Fact Files

Elections In Pakistan-2002

Chief Editor
Muhammad Arshad Tariq
Editor
Sobia Haidar

Pakistan's Election Game

Pakistan's military-run government has succeeded in sidelining its two main political foes, former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, thanks to new electoral laws. But if the laws to ban them from a third term, or even from remaining the heads of their parties, were intended to diminish their influence over the country's politics, it has been an exercise in futility.
Though technically both Mr Sharif and Ms Bhutto will not be leading their parties into the October elections, they continue to command the respect of their supporters, and are calling the shots from exile. With the internal party elections required under the new laws now over, Pakistan's election process has entered its second phase.
More than 70 parties, big and small, have complied with the new laws and submitted their party constitutions and the results of ballots to elect office bearers for inspection by the Election Commission.
Now it is up to the commission to decide which of these parties fulfils the requirements and can be allotted a party symbol - essential in rural areas where illiteracy rates are high - for the coming elections. Because of the restrictions imposed under the new electoral laws, Nawaz Sharif opted out as the president of his Pakistan Muslim League, or PML(N).
But on his instructions, his younger brother, Shahbaz - who also lives in exile in Saudi Arabia - was unanimously elected as his replacement.
Benazir Bhutto decided not to relinquish the post of chairperson of her Pakistan People's Party. Instead, a new entity by the name of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians, or PPP(P), was set-up with her second-in-command, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, being elected as its head.
Most of the other important parties also re-elected the same old leaders, many of them even without any real contest. So, if the idea of the exercise was to create some kind of democratic culture in the political parties - a claim made by the government in support of the new laws - it has not worked. And this is understandable.
As in most other countries in South Asia, Pakistani politics are dominated by powerful personalities. Political parties are identified with their leaders, rather than their programmes and manifestos. And the phenomenon is not just restricted to Sharifs or Bhuttos.
Whether it's Imran Khan's Tehrik-e-Insaaf or former president Farooq Leghari's Millat Party, or even Altaf Hussain's MQM, they all revolve round their respective leaders. The next general election is likely to be dominated by these political personalities, and the results will depend on their ability to mobilise supporters through their charisma.
Perhaps the only difference in the October vote will be that some of these prominent personalities, presently living in exile, may not be able to return to the country to lead their parties into the elections. Neither Nawaz Sharif, or even his brother Shahbaz, are likely to be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. The MQM's Altaf Hussain is living in exile in London, and is not expected to return to Pakistan in the near future.
And even though Ms Bhutto keeps saying she intends to return home before the elections, so far the fear of getting arrested on charges of corruption has prevented her from doing so. This gives an added advantage to the pro-government parties.
In fact, some analysts say the whole idea of introducing these new electoral laws was for this purpose alone. Now it will be interesting to see how senior politicians like Ms Bhutto or Mr. Sharif play their cards to try to get back into the political mainstream.

Zaffar Abbas, BBC, August 8, 2002,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2179237.stm

Is Musharraf Planning to Install a Stooge PM

Politicians here fear that the next Pakistan Prime Minister may be a stooge of President Pervez Musharraf now that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are out of the October polls.
They are also worried that the country may witness a hung parliament due to the vacuum created by the absence of the leaders who head the two most influential parties in Pakistan.
Election authorities rejected former prime minister and Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chief Benazir Bhutto's nomination papers for all the three seats she sought to contest. Another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who heads the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz PML(N), withdrew his candidature to express solidarity with Bhutto. But his wife and brother will contest from their hometown Lahore.
Bhutto's spokesman Farhatullah Babar lauded Sharif's decision as an expression of the shared resolve of the earlier archrivals to banish the military from Pakistani politics.
"There is no alternative to the leaders in their parties," says former minister Mahmood Ali. "No one in their parties can make the election rallies as successful," he said. Both Bhutto and Sharif had pulled huge crowds in the last four elections since the late eighties. Both the leaders are living in exile and pulling strings from abroad.
Bhutto has shuttled between Dubai and London ever since an accountability court convicted her. Bhutto's conviction was cited as the reason for barring her from contesting. Sharif was exiled to Saudi Arabia under a deal with the military regime in December 2000, a year after his ouster from power in a coup by President Pervez Musharraf.
Though bitter rivals, their parties seem to have got close against the military regime that overthrew Sharif's elected government in October 1999. "There is a chance that both will agree to boycott the elections if the rigging plans of the government continue," a PML-N leader said.
Openly, however, both Sharif and Bhutto have said they will not boycott the polls as that may give Musharraf an open field.
Musharraf has been saying since he came to power that he would not allow the two former prime ministers to return to power.
"Their decision to keep away is not sensible. Without them we can't hope for a sustainable democracy," said Zafar Ali Shah, former deputy speaker of the National Assembly. He said under the present circumstances the next Prime Minister would be a protégé of President Musharraf who had amassed powers to override the Parliament through constitutional amendments.
Almost all opposition parties are accusing Musharraf of siding in the elections with the Quaid-e-Azam group of PML that mostly consists of Sharif's former cabinet colleagues and some former members of Bhutto's PPP.
Jamaat-e-Islami(JI) deputy chief Ghafoor Ahmed said the October elections would not be 'genuine' because of PPP chairperson Bhutto's 'forced ouster.' He said his party had serious differences with Benazir Bhutto and her party but "it is a party with true national stature and should not be treated like this by the military regime." He said 'separatist elements' could emerge if national political parties were kept out of the election process.
Meanwhile, opponents of Pakistan's military government on Monday denounced the rejection of Ms Bhutto as an election candidate and warned it could cause instability. Pakistan's main alliance of minority groups denounced the rejection of the nominations, saying the government had introduced laws specifically to bar Bhutto from the elections.

The Pioneer, September 3, 2002,
http://www.meadev.nic.in/news/clippings/20020903/pio.htm

Non-Party Elections?

Major political parties are not yet ready to launch big election campaigns with national overtones. Both the PPP and PML(N) are constrained by the absence of their leadership languishing abroad while PML(QA) has failed to throw up any national campaigner with the ability to attract people all over the country.
Resultantly, it is going to be a lackluster campaign dominated by individual contests with a few larger public meetings here and there. The political analysts do not expect either Amin Fahim or Mian Azhar or Raja Zafar-ul-Haq to pull big crowds in places unknown to them. They say it will be asking too much from Mian Azhar to mount a good show in Hyderabad or Amin Fahim making waves all the way in Attock. It is interesting to note that no party has so far prepared any road map to election. Nor do we see any urgency in the top leaders of these parties to this effect. Probably, all are good at reading the writing on the wall.
In the Punjab, PML(QA), which boasts of its electoral prospects, is yet to come up with any election strategy. Mian Azhar seems too busy in his little constituency, probably worried about his own political survival. Ch. Pervez Elahi, who is still weathering the tremors in his party over the award of tickets, is expected to preside over a few big shows.
The election strategy of ARD is not yet clear. It is not known whether its member parties will launch any joint efforts. So far they appear to be poles apart- politically speaking. The MMA has decided to use a single platform for election yet their train march reminds one more of an agitation than an election campaign.
The political parties have a very little control over their candidates. "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" is the main consideration. So we see PPP candidates getting support from PML (QA) and vice versa. As such we note a PML(QA) candidate going out of his way to help a PPP ticket holder, using his influence to let him overcome some legal hurdles. The PML(N) provincial and central leaders curse their Like-minded brethren day in and day out. Yet they think that they are not too bad for them to play spoiler's game.
With their leadership in exile, more confusion is prevailing in both the PML(N) and PPP. Here we see personal interests taking precedence over the party interests. Many leaders have become a plaything in the hands of men who matter, fully responsive to the calls of the Establishment. There is an impression in the city that the provincial leaders of both PPP and PML(N) did not allow the growing solidarity between these parties to materialise into an electoral understanding.
The PML(QA) has emerged as the most sought after political party. Yet its candidates are finding it hard to sell the party name to their people. The people back in their constituencies have not yet reconciled to emerging realities. The PML(QA) has been advised by their workers to avoid using the party tag and to seek votes on personal level.
In rural areas we see the exit of political parties and phenomenon of personalities gaining more relevance. One of my politician friends told me that it appears as if we are heading towards a non-party election.
The election campaign so far is more dominated by non-issues or parties competing with individual influences. The candidates have no time to make lengthy speeches underlining the contribution of their party and its manifesto. The candidate appears more interested in settling with his opponents on personal level and in view of the requirements of the constituency.
Hence, we see more of mud slinging, bradarism, money and political wheeling and dealing as means of winning this election than the heady democratic values.

Nadeem Syed, The Nation, September 10, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/100902/editor/opi2.htm

Pakistani Politics

Maulana Abul Kalam once said "Siasat Ke Senay Mein Dil Nahin Hota," (Politics does not possess a heart). In not too distant past Benazir Bhutto, the ex-Prime Minister declared Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, as a left-over of late Gen Ziaul Haq and an agent of the Agencies. Recently, the same Benazir Bhutto has asked Nawaz Sharif to forget all bitter memories. She has announced that she is ready to land in Pakistan along with Nawaz Sharif in the same plane as a gesture of unity and trust.
Mian Nawaz Sharif achieved the status of 'national politician' because of being anti-Benazir and pro-Zia. In his hey days he termed Benazir as a security risk for Pakistan. But today, both Benazir and Nawaz have joined hands trying to make alliances to win forth-coming elections without harming each other. Now both consider each other as inevitable role players in national politics and democracy. They rank each other as good for the federation and have given the public a new slogan of Behn-Bhai. (Sister-Brother)
The case of Jamaat-i-Islami is no different. For the last 20 years, its politics had its foundations rooted in the rivalry of PPP. But in the recent local bodies elections, Azam Afridi of PPP became Nazim-e-Aala of Peshawar with the support of Jamat-i-Islami and Iqbal Khalil of Jamat-i-Islami became Naib Nazim with the support of PPP. The political situation is the same even today. In Nowshera, JI begs for alliance with Aftab Sherpao and in Mardan it begs for adjustments with Awami National Party (ANP). These groups were all historical rivals to each other.
Similarly, ANP, for the last 10 years, remained an ally of PML(N) to counter PPP. Wali Khan and Nawaz Sharif had been paying tributes to each other. But today we see that in NWFP, PPP, PML and ANP all three (former rivals) are supporting each other through a new technique of seat adjustments.
The same goes for Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. Once Fazl-ur-Rehman, the party chief shouldered responsibilities of Chairman Foreign Affairs Standing Committee in Benazir government. At that time his party blamed JI and PML for their alliance. The JUI faction issued fatwas against JI. But today, these and all other religious parties are trying to unite under the umbrella of Majlis Muttahiddah Amal (MMA). On the one hand the MMA is busy in adjustment with PML(N) and on the other hand, it is busy in making adjustment with PPP and even PML(Q): all rival parties at the same time.
Keeping this situation in view, the coming elections would be the first to be without any issue. There are no solid grounds of differences and political divisions among different parties. There is no concept of leftists and rightists. There were chances of division between pro-government and anti-government parties but that has been settled. Both have agreed on the policy of 'live and let others live.' MMA has guaranteed the government that it would make government-friendly statements and in return the government would create no obstacles in their way. The MMA would not mention the American presence in Pakistan, ban on Jehadi Tanzeemz, Kasmir policy, Afghan policy etc. The PML(Q) has already earned the status of King's Party. Only PPP has not yet settled its issues with the government. It is being considered anti-government party. For this reason the Establishment has only one agenda to defeat PPP in the coming elections.
In Pakistan today, there neither exists politics of principles nor politics of ideology. Religious parties have no religious motives. The same is the policy of the political parties. They have no interest in public welfare. They are simply in the run for winning seats. When neither religion nor democracy is considered a national issue, when there in no division between leftists and rightists, pro-establishment and anti-government parties have all the same agenda - to win elections, then the level of politics falls to district level. Adjustments are being made at district levels. In one constituency Qazi Hussein may declare any candidate of PML(Q) as anti-state, whereas in some other constituency one would see him making seat adjustment with PML(Q) and declaring PPP as a security risk for the state. In one constituency, people would see PPP declaring Fazlur Rehman as killer of Afghans, and in some other constituency PPP would be seen joining hands with the same JUI as a winning partner.
In short, the coming elections would be a unique drama played on national political stage. One thing is certain that all political parties and all leaders have got the same aim - to grab power. All have the same manifesto. All are united from within. The slogans they chant for giving justice, giving rights, and bringing revolution are all false slogans. They have no real interest in fulfilling the promises that are so generously made during the election campaigns; it is the same farce that is being repeated in the current election campaign as well.

Wasil Nawaz Khattak, The Nation, September 14, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/140902/editor/opi4.htm

Pre-Poll Plaints

As the complaints against 'pre-poll rigging' persist, it is time the Chief Election Commissioner and the present rulers clarify their position and take the press, the political parties and the public into confidence.
In just one day's newspapers (Sunday) there are plenty of reports, statements stories and editorial observations to shake the CEC and the government out of their complacency and respond to the non-stop accusations.
The People Party Parliamentarians' secretary-general at a press conference has categorised pre-poll rigging as (a) political manoeuvring (b) amending the laws and (c) administrative support. Instances quoted are (a) promulgation of person-specific law (b) coercion of candidates through the use of state apparatus and (c) administrative support.
In one incident the office of a candidate was raided and a number of workers arrested. When a case was filed, the Lahore High Court held that the action was based on malafide intentions. The secretary-general was of the view that the military regime had gone to the farthest extreme as far as the pre-poll rigging was concerned.
The Pakistan Muslim League(N) has urged the CEC to take notice of the "flagrant violation of law by government officials" especially in the Punjab. Its central information secretary has released a fact sheet at a Press conference accusing the Punjab administration of running the election campaign for government supporters. "Most of the public meetings" it said "are cleverly pegged to the inauguration of some of the so-called development projects" where the audience is asked to vote for those who support "the reforms of the present government." Similar campaigns, according to the press release to predetermine the election results in favour of the regime "have been going on in the other three provinces........ where the pattern of influence is the same i.e. announcement of huge amounts in the name of development grants." The fact sheet has listed 13 public meetings addressed by the head of the Punjab province in the PMG/GNA constituencies where grants and plots were distributed and development projects including the provision of gas and roads announced and where sometimes the PML(QA) candidates were present. The information secretary has requested the CEC to "respond to the call of the conscience and forthwith tender his resignation." He also called upon the Chief Justice of Pakistan to take "suo moto notice of the violation of the law by the government officials." The fact sheet further refers to a CEC's order which prohibits "any person in the service of Pakistan" including Nazims at all levels to misuse official position in any manner to influence the results of the elections as they can be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1976 and tried by a court of sessions.
It is not merely the large anti-government parties which have come up with allegations of pre-poll rigging. Other parties including Tehrik-e-Insaaf led by Imran Khan and even Tahirul Qadri have been protesting against government officials using their offices and influence, to favour the so called king's party. General (Retd) Aslam Beg president of the Awami Qiyadat Party while talking to newsmen at Bahawalpur said that a protest movement would be launched "if the kings party is brought to power through rigging." He alleged that his party candidates were being harassed and forced to join the PML(QA). A former ANP MNA held a press conference at Swabi in which he asked the government to stop the district Nazim from campaigning for the PML(QA) candidate.
The Khairpur Nazim has criticised the visit of the head of the Sindh province to her district where he announced grants for only 3 talukas ignoring the 5 other talukas thus exercising discrimination in favour of the party supporting the government. In Narowal on a complaint filed by a Muslim League(N) candidate, the district Nazim has assured the local election official that he would desist from using official buildings to campaign for his wife - also a candidate from the same constituency. He however has not been debarred (by the said official) from canvassing for his wife in his personal capacity! In Attock also the district and tehsil Nazims were found involved in the election campaign and the local returning officer on the basis of an application filed by some of the candidates has asked them to stop from attending and addressing meetings organized by candidates. In his short order he said, "it was talk of the town" that the said Nazims had been running campaign for certain candidates. In Sheikhupura the MMA were debarred from holding the meeting in the Jinnah Park ground where the police disrupted the arrangements and took away all the chairs. The local Jamaat-e-Islami leaders informed a press correspondent that the police and administration provided all facilitates to the PML(QA) for holding a meeting in the main city street, the previous day.
'Pre-poll rigging' complaints have come from all the four provinces and from almost all the political parties other than those said to be favoured by the government. Transfer of officials in contravention of CEC's orders continue and his ban on the announcement of development projects has been ignored.
The military head of the government of Pakistan keeps on talking about "genuine democracy." Mere statements by him and bland denials on the part of his vocal Information Minister are not enough. Let the Minister or the General hold a meeting with some of the leaders of the complaining political parties in the presence of the representatives of the press and answer the questions raised.
It is vital that the government puts a complete stop to use government personnel and other resources to influence the election outcome. Even if some of the rigging complaints are taken as exaggerated there is enough of material and evidence that certain parties are being favoured and others discriminated against. If the complaints continue, some of the mud will stick and the image of the self-claimed 'clean' government will remain tainted and tarnished. How can there be 'genuine' democracy after the election if in the period prior to it, democratic norms and principles are honoured more in the breach than in their observance.

Inayatullah, The News, October 1, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Violations to Render Polling Void: CEC

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Justice (Retd) Irshad Hasan Khan said on Monday that the Election Commission (EC) would declare void the election in any constituency, even after the conclusion of polling, if the polling process was not done in accordance with the legal provisions.
He said this during a meeting with the 22-member Commonwealth Observers Group (COG) headed by former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Dato Tan Sri Musa Bin Hitam at the Election House in Islamabad.
The CEC said: "Even after the conclusion of the polls if, from facts apparent on the face of the record, the Commission finds out that polls in any constituency are to be declared void due to gross violation of the law and irregularities, the Commission shall not hesitate to make the declaration accordingly."
He said that instructions were also being issued to the returning officers to monitor the polls on election day, adding that nobody would be allowed to influence the results of the elections in any manner or to perform any act calculated to influence the results of the elections.
The CEC gave the delegation a detailed briefing on the arrangements made by the EC. He told the delegates that various directives had been issued by the Commission to ensure transparency, which included the ban on bulk transfers and balanced coverage of the political activities of different parties by the electronic media. He added that the executives of the electronic media had been categorically directed to maintain an impartial stance.
The CEC said the foreign observers were being cordially received in the EC's Secretariat and briefed on the various details relating to the general elections.
He said the EC had accorded full cooperation and support to the European Union's (EU) observer mission in Pakistan and that it would continue to render full support to them, as well as to the Commonwealth observers and other international observers.

Mohammad Kamran, Daily Times, October 1, 2002,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-10-2002_pg7_12

Elections for New Leadership

Elections in Pakistan have a murky history tainted with charges ranging from vote stuffing to rigging and resulting in persistent mud-slinging of the losing parties against the winning contestants. It even results in perpetual enmities and murders in the rural dominated ethnic environment of the country. The only elections that were considered fair and free in seventies resulted into break-up of the country. The country is again experiencing the echoes of accusations of pre-poll rigging and the formation of a so-called King's Party. While the charges of rigging are an easy recourse to justify the stunning defeat of a candidate, it is not in good taste to allow the electoral process to be tainted as a plank for criticism to those who profess that democracy is not suited to this country. It is time the politicians to learn to play fair game and muster courage to accept defeat with equanimity and grace that is the hallmark of democratic traditions.
That the electoral process this time around is completely different than the previous elections that brought the parliaments which could not complete their terms since 1985, is evident from the refrain expressed time and again by President Musharraf that the tried and tested corrupt politicians would not be allowed to participate in the elections. The election laws also prohibit the usual processions and wall-chalking as well as hurling accusations against each other. Hence, the 'halla gulla' of the past elections is conspicuously missing. The situation is further compounded by the disqualification of Ms Benazir Bhutto and Sharif family scions. This has riddled and confused the active workers of the two parties which way to go. They are also confused over reports of seat adjustment between the two rival parties. At one place the candidates of PPP and PML(N) are opponents while at the other constituency, they are in unison to oppose the PML(Q) or the other parties. The simmering discontentment among the party loyalists of Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif over this expediency of politics disregarding principles has rendered the party cadres rudderless.
These parties owe their existence more to the personality cult than any political thought or commitment to any specific cause congruent to people's aspirations. If one reads the party manifestoes of the contesting parties, there is no striking difference than can fascinate and attract the voters. Coupled with the ban on street processions, the electoral process appears to have not taken off the ground. The crowd pullers who used to block the traffic to demonstrate the mile-wise length of the procession and create a false impression through media are missing. This time, anyone who will vote would do so out of his choice to elect a candidate of his liking and the voter would not be lured by the false image.
Nobody can deny the fact that the PPP and the PML(N) enjoyed the support of a big majority of the people before the finalisation of candidate's lists by the Election Commission. The seat adjustment reports have deprived these parties of the strength and vigour which is the driving force behind party politics. The worker is baffled to find no moral force to go his party line or continue to oppose the traditional opponents. It seems as if the Musharraf Government has succeeded in winning its policy line that the corrupt and the convicted persons would not be allowed to participate in the elections. The formation of PPP(P) by Ms Bhutto's party loyalists to avoid complete isolation from the political scene is justified from the political angle but it proved the Military Government right that a new democracy - pure and clean with new faces would be introduced in the country. Leaving aside the question of legitimacy or otherwise of the condition of Graduation for a candidate aspiring to take up the role of leadership for the teeming millions of Pakistanis, the Musharraf Government has not been afflicted with any inhibition to say it openly that democracies all over the world hardly offer a third chance to head the country unless it is a sort of family rule and not a democracy.
So far, the Musharraf regime is perceived abroad as a liberal military dispensation that upholds the freedom of the press, respects the right to dissent and avoids victimisation of its opponents. This moderate image has been further bolstered by the freedom allowed to the hosts of Observer's Groups poured to monitor the elections. They are meeting politicians of all hues without any restriction and statements with reference to their meetings are also appearing in the press. President Pervez Musharraf has emerged as a friend and a trusted ally of the U.S. Criticism to the military form of his Government has almost faded away in the Western media. The U.S. officials have even admitted that General Musharraf would be acceptable to them even if he does not take off the uniform after democratic process is restored in Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf enjoys a special status in the priority list of the American leadership. The West and the USA would easily condone any thing done by him in the country to ensure continuation of policies.

Masood Ahmad, Pakistan Observer, October 1, 2002,
http://pakobserver.net/200210/01/default.asp?id=13

Monitoring Guidelines

With October 10 elections just nine days away, emotions are running high which often lead to statements and counter statements coming from different quarters in favour of the way polls are being conducted or otherwise. Either ways, these observation can and do create much heat and controversy. Information Minister Nisar Memon on Sunday while talking to newsmen welcomed the foreign election observers by saying they were free to go anywhere they want in the country, assuring them of assistance and security. But, at the same time he urged them to concentrate only on observation of the elections instead of infringing their role and becoming a party. It seems the statement was made either due to certain reports issued by the observers or to avert any possible damage.
The minister's reflection is at best a damage control measure against the backdrop of the recently released European Union Observation Mission to Pakistan report on the October elections. In its initial report the EU has pointed out at disqualification of two main political leaders on "controversial legal grounds," questioned the impartiality of Chief Election Commissioner and expressed serious reservations over constitutional amendments. If this is the case then the authorities would do better to clarify their position instead of putting restrictions on the observers which would not augur well for the government.
The limit proposed by the minister is very vague as it is difficult to draw a line and to know when the monitors will be crossing it and intervening in the process and becoming party. The assertion can be read as "all is not well." With the local press carrying news of government's support to one party and arm twisting another, it was more likely made out of fear and to counter any observances which might not go well for the government. If the government has nothing to hide - as has been iterated umpteen times - the observers should be given a free hand. Moreover since the presence of monitors and their job have been made controversial by the minister, he should now issue guidelines as to which activity falls under which head. However, the assurance of full support and security is a welcome conciliatory sign as earlier they were refused the same.

The News, Editorial, October 1, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

The Unfolding Future

The Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) manifesto, like that of all other parties, trots out the customary promises of improving the quality of life of the people, which, however, is never done nor is possible to be done. No government, with at best a 30 month tenure in office can do no more than making some cosmetic improvements and fostering a few useful projects. Much of the time of the two traditional power-holding parties was devoted to survive in office, but the dismissal came sooner than later, regardless. It is against such a backdrop that both the parties, PML(N) and PPP (generic form of PPPP) have included measures to undo all amendments introduced by the military government, while the former has gone further by adding its desire to close all doors to takeovers in future. The other parties are advocating their own special issues with the religious parties as usual favouring imposition of Sharia. Corruption figures high in the manifestos as a reflection of the military regime's ongoing fight against sleaze, while the regional questions remain a priority matter with the nationalist parties.
But while, no one can possibly accuse the parties of shirking their responsibility in making promises, it remains to be seen how far or how effective the organisations will be in fulfilling even a tiny portion of their promises. Although, it has been repeatedly made clear that the civilian government will have all its usual powers, there is much cynicism as to the extent of powers that could be exercised. Certain measures of the present regime, which are deemed to be run away successes might well enjoy a veneer of protection to prevent them from coming apart due to mishandling by the civilians. A point has frequently been underscored by the regime that all that has been achieved in various fields - economy, governance, politics, administration, etc - will not be allowed to be unhinged in the future. Given such a clear statement of intent, the civilian government will have to confine its labours to the few available issues that do not have an aura of immunity.
This could be taking a worst case view of the future, and things might be much better, but this has to be seen to be believed. The political parties on the wrong side of the divide, therefore, understandably, have drawn up manifestos that are not meant for halcyon days ahead but hard times. Their declarations contain issues that are designed to lead them into a head on collision with the strengthened power base.
The future could be devoted to not doing good deeds but undoing what they see as bad deeds of the past. Nawaz Sharif's government was the only one to scrape away a few of the more vile amendments Ziaul Haq had interpolated in the 1973 constitution. This time the changes will be much more with foolproof measures to prevent their been removed. It is sad that after waiting for three years the public should still be perturbed by fears of more troubles ahead.

The News, Editorial, October 2, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

BBC Poll Indicates Narrow PPP Victory

" Azhar, Fahim seen as front-runners for PM
" Imran more popular than Azhar or Leghari in Sindh, most women think he will form next govt
" 55% want Benazir to be allowed to contest
" Musharraf still popular in NWFP
" 59% say politics should be separated from religion

According to a BBC Urdu.com survey, the PPP will have a narrow lead in the coming general elections but Mian Azhar of the PML(Q) is expected to be the next prime minister. The pre-election opinion poll, commissioned by BBC Urdu.com, the BBC's new Urdu language website, was conducted in 99 cities and towns and more than 100 villages throughout Pakistan. A total of 2,827 Pakistanis of voting age were asked their opinion about the elections in face-to-face interviews.
In a poll full of surprises and contradictions, some major regional differences emerged on issues such as allegations of pre-election rigging, the ban on militant organisations and the performance of the military government. A clear majority of voters in Sind believe the PPP will win.
But PML(Q) enjoys much greater support in Punjab and Balochistan. According to the survey, the PML(N) which once enjoyed a strong support in urban Punjab appears to be losing its mass appeal. Only 12 per cent of respondents thought that it will win a majority of seats with only 18 per cent Punjabis predicting its win.
To the question of who is going to be the next prime minister of Pakistan, Mian Azhar emerged as the front-runner but with only 17 per cent followed closely by Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Farooq Leghari and Imran Khan. However there's surprise when women's views were analysed separately. For women, Imran Khan is the front-runner to form a new government. He also enjoys more support in Sindh than Mian Azhar and Farooq Leghari.
The survey also reveals some interesting contradictions, and demonstrates the continuing strength of traditional political allegiances. Benazir Bhutto was rated both the best and the worst prime minister over the last two decades. Nawaz Sharif emerged as both the second best and the second worst prime minister over the same period.
Contrary to the general perception, General Musharraf enjoys considerable support in NWFP with 60 per cent saying his tenure has proved good for the country. Comparison of General Zia and Musharraf also brought out some interesting revelations. Punjabis find General Zia a better ruler than Pervez Musharraf. But 55 per cent of respondents in Balochistan preferred Musharraf to Zia.
In another apparent contradiction, a majority felt that the future government will be able to function smoothly but a majority were also unsure whether the next government will be able to complete its term. About 50 per cent said that it will be better than the Benazir Bhutto's government and 46 per cent expect it to perform better than the Nawaz government.
A clear majority of Pakistani voters said army should not participate in the politics, with even larger majorities in NWFP and Balochistan. 54 per cent voted for army's permanent institutionalised role in running the country and 51 per cent approved the establishment of the National Security Council. An overwhelming majority of the respondents said all Pakistani laws should be based on Islam, with 100 per cent support in NWFP. But 59 per cent felt that religion should be separated from politics and that there was no place in politics for religious leaders.
Out of total adult male and female respondents a clear majority do not believe the elections will be completely free and fair - although 24 percent of those interviewed said they either didn't know or didn't want to comment.
54 per cent believe that Benazir Bhutto should have been given permission to return and participate in elections; Nawaz Sharif scored slightly lower with exactly 50 per cent. More than half the respondents supported the ban on militant and sectarian organisations.
But the arrest and handing over of suspected Al Qaeda members to the U.S. was opposed by 58 per cent of the respondents.
The pre-poll survey for BBC Urdu.com was conducted in the last ten days of September 2002 and is the representative sample of the entire adult population of the four provinces.
The opinion poll was commissioned by BBC Urdu.com, which is the only completely text-based Urdu news website in the world. The opinion poll, the biggest of its kind conducted for the coming elections, is part of BBC's coverage of the elections in Pakistan. The poll encompasses general trends and expectations gathered from people from all four provinces of Pakistan. Oasis International Pakistan conducted 3,000 face-to-face interviews of a representative cross section of adult (18 years-eligible to vote) citizens. Half of them were male and half were female. Two thousand interviews were conducted in 99 cities and towns and 1,000 interviews were done in 100 villages spread over all districts and provinces of the country. The cross section covered all literate, semi-literate and illiterate segments in accordance with their proportions. It also covered all socio-economic classes. The interviews were conducted in the last 10 days of September 2002, just 10 days before the National Elections, to capture the mood of the people. The margin of error of this survey results is expected to be around 3 per cent.

Daily Times, October 2, 2002,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-10-2002_pg1_2

Electoral Chemistry and Scenarios

The electoral scene becomes more and more unpredictable as the October 10 polls get closer. If viewed from different estimates, though not so accurate, likelihood of a hung parliament is being mostly predicted, although the independent opinion polls forecast a lead to the PPP over its closest rival, the PML(QA). But more than public rating is involved in determining the electoral outcome, depending on various contradictory factors and above all on the extent of meddling by a very experienced administration. How the electoral chemistry going to work and what possible scenarios are in the offing?
First we look at some basic factors that distinguish these polls from the last four elections. One, in terms of overall context these are being held under a military regime, as in 1985, with the difference that political parties are participating and, learning from the Movement for Restoration of Democracy's boycott-disaster, the opposition parties have not boycotted them, despite exclusionary laws and widespread allegations of pre-poll engineering and much feared rigging in the polls. Two, unlike 1985 elections, the local governments and entire administration and its resources have been used to facilitate the emergence of the king's parties, the PML(QA), Sindh Democratic Alliance, National Alliance and PPP (Sherpao), and by forcibly causing defections, at a mass scale, in the PML(N) and, marginally, in the PPP.
Three, starting from the referendum, the military regime has left no ambiguity in drawing a line of demarcation between its supporters and the opponents. The message is too open and blatantly clear about the favourite and who are likely to form the government - such as the PML(QA) - and who are to be kept out at all cost - former prime ministers Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif. A big chunk of influential people, expectants of government favours and apolitical sections of electorates are always inclined to side with the government-sponsored 'winning side.' Such elements find greater space in a depoliticised environment that the administration has so successfully created. Four, and most importantly, the top leadership of the two mainstream parties who dominated the electoral scene in the last four elections and still have the largest vote-banks has been excluded from the electoral contest, making these elections not only leaderless but also, to a larger degree, non-political and, mainly, a non-party local contest.
Five, unlike all general elections in the past, this election is devoid of any popular national election campaign and has become issueless, although critical questions of civil-military relations have divided the parties on pro and anti-Musharraf lines. Against misplaced anti-American expectations, General Musharraf's alignment with the U.S. has become his plus point, rather than a popular pretext to exploit quite widespread anti-imperialist feelings. Although General Musharraf's three-year performance does not fair badly as compared to the four governments of the PPP and PML(N), increased cost of living, unemployment, poverty, civilian exclusion from governance and, above all, monopoly of garrison over civilian power are the issues that help the opposition candidates. But, in the absence of main opposition leadership and its failure to throw up a joint front, the electorate could not be appropriately mobilised on these crucial issues. So far a divided opposition, for expeditious reasons, has failed to build the other pole of the political divide and has continued to coalesce in without drawing a bottom-line. Yet the elections are being fought on broadly pro and anti-Msuharraf lines, with local factors dominating the scene in most of the constituencies.
Against this backdrop and despite all official machinations, the electoral scene is still different from what the government had initially estimated: First, this time around, the establishment is poised against just not one popular party but both the major parties of our erstwhile political divide. Second, unlike 1988 and 1990 elections when the ISI put together a conservative alliance, a broad-based conservative vote-bank and social forces have been divided mainly due to the split in the PML(N) and also Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA). The establishment has this time failed to forge a unified front against the PPP and multi-polarity of contests in most of the constituencies in the majority-Punjab suits the liberal PPP. This factor alone would have translated into a landslide victory of the PPP, had Ms Bhutto decided to come back and lead her party either on streets or from the prison. Yet the PPP, according to two independent surveys, has a lead over the PML(QA) and PML(N) stands to survive at the cost of the king's party.
By late September, according to one not entirely reliable survey, 25 per cent favoured PPP and 19 per cent supported PML(N), followed by PML(QA) at 14 per cent. But these percentages do not exactly translate into seats in first past the post system. What is still not clear, and that is where the pollsters and the establishment are confused, is that how this conservative vote-divide will affect the electoral outcome, although the PPP stands to gain in every second constituency where there is a real three-way contest in Punjab. No doubt in many constituencies in Punjab, at the individual level, the PML(QA) candidates are stronger than the opposition candidates. Depending upon the local coalitions they have formed, the PML(QA) can win sizeable seats in Punjab and Balochistan. Yet the PML(QA) will not be able to get a majority of seats at the national level, unless some selective rigging takes place in, at least, 50/60 seats.
In such a close contest, probability of a hung parliament becomes a palpable proposition. If the parliament is to indemnify and consider the Legal Framework Order, and it ought to, then it's not a promising scenario for the COAS-President who will have to expand the space for share of power to avoid de-stability. But rigging, even selective, in the polls can spoil the whole atmosphere and rid an already questioned electoral process of any credibility. Yet, fearing the opposition, a hegemonic military establishment can go for an over-kill that will be disastrous for the country. The other alternative, and safer one, is to go for fair polls, even if the PPP gets an edge over PML(QA) or the latter cobbles together a majority in collaboration with others.
Such a scenario is also not as problematic, as some ambitious advisors of General Musharraf may strongly feel. With PML(QA) in his pocket General Musharraf can adjust Amin Fahim-led PPP-P. Despite her resentment against the military regime that has wrongly termed her a 'security risk,' Ms Bhutto is still ready to play ball with him and that leaves the opposition with a room to manoeuvre but also without a moral raison deter. It can be safely predicted that the next parliament will not be a dummy body, unless the establishment commits the blunder of massive rigging or the PPP sells out cheaply. It will be much more powerful and assertive than the 1985 parliament and the President will have to come to terms with that.
Finally, what can be safely predicted is that the political setup that is to emerge after the elections will have greater inherent conflicts than were embodied in the 1985 political setup. The duality of power will have more powerful opposite pulls this time than General Zia had imagined. The real question is how the political forces will conduct themselves after the elections. Will they go for shameless capitulations or assert the sovereignty of the Parliament? The real democracy will, however, emerge after yet another painful political phase in our history and depending upon how early a principled and genuine democratic leadership emerges.

Imtiaz Alam, The News, October 7, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Electoral Adjustments

With elections around the corner some political parties including mainstream traditional rivals PPP and PML(N) are talking of seat adjustments to boost their chances of win at the polls. For quite sometime they mulled over seat adjustments under the overarching umbrella of Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD). There were elements in both the parties who favoured seat adjustments to for fighting battle for restoration of democracy. There is equally strong opposition to the idea of seat adjustments in their fold on the ground that such an action would amount to compromising on manifestos of the two parties.
By agreeing on seat adjustments these parties might win a few more assembly seats at some places in the country but this sort of political patch-work between them would for sure damage their standing with the common man and raise a baffling question mark as to what separates the two parties except their names and persons occupying the top slots.
Political parties are formed with the ultimate goal of winning power at the polls to bring about social and economic changes in the society in line with their electoral commitments. Besides their popularity in the masses it is the party programme impinging on social and economic aspects of the society that separates parties among themselves.
Not long ago both PML(N) and PPP (now PPPP) reached a crucial phase of setting up a two-party system. Power seesawed between them and they appeared poised to herald a stable parliamentary form of government in the country anchored in two-party system. However this scenario proved short-lived.
Instead of staying their course and making efforts to claw back their lost ground these parties appeared launching them into search for easy short-cuts to electoral gains obviously at the expense of their principles and manifestos. Even adjustment at one seat would leave little justification to feign their separate existence at the national level.
Political parties world over at some point of time run out of popular support. India's Congress Party had suffered huge losses in the last two elections and PPP suffered largely in the 1997 National poll. Indian Congress Party is still in the opposition and at no place it has made an electoral alliance with the rival BJP.
In Britain Tory party and Labour party are two mainstream parties with Liberal democrats waiting in the wings. Despite some difficult political moments in their tenures in power neither of the two major parties had ever tried to woo the Liberal Democrats. Making seat adjustments between Tories and Labour is a supposition beyond grasp. Seat adjustments between Republican and Democrat parties in the United States is also unheard of. The candidates win or lose election under banner of their respective parties.
Britain's Labour party could win a slender majority of four seats in the 1974 election managing 301 seats against 297 by the Conservatives. Liberal Democrats had won 14 seats while 23 others made it to the House of Commons. Instead of seeking support of the Liberal Democrats and others the Labour Government called elections the same year and won 319 seats against 277 by the Conservatives.
In fact it is hard to come by instances in democratic countries where rival political parties with diverse programmes joined hands on the eve of polls or even afterwards. Post election coalition governments are formed in the event of elections throwing up hung parliaments but such arrangements are not made among the main rival parties. The main political rival parties might join a national government which at times is formed in a country in situations of war or extreme threat to the national security.
Pakistan's political scene has witnessed recurring defections in the parliament in the past especially in the first decade of its existence. A new political party was born overnight through switching of party loyalties in the 1950s. However a tradition of forming pre-election alliances rather than post election coalitions began to take roots in the country from 1970s onwards. Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) a conglomeration of several right wing parties contested election against PPP in 1977 under one banner and one electoral symbol. Now combination of religio-political parties in the fold of Muthidda Majlis Amal (MMA) and National Alliance made up of some half a dozen parties are in the run under their respective common symbols.
The PPP by all definitions of the word is inclined to the left of the center while PML(N) is a rightist and at best the centralist party. The relationship between leadership of both parties remained inimical rather than adversarial in the past three elections as well as during their stints in power. It would be safe to say that these parties ran governments of revenge against each other. Allegations of corruption were frequently traded against each other.
There is no denying the fact that political parties in the country faced difficult period after dissolution of elected government in October 1999. But in a way time for idle talk for the parties ended that moment.
Political leaders and parties world over provide leadership to the people in trying times. But by all accounts our political parties appear to have failed to rise to the occasion and did nothing beyond making empty noise. On the contrary their leadership have been blatantly wooing the military.
The electoral seat adjustments between mainstream political parties PML(N), PPPP and even by PML(Q) and MMA is fraught with dangers to the party-based parliamentary system in the country. This in fact amounts to depriving the voters of their choice and reducing the election to a party-less fray. It is high time the Election Commission took notice of it and ensured that parties contested elections under their own symbols without seat adjustments.
By proposing seat adjustments even in the dying moments of election campaign the politicians appear to be devising political plans for the country they had already done so much to damage. They better remember that power without principles is barren.

Ghani Chaudhry, The Nation, October 8, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/081002/editor/opi2.htm

Road to Democracy

Political rallies have a mood and an inspiration of their own. No amount of discussion on television screen can replace the addictive energy and the power that comes from attending a public rally. Perhaps it was the charge and the jolt of the recent public jalsas of PPP, PML(N) and MMA that made some predict the elections are going to be a rout - of the puppeteers.
What with the lack of main political leaders and new election rules the electoral campaign had been such a damp squib that most political analysts had written off a decent turn out. Others never bothered about the turn-out and concentrated on projecting who would be making government where - as if the results were a foregone conclusion.
That said, turn-out remains an issue of importance and interest. Opposition parties had been fearing that fewer supporters would show up at the polling booths because it was clear to all that the Q-League being the favourite would get the power, so why bother. Also the persistent rumour mills refused to let go of the elections-may-be-postponed story, which impacted the overall sentiment of the voters.
The plethora of pre-election public polls that got released in the last few days, mostly predicting PPP to do well in the elections, and the presence of a huge number of foreign election observers, however, have helped dispel the postponement rumours. More importantly, they have given the committed party activists the idea that they have a fighting chance. Hence, the renewed activity and improved attendance in the public rallies organized recently by the major parties.
"Even when I was sure that my voter will not go and cast a vote in favour of my opponent, I was not sure he will vote for me. I knew many thought why come out and vote when the establishment wants someone else to win. Now I sense a change," said a politician belonging to a party from the wrong side of the fence.
And this is what is making some political pundits to predict that if anyone is going to lose in the elections it is going to be those holding the strings. Will it though? Surely elections have their own dynamics and if the people are charged and decide to come out to vote, then the final results can surprise even the most cynical amongst us. But if the game has been laid out after a lot of thinking, even a loss can be a win. No wonder the puppeteers are sitting smug. Apparently realising much earlier in the game that the PPP and the PML(N) cannot be erased from the public mind, they decided instead to use them to develop 'true democracy.'
According to sources who should know the plan is to use PPP as a check on PML(Q); PPP can be the single major party as Q controls Punjab. Ideally Sindh should be with SDA and MQM but even a PPP government there would be ok. All of the political parties have to learn to live with each other and the next five years will be a training exercise for the politicians to become 'truly democratic.' Apparently it will be the next elections that will pave in true democracy while these are mainly a training and guiding exercise.
There is already a supreme body that has been constituted to gently guide the fledgling democratic government onto the road of true democracy.

Ayesha Haroon, The Nation, October 8, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/081002/main/top4.htm

Tip-Toeing to Ballot Box

Tomorrow the nation goes to polls. It is the fifth of the post-Zia period. If our previous general elections were rather flat, this time the general elections should be called lacklustre. Perhaps one would be nearer the truth with the expression 'dull.' Of excitement there is not much; of genuine enthusiasm there is even less in evidence. There is no argument. No wonder there is no counter-argument. But you have a lot of clichés. All those who are speaking have nothing to say. By the traditional definitions, there is no Left, no Right and hence no Centre politics in this election.
Of controversy in the sense of thesis and antithesis, proposition and opposition, one hears nothing worth lending an ear to. If an election can be dumb, then this is it. There is calm when Karachi should have been in convulsions. For a city so volatile, with 14 million people representing the whole of Pakistan, such a tranquil election campaigning is inconsistent with its grain. Once a cauldron of scalding politics, Karachi is now about the most sedate of cities in the country. On the one hand we have the extraordinary proliferation of political parties, on the other such absence of political controversy, not to speak of absence of political clash of any kind or category. If there is any suggestion of political rivalry or antagonism, it is provided by the MQM and its step sibling the MQM(H). Here, again, the clash has nothing to do with any divergence of political principles or postures. It is a seething clash of personalities - something like the blood feud between Stalin and Trotsky way back in the early days of the (late) Soviet Union. The intra-MQM clashes are all noise, fury and some blood-stained skirmishes, signifying nothing of any considerable political import.
Why has the mercurial and unpredictable Karachi become so apolitical is not easy to explain. And if an explanation may be available, it would fail to unveil the truth about Karachi's transformation from mercury to inert common clay. At one time the PML(N) too had something to show for its presence. One would recall the 'reign' of Jam Sadiq and the Marwats. In that period there was never a dull day. The city was not dull, even though some believe that whatever was happening, the city could have done pretty well without.
This is not to say that Karachi has nothing at all to distinguish itself even when the city looks rather down and out. One remarkable feature is that women are to the fore as never before. As many as 17 women are in the election battles. This imparts a touch of some grace to an otherwise dull scene. How many of these brave entrants to the election contest will emerge with flying colours will remain uncertain till the Election Commission announces the final official results. But that is beside the point. That the city should be able to field such a formidable array of women contestants in what was considered a mainly male affair is in itself a telling point scored. If this impels some Karachiites to say, "Karachi is Karachi," few should grudge this innocent exultation. No matter how you look at the rise of Pakistan womanhood, it is a phenomenon that would merit a nod of appreciation from most people. One major factor behind this development is the enhanced number of women's seats in all elected institutions from the local bodies to the federal legislature. This strongly suggests that we are at the verge of a new trend in our socio-political consciousness. It is only in the fitness of things that if the country is poised to witness a wholesome new turn in the wind, Karachi should be in the vanguard.
A new wave of awakening among the women of the country is a positive feature. What is still not clear is that to what extent the lowering of the voting age to 18 years from the traditional 21 years is going to give a youthful tone to the political life of our republic. If the election results do not register any change in the voting pattern, the result would not lie with the younger voter. It would only signify yet another weakness of the senior political leadership across the board. For the politician with a vision, the arrival of the 18-20 year age voting block should be a gold mine. Which party has been able to establish a wavelength with the younger voter will be clear only after the results are available. But it would be a matter of much interest to the forward-looking politician as well as the political observers and political scientists of a country like Pakistan. There are two almost diametrically opposed views. One expects that the younger first-time voter in Pakistan may tilt towards the religious radicals. The other view is that in Karachi this may be a bonus for the original MQM. Tomorrow is the great day. In Karachi, with its past and its present so well known to all, one must keep fingers crossed.
One can draw whatever comfort one might from the knowledge that two days before the polling day, all election campaigning shall be stopped. To some extent this provides the assurance that the last leg of the run up to the elections would be cool and calm. For that matter, it has not been very hectic at any stage of the campaigning. But the kind of trouble we have been encountering since 9/11 in the United States, has precious little to do with domestic politics. The terrorist is an apolitical operator. He may not respect the Election Commission's wishes. Experience warns that terror strikes at some profoundly sensitive and crucial moments. October 10 would be just that kind of a delicate moment. Karachi Police has been alert. But how alert it is and how astute the terrorist turns out to be is not so easy to foretell or calculate. In such a climate the citizen can only hope for the best.

A.B.S. Jafri, The Nation, October 9, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/091002/editor/opi2.htm

People Must Vote

The one positive aspect of the election campaign leading up to today's poll was the absence of any major violence. Hopefully, this trend will be reflected in the poll as well. The down side of the campaign, however, was the tepid public response. The physical absence of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif is one of the reasons cited for this. The more important reason perhaps was the absence from the campaign of the established parties of any higher issues and convincing cures for the everyday problems faced by the people. The new entrants made the right noises but failed to enthuse the worn out public, possibly also because the official posture in favour of the status quo.
Whichever party, or combination, forms the next government will need to ponder the reasons for the consistently declining public participation in the electoral process. The elected government will, above all, need to show a quantum improvement in performance and delivery to rebuild the poor political image. There is a view that lessons have been learnt from past misperformance and the coalescence of the PPP and PML(N) is cited as an example. How durable these lessons are remain to be seen. What was evident from the unsavoury media campaign of some parties is that not every one has learnt a lesson. That the same old charges could be repeated is because these remain unproved or disproved in court. This is a direct reflection of how inadequate the much talked about accountability process has been despite being a critical backup for an ailing democracy like ours. It is a reflection also of the inadequacy of the Election Commission and its code of conduct.
With the attentions now focused on the poll itself, the Chief Election Commissioner has sounded a warning against any disruption and General Pervez Musharraf has reiterated his vow that it will be free and fair. The international observers are also in place this time. Hopefully, therefore, the poll will be credible enough to be accepted by the losers as well. This is the acid test of any election and, unfortunately, post-poll controversies have been the bane of Pakistan's brushes with democracy. If today's poll brings a different reaction, it would indeed be a significant step forward.
Even so, the poll may not be able to wash away the odour of pre-poll rigging. The Election Commission failed singularly in responding manfully to the spate of complaints of blatant official interference in favour of the preferred parties. All it could do was to exhort the provincial administrations to stay neutral and investigate the charges of police harassment through neutral agencies. When the entire administration was being seen as partisan, the efficacy of such directives needs no comment. Suffice it to say that neither the military government nor the Election Commission have earned any kudos for their pre-poll performance. How far this negative baggage can be offset by popular will and wisdom should be evident today. It all depends, though, on how many people realise that it's their future at stake and go out to vote.

The News, Editorial, October 10, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Election Campaign

The political campaigns have kicked off with great zeal and enthusiasm with different parties coming forward with tall claims of winning the polls. The past polls did not have a good record as the victorious parties greatly influenced the elections in one way or the other and the game of rigging remained a trademark of Pakistani politics. All the fragile coalition governments except the last one in which Nawaz Sharif was given thumping majority to prove his mettle, proved to be failure. The masses perhaps had been tired of the horse-trading and floor crossing game which beat all the ugliest records during the era of Nawaz and Benazir bringing the poorest image to the country in the comity of nations. So much money was pushed into this dirty game to buy the loyalties of either renegade or dissident MNAs of Treasury Benches or the members of the opposition that it began to seem a highly lucrative business through which knaves and opportunists made great fortunes. The more you invest on elections to buy votes the ten times you earn coming into power. And this vile work in politics continued with great impunity, bringing increasingly bad name to Pakistan.
This country was not created to be ruled by a privileged class that makes only two per cent of its population. This wealthy class took power for granted and instead of serving the masses served their own interests further driving the common man to abjection as a result of which now forty per cent people of the country are forced to live below the line of poverty.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto appeared on the political horizon in sixties carrying great reputation of intelligence, revolutionary ideas, vision and sagacity. His slogan of "Roti, Kapra Aur Makan" lured the masses who had till then been being ruled with iron fist. Bhutto got immense support and popularity within the shortest time that enabled him to form a government in West Pakistan in 1970. Undoubtedly Bhutto, for a short period, emerged as a great leader and played instrumental role in bringing Arabs together, who were, like now, poles apart then. Bhutto tried to mobilize them; urged them to shun their differences and tried to make them realize their force. His holding of Islamic Summit in 1974 in Lahore played a vital role in bringing them under one platform. He was aiming at making an Islamic bloc and thought that the Arab countries had immense natural resources which, if exploited, could make them a strongest force. It was all against the interests of the West in whose eyes Bhutto had started to be a potential danger. Then the man the people were ready to sacrifice everything for, gradually started turning out to be a dictator. He would not tolerate at all his opponents and took scores of steps that drove him to his decadence - gallows being the ultimate end. The man whom he promoted bypassing six other generals because he thought him too unintelligent to pose him any threat, took his life. His daughter after the tragic end of second powerful military dictator, surfaced from a long exile of Bhutto family and was immediately kicked up to power, cashing her father's name. On the other hand emerged an incompetent businessman Ziaul Haq had planted into power. Nawaz Sharif by all scales of the leadership was at the lowest ebb in the history of leadership in Pakistan.
With them they carried the game of loot and plunder that beat all records in the preceding years. Politicians fashioned corruption and in no time it started circulating in the veins and bloods of all classes and kinds of masses. Bureaucrats benefited most after politicians. When common man saw this happening before his naked eyes he thought why should he lag behind in this race of loot and plunder. Corruption got deep roots into Pakistani society and from top to bottom people sank into it. Resultantly Pakistan was declared the 2nd most corrupt country of the world by International Transparency. So rapidly came down the image of the country that green passport holders began to be looked suspiciously abroad. They would be lined up at every international airport to look like criminals. Now who was responsible in bringing the image of the nation to the lowest level - certainly these politicians? They encouraged the entire nation to earn through unfair means. Corrupts and crooks had the support of the politicians who without a slightest qualms of conscience or the expression of attrition flagrantly customized all forms of wrong doings. If criminals were arrested, the Politicians influenced for their release.
Now these very people have resurfaced and became active in political arena with the hope that they would again be culled by gullible and poverty stricken masses whom they drove like the herds of sheep and goats not a distant past. President Musharraf surely took praiseworthy steps to rein them by disqualifying some big guns but a lot more needed to be done to save the country and its people from such leaders who have already played a havoc with the destinies of those who had raised them to power, pinning hopes, they would better their lot but instead got worst in return.

Muhammad Ilyas, Pakistan Observer, October 10, 2002,
http://pakobserver.net/200210/10/default.asp?id=13

The Next Elections

Pakistanis go to the polls today not knowing exactly when and in what form the country's next elections would take place. With frequent interruptions to democratic rule, its no surprise that the confidence surrounding the life expectancy of the next parliament must only remain weak.
Moreover, in the past four decades since the late General Ayub Khan consolidated his control over the country, only one prime minister has completed his five-year term and he was hanged two years later. That's in sharp contrast to the years that Pakistan spent under military rulers, relying more on western political and economic support rather than the goodwill of Pakistanis, many of whom are still waiting to witness the beginnings of unforeseen radical reforms.
Notwithstanding General Pervez Musharraf's claim to deliver the broad contours of an ideal democracy, Pakistan's political outlook today appears no less murky than under previous military regimes. There's indeed more visible tolerance of a free and at times even belligerent press - a much-repeated official claim to fame. But the underlying question must be whether the choice of extending such freedom is an act of benevolence or merely the consequence of changing times.
Pakistan's 1999 coup was unique insofar as the country's first ever military takeover at a time of unprecedented flow of free information, thanks in large part to the arrival of the satellite dish and the Internet. With the smallest of Pakistani villages wired to the dish, the recurrence of the 80s style censorship indeed became an impossible option.
Similarly too, the claims to deliver 'good politics' through the creation of a custom made and well tailored democracy, indeed is driven fundamentally by the search for empowerment, as illustrated from the fallout of this year's controversial referendum. Time and again in Pakistan's history, the military led establishment has engaged itself in drawing out a new political order be it in the name of basic democracies or the 'shoora' or indeed party less polls, or perhaps backing a king's party.
Yet, time and again, the architects of such creations have eventually been disappointed in the face of the all too evident unpredictability which must go hand in hand with manufactured politics. And if disappointment could be the eventual name of the game, there's indeed the danger that the new political order which Pakistan embarks upon today could well become the victim of its own internal contradictions.
Irrespective of whoever becomes the next prime minister and no matter how visibly vibrant the next parliament, the centre of power is certain to remain around the presidential office and the National Security Council. Tragically, the ideal of finally embarking upon the road to building a long overdue national consensus could suffer, especially if fresh wrangling takes Pakistan away from the course to stability.
General Musharraf's latest remarks on the London-based ARY channel may well provide a useful guide to unfolding events where he said, "We should learn from our experiences, and based on that we should tailor democracy according to our own requirements so that it works." However, such a tailor made democracy driven by past experiences, tragically though, may well become another futile beginning.
In previous remarks, the General has used phrases such as 'sham democracy' to denounce the eleven years before the 1999 coup, though his perspective appears to have seldom taken a 40 year span, returning to the beginnings of the Ayub era. With focus on a limited and recent history, there's every danger that the profound challenges facing Pakistan - driven out of its experiences - may well be ignored.
For students of history, there could be no greater irony than the events surrounding the 1971 break up of Pakistan, coming just a few years after General Ayub's so-called golden era which was celebrated as a shining example of economic progress and capitalism. However, the underlying political discord of the 60s - hardly a shining example of good politics - eventually triggered the most profound disaster in Pakistan's history.
Frequent derailment of democracy and repeated denunciation of past civilian governments, hardly marks a new beginning for Pakistan - faced with not only a profound security challenge both internally and externally, but also pressed with a long overdue need to reform its political and economic frameworks. The scale of the challenge confronting Pakistan is such that without a clear path towards building national consensus, a new beginning could well turn into just a half start.
The politicians who come to power, even nominally, could well become the victims to the strains over civil-military relations in at least three ways.
Firstly, the so-called devolution plan launched with the zeal to deliver democracy to Pakistan's grassroots, is bound to come into deepening conflict with parliamentarians in the provinces and the centre, as the new breed of politicians try to widen their own support at the grassroots. Who would get to extend even legitimate support such as responding to demands for local development projects? Who is going to be in charge of building new roads, healthcare projects and schools? While the parliamentarians at the centre and the provinces should ideally be responsible for larger matters, it's hard to imagine that there would be a break from Pakistan's political culture. Ultimately, there's every danger of a breakdown in relations at different tiers of the new political order with the public once again finding itself at crossroads - torn between political realities in sharp contrast to the emerging environment.
Secondly, well before polling day, the speculation of a breakdown in relations between the new ruling parliamentarians and General Musharraf-led regime speaks volumes over where the discord lies. Time and again, the breakdown in civil-military ties has been driven by the refusal of men in and out of uniform to work in harmony with each other. Beginning with disagreements on relatively mundane matters to high measures of policy choices, Pakistan's historical legacy provides few reasons for much encouragement. With a hangover from the past and the fear of unfolding events, only an extraordinary measure of effort to establish stability would be needed. But General Musharraf's choice of condemning politicians months before the elections with references to 'sham' elections and 'sham' democracy, bears little resemblance to Pakistan's past in its totality. As part of a comprehensive historical review, should Pakistanis not aggressively question the role of the proverbial 'farishtey' (angels) - reputed to have influenced past politics. There are still no clear-cut answers to such questions.
Finally, in the run up to the polling day, the campaign-2002 could well be remembered as a largely lacklustre affair with few solid attempts by mainstream parties to articulate their policy choices. The allegations of 'pre-poll' rigging, though vehemently denied by the government, have nevertheless been an important rallying cry for political parties.
The post-election scenario is likely to remain murky in the backdrop of the campaign related charges of official manipulation. Political peace for Pakistan must eventually come not necessarily by virtue of deciding whose right and whose wrong but indeed by addressing the challenge of where should the country go next, and exactly what must be the driver for a long awaited national change. General Musharraf indeed takes credit for stabilising Pakistan's outlook, though there are many who question the official claims of success.
Unless Pakistan's future prospects receive a robust lift from the environment following today's elections, past and future claims of success, from civil and military ruler, could only mark the polls as another inconsequential event in the country's troubled history.

Farhan Bokhari, The News, October 10, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Musharraf to Hand Over Power on Nov 1

President Gen Pervez Musharraf said here on Thursday that he would hand over his powers to the new prime minister on November 1. Talking to reporters after casting his vote at a polling station on Park Road, he said everything had been finalized to transfer his powers of the chief executive to the new prime minister on first of the next month.
"We will go through the normal legal process after the elections includes to hand over my administrative powers to the prime minister," he added. "I assure you that the new PM will enjoy all powers. He will be given a free hand to run his affairs without any interference," Gen Musharraf said.
The president added that he would accept the verdict of the people as they were the final authority. "Any political party which succeeds in getting majority will form the government," he said, adding that he and his cabinet colleagues would certainly accept the outcome of these elections.
"After handing over powers to the new prime minister, I would only play my constitutional role as the president of the country," he said and added that the new prime minister would do his own job while the National Security Council (NSC) would have its own jurisdiction. The president said he would extend all his support to the new chief executive so that democracy could be strengthened.
Answering to a question, Gen Musharraf said it would be the responsibility of the new prime minister to ensure continuity of reforms and consistency in policies. However, the president pointed out that the new prime minister would enjoy full authority to improve reforms. "No reforms are final as there is always a room for certain improvements," he said. From Pakistan's development point of view, these reforms and restructuring should continue, he emphasised.
Asked whether he was satisfied with the polling process, he said he was pleased to know that in most of the places everything went well. He said except for one or two minor incidents in Sindh and Punjab, the polling has been smooth and orderly.
Answering to a question he said with the setting up of local governments, people have been empowered to run their affairs on their own. The new prime minister, he hoped, would also strengthen these local governments for offering justice to the common man.

Dawn, October 11, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/11/top1.htm

Polling

The pattern of polling has met the expectations of analysts. Though there have been at least four deaths in poll-related violence, and a number of other scattered incidents of violence, on the whole, polling has been as peaceful as in the past. It is worth mentioning that the Pakistani electorate demonstrates more maturity in its behaviour on polling day than is witnessed in the rest of the region. Indian elections in particular are always marked by widespread violence, and the same applies to Bangladesh to an extent. In this respect, the Pakistani electorate has remained true to pattern. However, though final figures will emerge only after the completion of the results and the final counts, turnout seems to have been lower even than the 1997 election, when it hit an all-time low of 34 percent. This will have inevitable negative effects on the legitimacy of the Assemblies that will come into being, and the governments they will throw up. The mandate of apathy does not bode well for the polity.
Part of the low turnout can be explained by some of the teething problems because of the major overhaul of the entire electoral structure. The lowering of the voting age to 18 was accompanied by large numbers of youth unable to vote because of the snafus at NADRA, apart from the general tendency of modern youth, not just in Pakistan, to take little interest in politics. Then the new delimitations left many voters uncertain as to where they were supposed to vote, while there were also problems with unfamiliar polling schemes and completely new voters' lists. However, these problems were not enough to explain the low turnout. Here, two factors can be identified. First, the impression that the election results would not change the reality of a permanent military role through a President with the dissolution power backed by the National Security Council, and holding the office of COAS to boot. The President's repeated declarations that he would not allow any major shift in policy perhaps seemed more credible to the electorate than his promises to hand over all authority to the new Prime Minister. Second, the political parties clearly failed to mobilise the voters, either in support of the government, or against. Whatever their electoral performance, all parties must do some serious soul-searching on this aspect.
That violence occurred due to rising tempers outside polling stations rather than because of resistance to attempts to perform electoral malpractices, is itself an indication of the fairness of the poll. Whatever the flaws in the pre-poll arrangements and manoeuvrings, whatever the defects of the actual election machinery, there were almost no complaints of actual fraud on a large-scale, nor any serious attempts to do so. Those few attempts detected are easily explained by individual initiative rather than official patronage. This, at least, is to General Musharraf's everlasting credit.

The Nation, Editorial, October 11, 2002,
http://www.syberwurx.com/nation/daily/today/editor/ed2.htm

Dawn of Democracy

The nation is undoubtedly a step closer to the advent of democracy today as a result of Thursday's polls. Election 2002 not only constitutes a vital step in the country's journey towards a new era of a democratic dispensation, but will also lead to good governance and sustained democracy in view of the constitutional reforms providing for checks and balances on the country's centres of power.
It also marks the redemption of President Gen Pervez Musharraf's pledge to the nation to revive the civilian rule in deference to the timeframe stipulated by the Supreme Court. He certainly deserves pat on his back for display of high esteem for the apex court's verdict. The post-election scenario will, however, be a test of the elected representatives' abilities, acumen, honesty and commitment to run the affairs of the State smoothly and to lead the nation to the path of stability, progress and prosperity. The new rulers will hopefully learn a lesson from the past governments' blunders to avoid the pitfalls, lest the country drifts to the abyss once again. We obviously wish the new government, established as a consequence of the October 10 polls, to complete its constitutional tenure of five years, for which a harmonious relationship among the centres of power will, however, be an essential prerequisite, irrespective of the establishment of the National Security Council's forum to address any grievances. President Musharraf's assurance that the Prime Minister will run the affairs of the State and that he will not interfere in his domain is certainly encouraging. The fact is that it will be in the best national interests if both the Prime Minister and the President will demonstrate goodwill, tolerance and large-heartedness towards each other to ensure smooth functioning of the statecraft. The country had endured political turmoil, economic instability and credibility erosion due to the infighting between the two apostles in the past. It can ill-afford recurrence of this disgusting scenario. The President is supposed to take the new government along in order to ensure sustainability of the policies, which have yielded dividends in the past three years. At the same time, the next Prime Minister ought to avoid confrontation with the President. We are convinced that there will be no commotion in the country if all the three centres of power will adhere to the trichotomy of powers.

Pakistan Observer, Editorial, October 11, 2002,
http://pakobserver.net/200210/11/default.asp?id=8

Fate in General Musharraf's Hands

The day is upon us. The pre-poll environment was relatively dull for various reasons, one initially being that that no one really believed that the elections would be held. But just a couple of days before the closure, campaigning did pick up, most probably because money was spent with great husbandry by politicians who had been kept away from the levers of power for three years. But if enthusiasm for the elections was low, one can assume that the turnout on election day will be on the lower side too. It has been falling since 1970 when it was higher than 55% to 1997 when it was as low as 35% officially and 20% unofficially. People have seen too many elections since 1988 and, if interviews to TV channels are any indicator, few believe that politicians actually deliver on their promises to the electorate. There has also been a lot of justified noise about pre-poll rigging. This means that those parties who perceive political bias in the Musharraf government will keep their eyes peeled for rigging during the polls.
The general assessment about the election has been that it will produce a hung parliament. No one party will be able to show a majority in the lower house of parliament. This is because the two main parties have been 'decapitated' by General Musharraf through the ouster of Ms Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and one of them, the PML, has been split down the middle. While the PPP(P) vote bank is considered to be intact despite the Millat Party and Sherpao splinters, the PML(N) is expected to face tough competition from some of its former bigwigs in the PML(Q). One opinion is that the elections this year are no longer polarised according to parties but according to personalities, and since the big vote-getters are in the PML(Q), it is the PML(Q) which will have the highest number of seats. That will suit General Musharraf down to the ground. The party will be malleable and will not protest too much if he chooses his favourite as the next prime minister.
But the results may not run to script. Indeed, that is what is indicated by the various non-official TV channels reporting from all corners of the country. Never sanguine about South Punjab in any case, both PMLs may have reason to worry about their votes in Central and North Punjab as well, mainly because of their own divided vote. Cities known for the past ten years as the PML bailiwick seem to be swinging back to the PPP. In the NWFP, the ANP is bidding fair to ride home on the PPP bandwagon. Down in Sindh, the rural vote will gravitate to the PPP as usual. What if the PPP gets the highest number of seats and then Ms Bhutto gets her 'brother' Nawaz Sharif to pool in? After that, the MQM will have the stark choice of joining in for survival. In the event, three absentee 'winning' leaders would then present General Musharraf with a challenge he hasn't seen since Kargil.
Most observers predict that peace will not follow the election results. What kind of 'disturbance' can overtake Pakistan in the wake of elections? One is the agitation of the losing parties crying foul. If any 'unexpected' results shock the voters the resultant lack of legitimacy of the polls themselves may lead to instability. No one doubts the government's ability to control the situation. One saw that the efforts made by the religious parties to arouse the masses against General Musharraf after the fall of the Taliban made no dent at all. It is the 'external' view, however, that will become problematic to General Musharraf. America and Europe will not be able to ignore the pother that follows elections in Pakistan. Negative comment from there will fuel the fires of protest and might make him desperate.
General Musharraf has consistently appeared a non-aggressive military ruler ready to take a lot of civilian punches in an environment of freedom he did not try to tame, but there have been ominous signs nevertheless that cannot be ignored. He has occasionally talked about his version of the 'national interest' that he won't allow any elected ruler to ignore. Everyone knows that all the key posts in Pakistan are occupied by his military loyalists. His bottom-line is that he wants to stay within the orbit of power for another five years, if for nothing else, then to avoid being punished for what he did in October 1999 and since then. Therefore, much will finally depend on how flexible and pragmatic the general and the political parties are after the elections. The global environment is not hidden from the politicians and they are not averse to accommodating the 'external' factors, barring the MMA of course. In the final analysis, however, the fate of the country will still lie in General Musharraf's hands. Will he become pliant on his "loot and plunder" litany? Will he eventually allow the big exiled leaders to run the country along the lines he has sketched? The answers to such questions will determine whether or not we will remain a country hounded by terrorism and economic dysfunction.

The Daily Times, Editorial, October 11, 2002,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-10-2002_pg3_1

Pakistani Elections Yield Surprises

For the Bush administration and its Western allies, the unexpectedly strong showing of religious parties in Thursday's parliamentary elections has yielded a harsh lesson in the law of unintended consequences, at least as applied to Pakistani politics.
With varying degrees of enthusiasm, the administration has been calling on its close ally in the war on terrorism, President Pervez Musharraf, to restore democracy in Pakistan. But the outcome of Thursday's national elections, the first since Musharraf seized power three years ago in a military coup, could hardly have been as Washington anticipated, let alone desired.
Riding a tide of public anger over American anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an alliance of six hard-line religious parties captured a clear majority of seats in the legislative assembly of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, one of four provinces that make up the country.
The United Action Forum, whose platform is resolutely hostile to the United States, also posted better-than-expected gains in the National Assembly, winning at least 40 of 272 open seats (another 70 are set aside for women and minorities), according to election returns that were still being tallied tonight.
The incomplete results showed that the pro-government Quaid-e-Azam faction of the Pakistan Muslim League won at least 57 seats, while the Pakistani People's Party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who lives in self-imposed exile, was running in second place with 44. In the absence of an outright majority, the largest vote-getter will have to form a coalition in which the religious alliance is likely to emerge as a key powerbroker, according to diplomats and analysts.
"My initial observations are simply that the religious parties have done massively better than anyone had predicted, that this gives them the possibility of a serious swing vote in the National Assembly, and that that could create real problems, particularly from the West's point of view," a Western diplomat said.
Musharraf will still retain ultimate power, having engineered constitutional amendments that will allow him to dismiss parliament and the prime minister and veto cabinet decisions by means of a new National Security Council, which he will chair. Foreign policy, by all accounts, will remain the purview of the army and intelligence services, rather than the newly elected parliament.
For that reason, analysts said today, the religious parties are likely to make their influence at the national level felt most strongly in the realm of social policy, at least at the outset. For example, they are sure to block any effort to modernize the country's madrassas - religious schools seen as breeding grounds for Islamic extremism - and change blasphemy laws that have been used to persecute religious minorities. (Under pressure from conservative clerics, Musharraf has backtracked on his commitments to address both issues).
"They will be able to create all sorts of obstacles in the path of any legislation they don't like," said Najam Sethi, editor of The Friday Times newspaper in Lahore. "Secondly, they will be able to create a hell of a ruckus over existing policies and agitate for their removal."
Even if the coalition does not have any direct say over Musharraf's security policy, it could make things uncomfortable for the government - and the United States - by virtue of its strong showing in North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan, where the alliance appeared to have won a governing role in the provincial assembly, if not an outright majority. Both provinces include the lawless tribal areas along the Afghan border, a focal point of American-led efforts to root out the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"It was one of the points of the agenda of the [alliance] that American bases are not acceptable for the Pakistani people," Asif Luqman Qazi, deputy foreign policy director of Jamaat Islamiya, the largest and most influential religious party in the coalition, said in a telephone interview from the province this afternoon. "We will ask the U.S. forces to abandon these bases."
Religious parties have traditionally played a minor role in Pakistani politics, never capturing more than a handful of seats in parliament. To the extent that they have enjoyed influence here, it is because of the army, which has played a long and well-documented role in promoting Islamic militancy - first to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan, later to fight a proxy war with India in Kashmir.
Under intense U.S. pressure following the September 11 attacks, Musharraf has since tried to rein in some militant groups. But he has avoided confrontation with their political allies, and his critics say that Musharraf bears much of the responsibility for the religious parties' strong showing in Thursday's voting.
Over mild protests from Washington, Musharraf moved vigorously over the summer to neutralize his secular political opposition, instituting new electoral rules calculated to rule out challenges by Bhutto and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf deposed in October 1999.
He also required that candidates for the national assembly hold four-year college degrees, eliminating about 40 percent of potential contenders. But Musharraf made an exception for candidates from religious parties, whose madrassa certificates were deemed adequate proof of literacy and learning.
On Thursday, many of them rushed in to fill the void left by disqualified rivals. "This is the outcome of the emasculation of the liberal forces in Pakistan," said Mohammad Waseem, Chairman of the International Relations Department at Quaid-e-Azam University here.
"The two leading parties both have been on the wrong side of the establishment of the last few years, and that has cost the nation dearly, because once you take out these liberal forces that unfortunately weakens them and opens up space for others." Some analysts went so far as to suggest that Musharraf may actually have favoured an outcome something like the one he got.
They note, for example, that with hostile legislatures in the frontier areas, he will now be able to drive a harder bargain in negotiations with Washington over the scope of Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terrorism. Bhutto apparently takes a similar view.
"My view is they are giving the Frontier to the [religious alliance]," Bhutto told Reuters from her home in London. "They are doing this so they can tell the U.S., 'You need a tinpot dictator strutting on the stage, otherwise the Taliban will take over.'"

John Lancaster, The Washington Post, October 11, 2002,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12596-2002Oct11.html

The Rocky Road Ahead

Any instant, morning-after comment on the complex pattern emerging from unofficial results of Thursday's general election runs the risk of being overtaken by the final picture. But some broad trends are nevertheless fairly clear, the most notable being the stunning success of the religious parties' grouping, the MMA, in the Frontier and Balochistan, the resurgence of the PPP in the Punjab, and the relegation of the PML(N) to third place. The MQM has been rocked in its stronghold of Karachi, where the religious parties have recovered some of the ground lost to the MQM after the latter's formation. Throughout the country, several of the traditional winners lost, but many won. The polls went off, mercifully, without any large-scale violence or disturbances. There were complaints of multiple registrations of voters, incorrect electoral rolls, polling station confusion, and problems with identity cards, but not on a scale that would suggest a distortion of the overall result. Pre-poll management paid off in many instances; in others, it may have created a problem for the managers. The turnout may eventually prove to be higher than the 1997 figure, largely because of the fairly brisk voting in the rural areas of Punjab and Sindh where the strategy of influencing local leaders and making many of them switch over to the PML(Q) apparently produced the 'desired' results.
But it is the MMA's electoral emergence as a major player, breaking the two-party pattern that had prevailed so far, that is going to be the focus of attention. This is the first time that the religious parties will have such a formidable presence in parliament, although the Frontier and Balochistan will remain their bastions. The MMA had campaigned on a revivalist and anti-American platform. It has won most heavily in the Pakhtoon areas bordering Afghanistan. Its victory is thus due to a combination of ethnic, religious and nationalistic factors and no less to the policies of the United States, which is accused of being pitted against Islam and Muslim countries. Domestically, the divide may deepen between moderates and hardliners, and the religious parties may finally find themselves in a position where they can seek to further reduce the already narrow space available for cultural and social expression. Abroad, the MMA's policies will be watched with deep anxiety and concern by Pakistan's neighbours and the West: President Pervez Musharraf will himself be worried about whether this new turn of events improves or diminishes his importance in western eyes. But the MMA is not an ideologically homogenous alliance. There are sharp divisions among the various components on basic tenets and forms. The dynamics of a democratic process, which depends on compromise and restraints, also have their own moderating effect on entrenched attitudes. There was a belief that, in its preoccupation with keeping both the PPP and the PML(N) from getting too close to forming a government, the administration had not only engineered the formation of the PML(Q) and supported it, but also may have thought that it would not be such a bad idea to help the MMA cut into the vote banks of the major parties. Now the establishment may be faced with the results of overkill and the federation with the challenge of a less than integrated pattern of policy-making and governance. A vacuum was created that has now been filled by the ultra-right.
Where do we go from here? A hung parliament is always a messy affair, but not necessarily a disaster. Many democracies have coped with the phenomenon and have not allowed it to block progress. The problem in our case is that the government is itself a player and the president wants to keep the legislature from upsetting his major programmes and on a tight leash.
However, if the anti-establishment vote is combined, it will add up to a clear majority in favour of an undiluted return to civilian rule accountable to the people. How the contradiction is to be resolved will test the mettle of both the political and military leaderships. The democratic way will be to let the new assembly find its own moorings based on the election results. This will be the only sensible course to adopt and strictly follow; any further attempts to tinker with the system will land us in even greater trouble than we are already in because of the election outcome.
Unofficial results till this writing showed that the PML(Q) and the PPP were running almost neck and neck in the race to be the single largest party in the National Assembly, but both will need the backing of other parties to form a viable government and both will be confronted with the problem of how to deal with the MMA with over four dozen members. There will be equally ticklish permutations and combinations to be worked out in the Punjab and Sindh provincial assemblies. If our political system had not been repeatedly pulverized, we might have been in a more confident position to tackle the crisis before us.

Dawn, Editorial, October 12, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/12/ed.htm

Managing a Divided Mandate

The elections 2002 is a landmark event in the political history of Pakistan for many reasons. It places the country back on the rails of democracy, returns it to constitutional politics, though within a drastically altered framework, and puts into rest many of the wild speculations about poll rigging. The results announced so far at the time of writing this piece show two clear trends. One is that none of the traditional mainstream political parties is likely to return with a majority to form government at the federal level. With the split within the Muslim League that the military take over caused, the electoral mandate appears to be fragmented. With this we may be entering into a new era of coalition politics, or else into chaotic conditions.
The days of heavy mandates are over. The Muslim League(Q), Mutahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarian (PPPP), and Pakistan Muslim League(N) have taken top four slots in ranking. How the coalition building goes once the last result has been announced will be the big question before the nation as well as the political parties. Both democracy and coalition building require a tradition and political culture of working together, something that has been missing in our country. But this doesn't mean that parties, politicians and public at large don't learn from their political experience. The pessimists and the cynic brigade many not waste time in suggesting that fragmented mandate is a sign of political instability. If that is the case, then how we explain instability when the PML returned with a heavy mandate in the 1997 elections. The reason was that almost all the parties in the opposition within the assemblies and out of them ganged up against the League that their leaders under the umbrella of Grand Democratic Alliance with one point agenda; removal of Nawaz Sharif government. They believed that Sharif had become arrogant, arbitrary and insensitive to the genuine interests of other sectors of the society. In other words, he lacked or ignored the political skills of working with other political parties.
In my opinion, the results present a challenge as well as an opportunity for the political parties to show maturity, rise above partisan politics and learn to cooperate in public interest as well as in the interest of strengthening democracy in the country. They have a heavy responsibility on their shoulders. The four-way division of national assembly seats is that no strongman or strong government may emerge. The best response to fragmented mandate would a national government with wider representation to all the national and regional political parities on the basis of minimum common agenda. Well, some may argue that how it is possible in highly personalised political culture. But the politics itself is an art of making things possible by bargaining and compromise.
The constitutional framework within which elections have been held also requires coalition building and cooperation. A fundamental lessons of democratic theory and practice that it is not about majority ruling arbitrarily but accommodation and adjustment of all interests of the society never sunk in the political class of Pakistan. All societies are made of too many sections, so they represent too many interests, different visions of what is good for the society and how to pursue those visions. This is exactly what the electoral results show. There are of course time, when in national wave, a party under a charismatic and popular leaders generates greater enthusiasm and support for it or his vision of reform, change and political direction, but that is rare in transitional democracies.
Even if the idea of national government is rejected by some of the parties on the top, two rival coalitions will dominate the political scene in the country; one in the government and the other in the opposition. That means what? The answer is strong, vocal opposition that would restrain the tendency of government to act in an autocratic fashion. We may not rule out confrontation on some issues, but the logic of numbers is such and the framework within which political forces will have to operate may make it difficult to upset the critical balance between the opposition and the government.
The speculative assessment of the spin-doctors on the electronic media that some of the political parties are poles apart and would not join hands to form coalition government is speculative at best. It defies the political logic and cumulative experience of Pakistan and other societies that suggests parties and political persons driven by interests can reach a common ground. Today, the mainstream political parties excluding the MMA have hardly any ideological distinction. They speak the same political language. The difference among them is only pursuit of separate political interests, which all the parties in democracies do as a group of individuals concerned with the question of political power. But then, it is also the question of power that in situation in which Pakistan stands today, they close their ranks, depending how much each of them gets and to what level of satisfaction. My argument is that there is compulsion for the political forces to work together. The PML(N) and the PPP, the two rivals in politics for long time have quietly worked behind the scene to make seat adjustment. They may carry on cooperation in the assemblies.
The real surprise is emergence of the religions political parties in Frontier and Balochistan. But they have done equally well in Punjab and Sindh compared to what has been their popular vote percentage or numbers in the assemblies. They have never done so well in any elections in the history of Pakistan. They represent an ideology, a very distinct national programme and have a very different view of Pakistan's policy in Afghanistan, Kashmir and toward the United States of America. Their growth and electoral success is yet another aspect of how the Pakistani polity is divided. In the Frontier they have replaced the ethnic, regional and national parties and will be an important political factor in other provinces and at the Centre. They are an ascending political force that neither present government nor the political parties can ignore. Their views on governance, religion and foreign policy can no longer be considered those of the fringe elements. They have succeeded in sinking roots among the masses all over the country. A big chunk of the Pakistani population it seems shares their views and would like to see Pakistan change its on domestic and foreign policy issues.
Isolating or keeping the religious political parties through horse-trading or any other manipulative exercise would be self-defeating and even dangerous for political stability in the country. Their mandate will have to be respected and their rising power accommodated. Religious political parties have been part of various coalitions, and this time, except in the Frontier where they have comfortable majority to form their government, they would form political partnership with mainstream parties or play the role of very assertive opposition. When all the election results have been compiled and notified, the complexion of Pakistani politics will change. Working together, building workable coalitions, logrolling, accommodation and compromise will be its dominant themes. That is the best way to manage political fragmentation.

Rasul Bakhsh Rais, The News, October 12, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Post-Election Scenario: Tough Days Ahead

Behind the public endorsements, a lot of hand wringing must be going on among the U.S. policy makers over the MMA's very strong showing in the October 10 elections in Pakistan. In a very strange way, MMA's victory is going to determine the future political discourse in Pakistan. Musharraf government's domestic political strategy will come under close scrutiny leading to fundamental changes in unseen directions. Most probably, either the Musharraf government will be encouraged to adopt highhanded tactics to control the anti-U.S. political dissidence or it will be pressured to allow mainstream political parties and its leaders, particularly, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to come back and counter the religious parties.
For the U.S., MMA victory in the national assembly, North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan is the most crucial development of Pakistani elections. The U.S. efforts of chasing and capturing the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants in these two provinces is certainly jeopardised by the religious parties' takeover of the provincial government. These parties have been the main supporters of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Now when these parties will be controlling the provincial administrations in two key provinces, the U.S. will no more remain detached from Pakistan's internal politics: for the first time, the U.S. interests are undermined due to the military's political strategy.
Up until now, Washington and the Musharraf government were assuming that the religious parties cannot get more than 5-6% votes in Pakistan. They were always considered a nuisance with street power but were never perceived to be a challenge as far as the legislative institutions were concerned. Under the same assumption, the Musharraf government felt free to coerce and cajole the mainstream political parties to achieve desirable results. The Musharraf government and its supporters always believed that by decimating the PPP and PML(N), pro-establishment groups can be groomed to fill the parliaments. Incidentally, General Musharraf is not the only one who has devised an entire strategy on such a misplaced assumption: Late Z. A. Bhutto also believed that his challenge will come from the left and mainstream parties and not from the religious parties. We all know what happened in 1977 and who led the anti-Bhutto movement resulting in his hanging.
The result of October 2002 elections has negated this assumption much more soundly because the religious parties have never won an open election on such a big scale. Musharraf government's critics are already arguing that its domestic policies have proven wrong like its Afghan and Kashmir policies. Musharraf will also come under heavy criticism for creating a political vacuum by hampering the mainstream political parties. It is pointed out that the Musharraf government was exceptionally lenient towards the religious parties when it came to qualifications of the candidates and other election matters. Most observers agree that the Musharraf government did not provide a level playing field for all the political parties. Up to the last minute, it was obsessed to stop the PPP and PML(N).
The U.S. policy makers were also looking the other way when Musharraf was playing his political tricks. However, in the new political scenario the U.S. does not have the luxury to ignore General Musharraf's domestic politicking because it will impinge upon its own interests in the region. Given the situation, the U.S. can allow Pakistan military to take the Algerian route and use coercive power to nullify electoral victory of the MMA. It may not happen immediately but a political situation will be created where the military intervention can be justified in NWFP and Balochistan. It is a well-known fact the U.S. had pressured Pakistan to control the tribal areas by any means. Some insiders believe the U.S. had threatened to takeover these areas if Pakistan military does not move fast.
Some analysts believe that the U.S. may pressure the Musharraf government to allow Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to come back and counter the political influence of the religious parties. However, it is pointed out that Bush's highhanded approach will opt for the coercive methods instead of political solutions. It is possible that the U.S. will employ combination of various strategies to achieve its goal. Whatever direction is taken, it is clear that the U.S. will become a full-fledged player in the Pakistani politics.
MMA victory has also shown anti-U.S. sentiments have deepened among the Pakistanis in general and people of NWFP and Balochistan in particular. In addition, MMA's victory in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi has manifested that anti-Americanism has seeped to middle and upper classes too. Mainstream political parties' failure in many areas has shown that their neutrality or support for the U.S. war against terrorism has not set well with the voters. Therefore, if the regional situation does not change and if the U.S. continues supporting Israeli aggression against Palestinians and goes through with its intended invasion of Iraq, other Pakistani political parties will be forced to match the religious parties' anti-America rhetoric: MMA's unexpected and unprecedented success will force other parties to rethink their strategies.
Anti-government mainstream political parties' lack of ideas and their ambivalence towards anti-people economic policies have also harmed their cause to some extent. Symptomatically, Wali Khan family's resignation from the ANP leadership shows that many heads are going to roll. Nevertheless, the anti-government sentiments were so strong that, despite all the shortcomings and disadvantages, PPP has been revived in Punjab. Pakistan's political situation is ripe for a major change - may be an unprecedented change.

Dr. Manzur Ejaz, The News, October 13, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Making Democracy Work

Federal Information Minister Nisar Memon is reported to have advised the political parties to have the magnanimity to accept the verdict of the people. Mr Memon should give the same advice to the top brass of the regime as the process of government formation at the centre and in the provinces begins. While it is important that political parties, even those that have done badly in the October 10 polls or fared below their expectations, should respect the outcome, it is equally necessary that the government should avoid seeking to tailor alliances to suit its own expedient needs. The elections have produced a chequered pattern of representation. Except for the Frontier, it is clear that there will have to be coalition governments in the three other provinces and at the centre. While the present government will disappear when power is transferred to the elected representatives, General Pervez Musharraf will remain as president, and there will be a strong temptation to work out pliant combinations. He or the military may not, for instance, want the PPP and the PML(N), which represent the country's anti-establishment vote, to get together. To quite an extent, the electoral process was managed; any further attempt to influence the natural course of things will lead to increased polarization and more rancour. The various political parties should be left free to work out their own arrangements without meddling by government agencies. A policy of non-interference will help create an atmosphere of trust and confidence that will smoothen relations between the presidency and parliament.
The political parties themselves face a daunting task. Coalition culture requires even greater tolerance and accommodation than democracy expects of participants in more normal circumstances. It is the right of every party to aspire to power, and each party has its own ideological and political preferences. But in the present scenario, the emphasis for the time being has necessarily to be on the most practical and most broadly representative, rather than the most desirable, coalition combinations. Personal or partisan prejudices may have to be overcome for the sake of ensuring parliament's smooth working and to forestall attempts at fresh adventurism or experimentation. Making democracy work should be the main objective before all those who have been entrusted by the voters, in greater or lesser measure, with the responsibility of bringing the country back to civilian rule. Perhaps the leaders of all parties represented in parliament should get together to explore possibilities of cooperation as well as how disagreements on important issues can be contained for the proper working of a pluralist system of government.
There should also be the broadest possible consultation within the parties. Parliamentary wings of parties have always been present whenever there has been a spell of an elected dispensation, but these were invariably taken for granted by party leaders. Often they were not even consulted on legislation to be submitted to the assemblies and were only expected to say 'yes' to the steps taken by their leaders. Arbitrary decision-making is unhealthy, whether it is done by party leaders within their own organizations or imposed on the people by non-political authorities. Political parties have yet another chance now to get properly organized and exert their influence to strengthen democracy and work for the people.

Dawn, Editorial, October 13, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/13/ed.htm#1

IHRO Terms Polls as Best Effort by Election Commission

International Human Rights Observers (IHRO) has termed the October 10 General Elections as the best effort by the Election Commission of Pakistan for fair and transparent elections. "This is great movement towards the restoration of democracy in this country," said a report of IHRO released in connection with National and Provincial Assemblies elections in Pakistan. The IHRO ruled out any rigging in polls, saying, "there was no rigging during the polling day since morning till close of polling." "International and national observers like Commonwealth and others have also admired fairness of this election," the report said.
It however noted, "yes, there is always some missing in all systems of the world not only in this country, it must be improved." It also suggest to the government and coming elected government to play a vital role to strengthen democracy through strong commitment and hard work. IHRO, however, expressed hope that all political parties and elected representatives will make their great mutual understanding for good governance, real democracy and human rights in the country. It added, the ECP took many steps to improve the Electoral Process. And acknowledged, President General Pervez Musharraf also took a high positive interest to make this election fair and transparent. "He (President Musharraf) also delivered speeches to the national and international community and press to arrange the fair election in the country," the report noted.
It further added, the allocation of the Election symbols was conducted in an open manner and the extension of the nomination period was extended. The ECP also announced to deliver the copies of result to the polling agents immediate following the count. It also arranged the training to the polling agents and other staff through different institutes that shows positive steps to make the election transparent and fair. The report however referred to different complaints at some places regarding provision of damaged ballot boxes, shortage of printed material, envelopes, stamps pads, some short names in voters lists and delay in reaching of polling staff.
About misuse of the state resources in favour of political parties on minor level complained by some candidates and supporters, the report said, "IHRO observers had noted these complaints as individual reaction of the candidates to convince the public during their campaign." IHRO observed that each party was given maximum possible time on state run media during current affairs programme and also in other programming like Election Hour etc. Other channels PTV World, Prime TV, GEO TV, ARY Digital, UNI Plus, CNN, BBC, and Indus News also played a great role for the coverage of the political parties and to propagate their manifesto.
"Many parties and groups expressed their views against the government but there was not a single bad reaction in shape of revenge by the government," the report revealed. The report stated further, international Observers like European Union and others were found to be more active in diplomatic politics as compare to the international observers in Election 2002. European Union network for election observation was not at grassroots and public did not accept the fair role of EU due to their aggressive way of observation, the report said. IHRO also differed with Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's pre-polls rigging statement and termed these as before time and without any concrete research.
Although Commonwealth has tried to give a research base report on Election 2002, it said, the International Observers must also observe the level of democracy, voters-education, general awareness etc before preparing the observation report in countries undergoing a democratic transition. The IHRO maintained, its observers from four provinces including Islamabad reported that the polling was conducted very peacefully and smoothly. Mostly polling stations started in time. The staff was very committed and strict to their duties and ink on fingers checked by the polling staff carefully. "This is great achievement that polling started and ended in time throughout the country. Women were respected at polling stations and during the election process and the Political Parties agents were given proper atmosphere to observer and take part in the election process," the report commended.
It stated further, "counting of votes was made in the presence of the polling agents according to the EPC Legal Order," adding however, "there were few disturbances by the supporters of the candidates and political parties during the polling, but this was not from administration side."

APP, October 13, 2002,
http://www.pak.gov.pk/public/news/news2002/appnews2002/app14_october.htm#3

Outlook for Sindh

For the fifth time in a row, the People's Party and the MQM have emerged as the two largest parties in the province. This is in keeping with the pattern in 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1997. The MQM has managed to secure a seat or two in the interior also, but basically it is urban Sindh that continues to be its stronghold. A comparative study of the number of votes secured by the MQM now and in earlier elections will take some time, but it is obvious that over the years there has been a serious erosion of its electoral support. As elsewhere in the country, the MMA has improved its tally of votes and seats in Sindh - mostly at the expense of the MQM and the PML(N). But that does not take much away from the MQM's position as the second most important political force in the province. The PPP has retained its traditional seats in Karachi, though its bastion remains the interior. Among them, thus, the PPP, MQM and MMA represent Sindh's ethnic mosaic fairly adequately.
Once again, no party has been able to secure an absolute majority. Which means Sindh will again have a coalition government. At least once in the past - in 1988 - the PPP and the MQM were coalition partners, but the experiment ended in dismal failure. The MQM coalesced with the PML(N)/IJI twice - in 1990 and 1997 - each time the coalition coming to a sad end. In June 1992, the IJI government launched a crackdown on the MQM militants as part of an anti-terrorism campaign. The PML-MQM coalition broke up again in 1998, this time over Hakeem Saeed's assassination. There were two notable features of these coalition governments. One, no provincial government completed its five-year term because of the fall of the PPP and PML governments in Islamabad. Two, the working of the coalition partners was characterized by mutual distrust and bickerings. More unfortunately, these differences did not remain confined to politics but spilled over into the streets in the form of strikes, violence and lawlessness bordering on anarchy, especially in Karachi and Hyderabad. The cumulative effect of frequent 'wheel-jam' strikes, shootouts and extrajudicial killings was economic recession. Industrial production fell, no new investment took place, there was flight of capital, and the education system all but collapsed. The result was massive unemployment and a high crime rate. Side by side, the population continued to swell, thus putting further strains on the economy and civic services.
Once again, Sindh's two leading parties have an opportunity to join hands in a coalition government and deliver. If they learn from their past mistakes and show a spirit of mutual accommodation, there is no reason why the PPP and the MQM cannot give a stable government to Sindh. The province has some problems peculiar to it. Karachi's ethnic mix and its position as the country's largest industrial and commercial hub constitute both a challenge and an opportunity. It needs more funds besides an emergency action plan for arresting the rapid decline of its civic services and for tackling unemployment and crime. As history shows, whatever happens in Karachi ultimately affects the entire country. By giving Karachi and the province an improved law and order situation, ethnic harmony and an economic upturn, the two parties can make a significant contribution to the entire country's political stability and economic progress.

Dawn, Editorial, October 14, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/14/ed.htm

Post Poll Permutations

The electoral exercise is over. The results have trickled in. These are a mix of the predictable and the unexpected. What will be the emerging scenario?
A hung parliament was expected. A hung one we will have. The public opinion polls said that PPP would stage a come back. It has returned with considerable strength although less than the predictions. The king's party will be able to secure a lot of seats. It has garnered more than the expectations. While the PML(N)'s performance is disappointing the MQM's strength too has been eroded, quite a bit.
The real surprise has been the stunning success of the Maulvis. This is attributed to the anti-American sentiment amongst a large section of the Pakistanis especially in the conservative belts of NWFP and Balochistan.
Considering the weight of the totality of the votes cast, a majority of voters have declined to endorse the military government's policies and constitutional changes. Paradoxically however the pro-government party has won the largest number of seats in the National Assembly.
Was the electoral process conducted fairly? Opinion is divided. The PPP, PML(N) and MQM consider that rigging did take place. They have already lodged their protests with the Election Commission. The PML(Q), the government and the Commission say the polls were free and transparent. The Human Rights Commission has cited instances of irregularities committed during the course of the elections. It has 'regretted' that "not content with pre-poll manipulation of the electoral process, the administration seemed to have continued to tamper with it during the polling and afterwards." This is a serious charge. Its further preliminary finding is that "the changes occurring in the unofficially announced results have raised serious doubts about continuation of efforts to ensure predetermined results after the end of the polling." In its statement it has listed 'irregularities' including a 'police officer' seizing a polling station, throwing out candidates, polling agents and himself stamping the ballot papers. It speaks about 'flaws in the polling scheme' how because of lack of information, voters had to move from pillar to post to find the right polling station and thus failing to cast votes.
Also at places the voters' lists were incomplete. The most damaging comments have come from the European Union observers. Their initial finding is that "regrettably, in choosing the course of interference, the Pakistan authorities engaged in actions which resulted in serious flaws in the electoral process."
They are of the opinion that the Election Commission of Pakistan failed to curb the misuse of state resources: "The failure by the ECP to protect an area clearly within its mandate from interference by state authorities create serious doubts over its independence. This became apparent when the President and the Commissioner of Islamabad imposed serious restrictions on campaign activities which clearly ran contrary to the code of conduct issued by the ECP." They have mentioned that the government disregarding the Election Commission's order allowing processions by the political parties banned such activities subsequently. A lethal charge is that "EUEOM had solid evidence to believe that public authorities from the local administration (Nazims) upto senior levels of governance were actively involved in partisan electioneering." It was also observed by them that only 13 minutes were provided to PML(N) on the PTV as against 44 to PML(Q). And in a "significant number of polling stations," some voters were turned away because their names could not be found on the rolls.
Both the government and the Election Commission have strongly rebutted the E.U. team's allegations. While the government's explanation does not adequately answer the observers' charges and is at best a generalized defence of the administration, the Commission's refutation specifically refers to unquestioning statements of some of the polling agents including those of PPP and PML(N) duly recorded by the T.V. team.
According to the ECP spokesman, the EU observers' allegations were "malafide and vague" Although the initial official American reaction is positive, the EU observers' findings are bound to influence international perception about the fairness of the polls. It remain to seen how seriously the aggrieved parties make an issue of their complaints and how the Election Commission and the courts respond to their grievances.
The election results pose a serious challenge to the political parties contending for power and to General Musharraf. With the evolution of the two party system halted and none of the parties blessed with a clear majority, the doors have been opened for a free-for-all wheelings and dealings with 'chanda mamoon' independents and MMA emerging as the possible king -makers. Much will depend on how determined the PPP is to forge alliances with its opponents to somehow get into power.
Benazir would like to make the most of the party's position to secure a safe return for herself and an early release for Zardari. In case she fails to capture power, she is bound to generate troublesome anti government pressures. There is also the American factor. How will Washington react to MMA ruling the sensitive western border provinces and how will the Maulvis relate to the Musharraf's policies to stick to American bidding to chase the anti American and pro Taliban elements in Pakistan?
With little possibility of the emergence of a two-third majority in the parliament, General Musharraf may for the present be unworried about the rejection or drastic modification of his constitutional package. His best bet is not to be unnecessarily involved in the post-election politicking. If however he fails to resist the temptation to overly hob-nob with the politicians, he is bound to erode his image further and, to boot, muddy the already polluted political waters.
As things stand, the overarching issue for the politicians is to work to restore the Constitution to its original shape as far as possible, by forging a consensus. As the pieces have fallen, however, it appears that this crucial issue will get increasingly obscured in the rush to grab power and enter into all sorts of bargains for partisan and personal ends.

Inayatullah, the News, October 15, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Pakistan Tilts Toward Extremism?

Pakistan's masses have sent a clear signal of simmering resentment over the U.S. war on terror which is playing out in their own backyard.
The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) - an alliance of five fundamentalist Islamic parties that opposes the U.S. hunt for Al Qaeda terrorists here and wants to impose strict sharia or Muslim law - surpassed even the wildest of expectations in last Thursday's general elections. The MMA swept the vote in two provinces bordering Afghanistan, Balochistan and Northwest Frontier Province, and made significant gains nationwide to become the third largest political block in the 342-seat National Assembly.
Pakistan's fundamentalist parties have never won more than 10 percent of the vote in past elections. Their remarkable showing this time bodes ill for continued U.S.-Pakistan operations in the tribal belt that borders Afghanistan, and may indicate that Pakistan as a whole is becoming more extremist, say analysts. "It gives the sense that this is an enterprise that is going somewhere," says Abbas Rashid, a respected political columnist here. "Today they [Islamic fundamentalists] take the frontier. Tomorrow, who knows?"
President Pervez Musharraf, the general who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and imposed military rule, has heralded the Oct. 10 polls as a key step in Pakistan's return to democracy. But analysts say Mr. Musharraf opened a political vacuum, which the fundamentalists waltzed into, when he banned major political figures such as ex-Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from running.
The moderate general, who is known both personally and politically to oppose extremist Islamic groups, may now be regretting his decision to let the religious parties run, some analysts say.
"He has got the entire frontier now controlled by the Mullahs," says Asfandyar Wali Khan, who was president of the liberal Awami National Party in the Northwest Frontier Province until he resigned after his party's crushing election defeat. "How is Musharraf going to work with them? This is the million dollar question."
Pakistan long supported the former Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan, which was close to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and banned women from most work and school. But immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York, Musharraf sided with the Bush administration, turning into a crucial ally in the war on terror and America's military effort to drive the Taliban from power.
Now MMA leaders intend to use their large voting block in congress to force Musharraf to pull back his cooperation with Washington. The MMA says it doesn't want U.S. forces on Pakistani soil.
"This policy will be discussed in the parliament, and all policy will be formed through the parliament," said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who leads Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest party in the MMA alliance.
On Sunday, the president reassured the U.S., which believes that Al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives are hiding in Pakistan, that he will continue to help with the war on terror.
A faction of the Pakistan Muslim League that supports Musharraf won the largest block of seats in parliament. The European Union, which observed the elections, complained that Musharraf's government made clear and questionable efforts to affect the vote outcome. No party won a majority, and a ruling coalition has yet to be determined for the new parliament, which opens November 1.
The MMA's success reflects the present international backdrop. Many Pakistanis say that American foreign policy harms Muslims around the world, citing the looming possibility of war in Iraq and the widely held view that U.S. Mideast policy unfairly and unilaterally supports Israel.
"Hatred is increasing because of America's foreign policies," said Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, a senior member of the MMA alliance. "Wherever there are Muslims in the world, if America continues its present policies, it will create problems."
Some MMA leaders support a return to power in Afghanistan of the fugitive Taliban leadership. Mr. Sami-ul-Haq, for example, runs religious schools that sent hundreds of young men to fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Another MMA leader, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, maintained close ties to the Taliban and was accused of smuggling fuel to its leadership after an international embargo blocked most trade with the government.
The MMA victory may have immediate social consequences in Pakistan. The tribal belt that borders Afghanistan was already Pakistan's most conservative region, where most women wear head-to-toe covering burqas when they venture outside the home. Alliance leaders now say they will ban suggestive television programs and films in the frontier zones they will control, and plan to oblige people to live according to strict sharia law.
However, most Pakistanis are moderate in their religious beliefs and lifestyles, and there is some concern over the extent to which the MMA leadership may try to 'Talibanize' Pakistan.
In a country where the great majority of the 140 million people are desperately poor, and traditionally have been ruled by a wealthy elite, some say they voted for the MMA because it supports the poor. "I do not support terrorists, but I do like Islamic law for Pakistan," says Waheed Ahmed, a villager from the populous Punjab province, who cast his vote for the religious parties. "Nawaz and (Bhutto) just stole from us, the religious parties come from the poor, and they will help us."
But anti-extremist politicians fear the election success of the MMA will spark fear internationally that Pakistan is leaning dangerously toward fundamentalism, which could cut off the country at a time when it dearly needs friends abroad.
"We have to live according to the world game," says Mehmood Khan Achakzai, the leader of a moderate party that campaigned in Baluchistan's tribal belt and won few seats. "We cannot have a Pakistan in isolation [from] the world."

Gretchen Peters, The Christian Science Monitor, October 15, 2002, http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p06s01-wosc.html

History in the Making

The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle. Whether last Thursday's general elections were flawed or not, I am reluctant to take either the European Union observers' or the Election Commission's word for it. Both to my mind reacted much too quickly and ignored the fact that there are degrees of something being flawed. And while one country should not hide behind the flaws of another, let us not forget the Florida farce that determined the outcome of the last presidential election in the United States. Nobody to my knowledge has suggested any recounts here, although repolling was ordered in just a handful of constituencies.
Whatever flaws there may or may not have been, for the moment at any rate I find it difficult to follow the suggestions that the outgoing government somehow engineered the strong showing of the MMA in order to be in a better position to reject U.S. pressure to do unpopular things. To me the success of the MMA seems a healthy sign. American journalist and humorist Franklin P. Adams once wrote that "elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody." One may approve of that or regret it. To paraphrase that famous Bill Clinton line, "It's democracy, stupid."
On the other hand, I must confess that if those suggestions about the MMA's success having been engineered turned out to be true, it could be interpreted as a pretty shrewd move. Anyway, whether the MMA ends up as a junior partner in a federal coalition government or as a not so junior part of the opposition, it will certainly be in a position to make its presence felt. My personal preference would be for the MMA to be in opposition. That would give it a chance to prove itself in a democratic parliamentary environment, and if it acts responsibly, it may get a chance to join the National Assembly's government benches next time round. Opposition should not be seen as a 'do number' state to be in. Rather, it is an indispensable ingredient of a truly democratic system.
All of this is, of course, not at all how the Pakistani election result is being seen in much of the media in the war-on-terror-obsessed West. I did not bother to follow TV channels like Fox News or the more openly anti-Islam print publications and may therefore have missed any comments along the lines of Pakistan sliding towards Talibanisation. Still, here are some examples of headlines to be found in more serious newspapers: "Islamic parties' gains may be West's loss in Pakistan vote" said the Washington Post. "Islamic hard-liners rise in Pakistan" was the Boston Globe's contribution, while Britain's The Independent said, "Anti-West coalition denies Musharraf his majority." Germany's conservative daily Die Welt was not the only paper telling its readers that the MMA had agitated during the election campaign against the war in Afghanistan and against a possible U.S. military strikes against Iraq. Well, at least somebody did. The article's headline included that infamous western misnomer 'Islamists.' When did you last read a reference to 'Christianists' or 'Judaists?' The purpose behind using such a non-word is the same as that behind using my other favourite, 'fundamentalist.' To my simple mind, the latter means nothing more than going back to the basics or roots of something. And in the case of Islam, one could do worse than to follow such a course. But in the West these nouns and adjectives are only ever used in a specific context from which it becomes crystal clear that what is really meant is 'terrorist.'
What people in the West also do not seem to realise is that this country is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Okay, I cannot think of a western country that has the word 'Christian' in its full name, but there are plenty of political parties in the West that describe themselves as Christian. Whether they always follow the teachings of that religion is another matter. Likewise, I am not at this stage entering the debate on whether Pakistan is or should be a secular state or not. But the fact is the country was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent. There is more than one-way of living up to the expectations connected with that.
How many in the West know or care to know that the white section of the national flag stands for what Jinnah said about Hindus, Christians and Parsis enjoying the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and playing their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan? The fact that Christians and Christian institutions have recently been the target of terrorist attacks cannot be blamed on the country's founders. And once the National Assembly is open for business, the MMA, whether in opposition or in government, might be well-advised to make an unambiguous statement in the chamber, distancing itself from such acts. Anyway, what I'm getting at is this: why should anyone be surprised that in an Islamic republic and in a geo-political situation such as the present one, a United Action Front of six religious parties makes substantial gains in an election?
We are not there yet, but I do hope Rasul Bakhsh Rais will be proved right with what he wrote on the opposite page last Saturday: "Two rival coalitions will dominate the political scene in the country: one in the government and the other in the opposition. That means...strong vocal opposition that would restrain the tendency of government to act in an autocratic fashion."
And finally, a few quote as food for thought. 19th century English historian E A Freeman said that "history is past politics, and politics is present history." Perhaps the most famous line is the one by German statesman Otto von Bismarck about politics being the art of the possible. To which American economist J.K. Galbraith replied in 1962 in a speech to President Kennedy that "politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
One thing is for sure: this country has had enough of what French poet and critic Paul Valery described in 1943 in the following terms: "Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them."

Hans B Bremer, The News, October 16, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Dealing with Split Mandate

Political sovereign of Pakistan have expressed themselves unequivocally and unambiguously in the election of October 10, 2002. They have decided that Pakistan's political polity does not deserve to be placed in any one hand, because neither military nor parliamentary dictatorship is in the best interest of the country. They have further decided that the federal constitution, as framed by the founding father in 1973, needs to be given a fresh dispensation wherein the guarantee of provincial autonomy is respected and the chosen representatives take charge of their respective spheres. The electors have clearly decided to entrust the legislative and administrative authority of two important provinces of Pakistan to Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). They have manifestly declared that the establishment, no matter what it does, would not be given a free hand in choosing people who shall guide the destiny of the people of Pakistan. Therefore, they have given share to each political force operating within various political orbits in this country. They also do not want any of the major national parties to be sidelined.
What has emerged as a pleasant surprise is that the two provinces that were being projected as having been alienated over the past three years on account of military dictatorship, have shown unprecedented integration with the mainstream politics they have rather reiterated their commitment with the Ideology of Pakistan and have also, simultaneously ruled out a foreign tailored policy to govern affairs of their motherland.
It is being debated as to what shall be the future shape of the Government that will take charge to formulate policies for a sustainable democracy and economy. In my humble view there is a very little confusion as to the unfolding of the future events if the powers that matter take a serious look at the expression of the political sovereign recorded on October 10. The trouble will only arise, as it did in the past, if this mandate of the people is belittled, overlooked, or slighted. MMA has claimed absolute majority in NWFP eliminating the oldest arch rivals nationalist ANP and it has also emerged as the largest party in Balochistan. Therefore, the question that these forces are denied their right to govern the two provinces should not arise. The establishment should concede this right to them willingly rather than engaging in bargaining, or taking into consideration any outside factors.
Distortions of the past should not be repeated. In 1970 elections, ANP and JUI had formed the Government in NWFP and another coalition formed the Government in Balochistan. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto mustered all his forces to impose a unitary form of Government, and in that endeavour, caused Maulana Mufti Mahmood and some other politicians physically thrown out from the Parliament by Sergeants at Arms during a parliamentary deadlock. Likewise, he dismissed the Governments led by Attaullah Mengal in Balochistan; forced Maulana Mufti Mahmood, 'to resign' in NWFP and provoked insurrection.
It must be understood by all concerned that in a federal set up there are no elder or younger brothers and constitutional functionaries derive their authority direct from the Constitution which is the source of power for every one in such set up. The parameters of the executive and legislative authority of the provinces have been well defined. There are bound to be problems, instability and chaos if the MMA, for any extraneous reasons, is denied the right to rule the provinces in which it has been given mandate by the people. They should also be taken as an important component of the Federal Government.
The election results offer a unique opportunity to start developing a tradition of federal rule and true democracy rather than promoting the traditional swing from one dictatorship to another. However, the Federal Government shall not be able to deliver, unless it takes into its folds all the forces which have been recognised by the various regions, provinces and shades of opinions in the October 10 elections.
The Special Provisions of the Constitution had taken more than 3/4th of the total time spent in constitution making in 1972/1973. There were deadlocks on the provisions relating to the Council of Common Interests; the power of the provinces to have the right of distribution of the electricity within their provinces, the power to set up provincial banks and corporations etc outside the federal control and, inter-alia, broadcasting and telecasting. In the past, in order to have a strong Federal Government people of smaller provinces were denied their right to have their full participation in the affairs. So far we have not cultivated a truly federating system.
This is the reason why in 1989 on account of horse-trading a chunk of PML members after flirting with PPP joined it under the leadership of Ayub Tanoli and Muslim League and ANP were denied the opportunity of forming a Government in NWFP. Likewise, Government of Pir Sabir Shah was dismissed by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and by resorting to horse-trading the same pattern was followed in letter and spirit regarding the formation of Governments at the Centre and Provinces. It was conceived to be impermissible by the Federal Government to have different provincial governments in various provinces which, in fact, reflects against the very concept of the federal constitution. A federal constitution contemplates the possibility of totally different governments operating within their own spheres in the Centre and the Provinces and it provides a smooth mechanism for comfortable interaction. However, such mechanism has not been found acceptable to the rulers in the past on account of the fact that it required sharing of power with various federal components. The refusal to accept this reality has been the root cause of the political misfortune which has befallen our beloved country. Now that efforts are being made to resurrect a civil society based on a sustainable democracy this crucial aspect must be attended to and conceded by the military government.
There are quite a few unreasonable speculations that the establishment would keep MMA at a respectable distance because of its anti American policy. I feel there are no rational basis for such hypothesis. The MMA leadership is worldly wise. There is no reason for this perception at this time because Qazi Hussain Ahmad, one of most prominent leaders of MMA, has absolutely cordial relations with USA. The political section of American Embassy in Pakistan invited Qazi Hussain Ahmad officially a couple of years back to visit USA where he had the opportunity to meet with the top officials of the State's Department. This was much before 9/11 when Qazi Hussain Ahmad was asked his views about Osama bin Laden in Washington and he did not comment as to whether he was a Mujahid or Terrorist. He kept his views to himself and did not choose to offend the host in any manner.
At the best, Qazi Hussain Ahmad's policy could not be said to be Anti-American. It is, as it should be, a pro-Pakistan policy and on the basis of sovereign equality with USA. Likewise Maulana Fazal-ur Rehman; Maulana Samiul Haq and Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani are men of international repute and connections. They are well versed with the current trends in international politics and relations. They have huge following in various countries over the five continents and it is unwise to think that they are any less responsible than leadership of any other party.
Isolating MMA from the political mainstream may prove fatal and may have negative repercussion on international policy vis-à-vis USA, Afghanistan, and India. The salvation of a country lies in moving with its entire domestic strength. President George W. Bush demonstrates this at all junctures in his country. He has taken his legislature into confidence, and had a resolution passed by the Congress to use military offensive against Iraq although the entire world is disagreeing with such an action. This may be an eye opener for the establishment in Pakistan. We must keep our own people united and move with one voice on all issues of national and international importance. The question as to whether USA would be happy or otherwise should not be of any consequence at all in giving an effect to the mandate of people of Pakistan and entrusting power to those have been elected.
The strength of our country should not be turned into weakness and it should not be presumed that MMA will make the European Union or USA unhappy. It is hoped and believed that when the situation is impartially examined by the U.S. and European analysts they would realise that stronger participatory process of governments in Pakistan would be best suited for peace and stability in our country and the region, and shall contribute positively toward world's peace itself.

Mohammad Akram Sheikh, The News, October 16, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

The Backlash

The multifaceted religious parties of Pakistan, who formed a rare alliance under the name of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) to contest the 2002 elections, could never imagine they would have it so good. Amassing 45 seats in the National Assembly, next only to PPP and Muslim League(Q), and returning to NWFP and Balochistan Assemblies in a commanding position to form provincial governments, is nothing short of a miracle for the motley group of Islamic parties, which never had any role in the governance of the country except during the period of Ziaul Haq, who found his mandate to rule the country in the slogan of 'Islamisation' which would not only give legitimacy to his rule but would also endear him to the masses. With the support of some Ulema of the Islamic Ideology Council, he declared that the concept of political parties did not exist in Islam and the democratic system of governance was un-Islamic.
With one master stroke Ziaul Haq changed the entire ideological complexion of Pakistan from a modern liberal and progressive state to a theocratic one to be run by an all powerful 'Amirul Mominin,' (That is himself) with the advice and consent of the same group of Ulema who had opposed the creation of Pakistan as conceived by the Quaid-i-Azam. The religious political parties, which due to their negative role in the past had always been rejected by the people of Pakistan, ganged up around General Zia and became his bastion of power.
General Zia banned on media Quaid-i-Azam's historic speech at the inaugural session of the first Constituent Assembly, in which he had said: "You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."
Gen Zia kept on harping on a vague generalisation that Pakistan was created for the enforcement of Nizam-e-Islam based on the Qur'aan and Sunnah, knowing fully well that no two Ulema belonging to different sects would agree to a common definition of Nizam-e-Islam. Gen Zia nevertheless enforced in a hurry certain disputed Islamic laws, such as Zakat, chopping of hands and flogging which were not acceptable to the Muslim sect of the Shias and also to some Sunni sects.
After Zia's death in 1988 Pakistan reverted to the normal democratic mode and suffered the governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, which took the country to the heights of misgovernance, corruption and economic disaster. Although religious political parties did not play any major role during these ten years, but their nuisance value remained in tact. Pakistan went through periods of worst sectarian killings and terrorist attacks on Churches and the Christian community.
With the advent of the Taliban phenomenon, which were partly a product of Pakistan's religious seminaries, Islamic fundamentalism raised its head in a country, which was conceived and created of Quaid-i-Azam as a liberal, democratic and progressive nation. From 1947 to 1975, there was no prohibition in Karachi and many parts of the country. Karachi particularly had a large number of liquor shops, bars and nightclubs and alcoholic drinks were served in official parties and dinners. It was a secular society, but the Ulema never launched any movement against this unislamic way of life. It was ironically Mr. Bhutto who for political rather than religious reasons imposed complete prohibition, closed down bars and nightclubs and banned horse races throughout the country. He thought that these symbolic measures will prick the balloon of PNA's agitation which centered round the demand of Nizam-e-Mustapha.
Throughout eleven years of Ziaul Haq's rule, religious radicalism and obscurantism spread like wildfire under the government patronage and some religious parties started openly demanding a Taliban like government for Pakistan. However, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, after seizing power in October 1999, made it abundantly clear that Pakistan will remain a liberal and progressive Muslim nation as conceived by Quaid-i-Azam.
All hell broke loose on September 11, 2001. Terrorist groups penetrated into the very heart of the United States. And so in a matter of a few hours, Pakistan once again jumped to the status of a front line state in the American scheme of things. This far-sighted move not only put Pakistan on the right side of the U.S., but also helped it in crushing the undesirable radical religious parties and getting rid of several Jihadi groups which were promoting religious terrorism and sectarian hatred in Pakistan itself. Time had come to uproot the sapling of religious radicalism planted by Ziaul Haq and put Pakistan back on the path of liberalism and enlightenment.
On October 7, 2001, the U.S. launched a major offensive against the Taliban government of Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda network indiscriminately killing thousands of people in carpet-bombing attacks.
This was a watershed in Pakistan's political history. The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan in alliance with Pakistan and its declaration of war against terrorism, which in fact is a veiled threat to millions of fundamentalist Muslims all over the world, particularly Palestinian freedom fighters and all Muslims countries which are supporting the Palestinian cause mainly Iran and Iraq, which is already on the U.S. firing line. All these factors caused a severe backlash among the people of Pakistan against the U.S. and rallied them round religious parties, which have always opposed the U.S. policies against Muslims freedom fighters, in Israel and Kashmir. The recent threats of the United States to attack Iraq also added fuel to the fire and people all over Pakistan, particularly in the provinces of NWFP and Balochistan, bordering Afghanistan, voted overwhelmingly for MMA, which is now in a bargaining position in the National Assembly.
Only time will tell how much influence the MMA will wield in the affairs of the state, but this much seems quite obvious that they will try to influence Pakistan's policies towards the U.S. war against terrorism and pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Internally they might try to turn Pakistan back to Ziaul Haq type of Islamic governance, which will neither be acceptable to President Musharraf, nor to the coalition partners. On the positive side, their participation in the government will bring a certain measure of simplicity, frugality and honesty; the qualities, which are rarely found in our rulers these days. It is hoped that leaders of religious partners will adopt a pragmatic approach to make things easier for President Musharraf and their own coalition partners.

Burhanuddin Hasan, The News, October 16, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Pakistan Poll Figures Show Anomalies

More Pakistani voters cast their vote in last week's election than in two previous elections, according to the country's Election Commission. The commission says more than 41% of the electorate turned out to vote.
The revised polling figures include votes cast by post but does not make any significant difference on the overall party position in the new national assembly.
Earlier assessments had shown a lower turnout but these latest figures from the Election Commission have proved them wrong. They show the turnout in rural areas and villages to be high with some constituencies having a turnout of over 50%. This is a much higher figure than in the cities where polling was much slower.
The Election Commission's latest figures provide an interesting picture of the performance of many major political groups. For instance, the pro-government Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam) or PML(Q) has emerged as the single largest party with 77 seats.
However, it received fewer votes than Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (Parliamentarian) or PPP, which won only 62 seats. According to the election commission, out of a total of just over 70 million registered voters, a total of just fewer than 30 million cast their vote. The PML(Q) received 7.33 million votes; or 24.81% of the votes polled. The PPP however, had 7.39 million votes; or 25.01% of the total votes polled.
The situation of the five-party alliance of religious parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal or MMA is even more interesting. The alliance surprised many observers by winning 52 seats, including seven independents from the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, who were elected with MMA's backing.
But it seems the MMA's victory was mainly in the areas where relatively fewer votes were polled, as it received just over 3.29 million votes, and its overall percentage comes to 11.10 of the total.
In comparison, the PML(N), a Muslim League faction of former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, won a mere 14 seats.
However, its candidates polled a total of 3.32 million votes, or 11.23% slightly higher than that of the MMA.
When the election statistics are analysed at a provisional level, they reveal further anomalies. The statistics are based on the results of 269 out of 272 seats announced by the Election Commission, as 3 results have been withheld, due to irregularities or complications.
Although the overall turnout in last week's elections was higher than in the two previous elections, it was far less than the 71% turnout reported by the same election commission in the controversial Presidential referendum earlier this year.

Zaffar Abbas, BBC, October 17, 2002,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2337675.stm