marginally fare better as its leaders are making a determined effort to cash in on the prevailing anti-American sentiment, particularly in North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan.
The confusion over who is with whom and what is likely to emerge after October 10 is expected to continue. It was indeed a strange spectacle as the president of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), Makhdoom Amin Fahim called on Imran Khan in the third week of September to deliberate on the political situation. Imran Khan is among the latest among leaders to join the ranks of those who have been critical of the Musharraf government for `pre-poll rigging'.
The meeting between the two leaders is ironical considering Imran Khan's views on Benazir Bhutto. The PPPP said that the meeting was a part of the programme under which the PPP chief is contacting the leaders of other political parties. It was said that the two leaders agreed that the regime is busy manipulating the elections so that `its cronies' can win the maximum number of seats in the elections. Earlier in the month, Fahim had met the leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, with the same objective.
The international community (read the U.S.) is least bothered about the return of `full democracy' in Pakistan. There have been occasional noises from senior functionaries of the Bush administration about their `concerns' over the manner in which Gen. Musharraf was going about the exercise. Observations made by U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in an interview given to an international news agency take the cake.
Just the day Gen. Musharraf was to land in the U.S. (see separate story), she asserted that democracy was a matter of `serious concern' to the Bush administration. It was a case of too little, too late.
In his very first engagement at Harvard University, Gen. Musharraf surprised everyone by announcing that he would appoint a new Army Chief. But then he had added, almost as if the words slipped through his lips: "This would not be very far off.'' However in no time his media managers were taking pains to dispel the impression that Gen. Musharraf was serious about the remark.
Again, towards the end of his sojourn in the U.S., Gen. Musharraf announced at a function in New York that he intended to give up his powers to dissolve the National Assembly and vest the powers with the NSC. There was a serious contradiction in the statement as Gen. Musharraf has repeatedly proclaimed that the NSC would be no more than a `consultative' body. Questions have been raised if the two statements were merely meant for the consumption of the `international community'.
