Fact Files

Transfer of Power in Pakistan

Editor
Dr.Noor ul Haq

Assistant Editor
Ahmed Ijaz Malik

Now that the elections are out of the way and the democratic process restored, the next big step is the formation of the government to complete the transition of power from the military back to people. Amid a badly hung parliament that has come into being after the lacklustre and reportedly rigged elections, the political activities are intensifying by day. The post-October 10 surge in political lobbying has seen all winning parties, irrespective of their share in the new parliament, courting each other.
In the new political scheme that is an offshoot of military's three years of political engineering and reforms, the parliamentary seats are divided among major political parties in such a way that none could form government on its own. In the numbers game that will ultimately determine the future dispensation, any of the two biggest seat-getters in the National Assembly along with the independents and smaller parties will have to join hands to form government. With PML(QA) leading with 78 seats followed by PPPP with 63, MMAP with 45 and Independents with 28, of the scores of combinations that can be worked out, all would end up forming a hotchpotch government comprising parties and politicians of all hues and having divergent and even contradictory agendas and pre-election manifestos. The day before and the day after for the ruling coalition may altogether be different. The government that is to be born out of the intensive political courting, as it appears, will be marred by intra-coalition bickering inherent in such power-sharing arrangements. Any optimism that the future will usher in an era of political stability is, therefore, misplaced, as the government-to-be will just be concentrating on surviving rather than focussing on issues facing the country. But that does not seem to be a problem as the regime's reforms agenda is already in place to take care of the 'issues.'
While the government formation seems to be an ever-difficult task, political parties must realise their responsibility to protect democracy - without any prefixes such as basic or real - from again being held hostage at gunpoint. They must unite to foster people's rule and supremacy of constitution, as another failed effort with democracy will be enough to prompt the establishment to re-write a whole new governance scheme with little going to people. This is a defining moment for all political parties, which share at least one similarity - all claim to represent people. It is people's interest that should govern their future political schemes and decisions, and not their past or personal differences.

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

MMA Proposes National Govt

The Muttahidda Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) has proposed the formation of national government in the Centre as it could help all the political parties to elect consensus candidates for the office of Prime Minister and the Speaker National Assembly.The sources said that the MMA leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad has sent this proposal to the close circles of Gen Pervez Musharraf offering him that the MMA will not get any office of the federal government if the national government is set up in the country.The MMA has also told the important quarters that it could not go with the PML(Q) or the PPP for a coalition government as many of the policies of these parties are contrary to those of MMA.It may be mentioned that Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the MMA leader has also hinted so in a press conference while the MMA's media cell claims that Sardar Farooq Leghari and Ch Shujaat Hussain had contacted Hafiz Hussain Ahmad on telephone seeking MMA's help for the formation of a strong government.
Our Islamabad Correspondent adds: The Muttahidda Majlis-i-Amal on Monday said the American forces' presence in Pakistan is a clear-cut negation of our independence and the U.S. administration will have to maintain relationship on equal basis under the principle of mutual respect.
"There is only one way to have positive relationship that is to respect each other's independence without any interference in our internal matters," MMA leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman said here at a Press conference, adding "The America should acknowledge that the Pakistani people, in October 10 elections, have reacted against its policies. And we represent that class."
To have good relations, he said, the United States will have to withdraw its policies, which have been adopted in the past. "Their presence in Pakistan is against the country's sovereignty as well as interference in the internal affairs."
Maulana said the MMA MNAs-elect will take oath under the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. "We want that all decisions are taken within the ambit of the Constitution and through Parliament. The Constitution provides that there will be no legislation which is against Quran and Sunnah."
The MMA parties will work together to make legislation in accordance with the recommendations of Islamic Ideology Council for setting up a true Islamic system in the country. "There is no controversy on these recommendations, and these must be implemented." The people have given a verdict in elections and "now we will take steps to implement the policies we announced during the election campaign to seek vote of confidence from the masses," he added.
In a later development the PML(QA) nominated Parliamentary leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) President Makhdoom Amin Fahim and National Alliance leader Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari called on Maulana Fazlur Rehman separately at his residence.
"The MMA leadership has contacts with all political forces to form a consensus government and in principle there are no differences, as we all want that there should be no continuity of a dictator. We do not want an end to the process towards the restoration of true democracy," Maulana said in response to a question, adding "These are initial meetings. Qazi Hussain Ahmed and me will submit reports before MMA meeting on the discussions to decide about the future line of action."
"I have not said we are forming a government. But we are trying our best to promote a national approach in the scenario wherein no single party is in a position to form a government,' he said, adding "In initial talks, they (other leaders) have no differences in principle on our contentions."
To a question, he said the political leaders are discussing the formation of a coalition or a joint government. "They all agree that the army should not remain in the government for a longer time."
The MMA leader said a "balanced" foreign policy must be formulated in such a manner that every Pakistani feels himself independent. "We believe that the policy must be chalked out in consultation with each other through a collective approach. It should not be reflective of one mind." About Taliban regime in Afghanistan, he said there is visible difference that the change in Pakistan is taking place not by bullet or revolution. "We are focusing on Pakistan since the elections held. The Taliban are no more there, we do not know about their leaders." Maulana Fazlur Rehman said the international media is giving a wrong impression about the MMA as it did during the post-September 11 situation.
"We want an environment where the foreign investment comes into Pakistan. We want to take measures to enhance our exports in international market. "I want to make it clear that a trade community will be provided full protection. The investors will be provided opportunities besides a protection to the investment," he said.
A hard-line leader of the Muttahidda Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) on Tuesday spelt out a pragmatic policy on the presence of U.S. troops here. 'We will pursue the same policy on which the people have voted us in,' Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI), told a Press conference in the Pakistani capital. 'At the same time, we say our foreign policy should be balanced and reflective of the national aspirations.'
Fazl's words were softer than the fiery election campaign speeches of the JUI and its partners in the six-party Muttahidda Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), in which they pledged to expel U.S. troops using Pakistani airbases for the military campaign in Afghanistan.
The MMA leaders had also vowed to expel around a dozen U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who have been helping Pakistani troops hunt and capture al-Qaeda fugitives from Afghanistan, including top al-Qaeda operatives Ramzi bin al-Shaiba and Abu Zubayda.
"We will show flexibility and we will take all the steps in the best national interest," MMA vice President Qazi Hussain Ahmed said. Fazl said the MMA has to 'frame a foreign policy which is according to our national interest and is drafted here and not imposed on us from outside.'
"We are a free nation and our foreign policy should be based on the independence of our sovereignty," he said. 'Our foreign policy should not reflect the opinion of an individual but the collective will of the nation.'
Fazl said the U.S.-led coalition hunting down remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda "should retreat from the steps they have been taking on Pakistani soil so that our relations with them can advance positively." "The damage that has been caused must be rectified with utmost care," he said.

The Nation, October 16, 2002,
http://www.syberwurx.com/nation/daily/today/main/top1.htm

Consequences of Elections

Election results are out and it is time we analysed their possible consequences. First, as predicted by many analysts, we will probably have a hung parliament. Whether the prime minister is from the PPPP or from the PML-Q, he will be very weak. If he is not subservient to the President he can be removed from his office with minimum fuss. The days of the revolving prime ministers, removed at will by governors general, may again come back. Again no government will complete its tenure bringing civilian rule, and indeed democracy itself, in disrepute. This is something which many people had, of course, predicted. As it happens this scenario is very much in the interest of the establishment. According to both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif this is because the elections have been deliberately rigged but so far nobody has given proof of this.
Even more to the point is the fact that the religious parties have come to dominate the provincial parties of both the NWFP and Balochistan. They will also have a significant voice in the National Assembly and an even more dominant role in the Senate. This is not surprising because religion has been a significant factor in the politics of these conservative provinces since the 1970s (remember JUI's hold there). What is new is that the ethnic parties (such as the ANP) have been almost wiped out and the hold of the religious right is now more pronounced than it ever was. There are reasons for this.
First, the Frontier and Balochistan have been undergoing Talibanisation (slant towards religious fundamentalism) since the beginning of the Afghan War. The term 'Jihad' became a household word in that era and the youth went in for movements like that of Sufi Mohammad and the Taliban since 1993. At times the symbols of Western decadence and modernity, such as videos, TVs and dish antennas, were destroyed. Partly this was a consequence of a new wave of religious fervour but, in my opinion, the fervour also had economic, social and cultural causes. The area remained poor and bureaucratic procedures were so tiresome that people were attracted to the Taliban's promise of delivering instant and ready-made justice. Another point is that the Taliban seemed much more independent than the Pakistani ruling elite to their rustic admirers. After all, the Pakistani elite is alienated from the common people. The Taliban, on the other hand, dressed like the common people of the Frontier, spoke their language (Pashto) and used cultural constructs which they were familiar with. Thus the Taliban did not seem to be dependent on the West; they appeared not to be lackeys or stooges. This apparent independence was a great psychological booster and it made many among the Frontier and the Balochistan Pashtuns admirers of the Taliban.
In the midst of this came the American reaction to the event of Nine-Eleven. As American bombers started bombing the Taliban the religious and Pakhtun opinion started opposing them. Here the traditional ethnic representatives of the Pakhtuns (the ANP etc) did not hear the voice of the ordinary man who either joined the religious parties or at least cheered them up in their anti-American stand. As innocent people died in Afghanistan the religious parties and the Pashtuns got angrier and angrier. This anger formed the basis of the pro-religious right vote. Meanwhile the Israelis got tough with the Palestinians and the Muslim world got even angrier. This anger too came to be expressed as anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Then India arrayed its forces on Pakistan's borders and General Musharraf had to reverse more than a decade-old policy on Kashmir. The religious right, which had lost its young men in Kashmir in support of a policy which the army had supported for so long, now felt even more enraged. Of course general Musharraf was only being pragmatic as otherwise we would have had a war on our hands.
Further, the military started hunting for the al-Qaeda and banned some religious outfits. There was a feeling of being persecuted by the state and nothing works better to gather sympathy votes than this feeling. However, primarily the vote for the religious parties is an anti-American vote and an anti-Musharraf vote. It is not an anti-army vote in my opinion because the religious right probably still regards the army as its ally in many matters. Whether eventually this will turn into an anti-military vote too depends on factors which cannot be taken into account in the present scenario.
Some observers feel that the victory of the religious right is something like a revolution. In my opinion, as yet, it is more symbolic than substantial. Even if the religious parties do form governments they can only be provincial governments. Now Balochistan and the NWFP are not the Punjab where the bulk of the army is drawn from. Thus a central government will not be too afraid to dismiss the provincial governments of these areas. Although there are many Pakhtun soldiers the discipline of the army will ensure that such a dismissal will not ordinarily precipitate a civil war. Moreover, there really is no need for dismissing a provincial government if it is acting according to the constitution. The provincial subjects are not very important ones. Provincial governments can change textbooks of children putting in more religious items in the textbooks and they can order a dress code for female employees and girls of state schools and colleges. This will turn the general population more towards the religious right but will not affect the elite very much because even in the provinces elitist schools are private or belong to such powerful institutions as the armed forces. The best state jobs too are controlled by the Centre so that the result of Islamisation will be confined mostly to the lower socio-economic classes.
It should also be remembered that the religious right in Pakistan does not have the respect which the ayatollahs of Iran had. The ayatollahs brought about a revolution while the Pakistani religious parties have cashed in on the prevalent anti-Americanism in the region. Moreover, the religious parties cannot remain ideologically united forever. They do not agree with each other's doctrines and it is only electoral politics which has made them transcend these differences. They are not, therefore, a strong united group such as the Iranian clergy or the Taliban were. However, there are two factors which could bind this odd array of uneasy partners into a cohesive force to be reckoned with. The first is an American attack on Iraq with many casualties; and the second is the dismissal of these provincial governments at the behest of America or on charges of hiding members of the al-Qaeda group. If these two things happen the religious right will increasingly go in for violent situation on the borders. In that case there may be a state of confrontation with the state as in Algeria. However, we are far from that scenario it seems if the vote bank of the PPPP and the pragmatic politicians in the other provinces is anything to go by.
We do, however, have to worry about the reaction of the world. The United States and India will definitely be alarmed. After all, the vote is basically an anti-American and anti-Indian vote. This fear needs to be addressed by the central government with both negotiations for peace and a tight control over actions which may jeopardise the precarious situation at the borders.
There is the perception that Pakistan is turning more and more to the right but this may prompt the Americans to support General Musharraf even more ardently than before. In my opinion the right will remain appealing so long as the state does not deliver goods and services and respect to the people and the external players do not stop fighting unjust wars. The real reasons for religious extremism are poverty, lack of enlightened education and a sense of injustice. People feel the system has failed and they turn to the religious right to get their rights. Moreover, external policies create hatred which makes people turn to the right. Among these reasons are the American policies in the Middle East; Afghanistan; Saudi Arabia (the stationing of troops) and Iraq. If the USA actually fights in Iraq killing many people there will be more anti-Americanism and more strength for the anti-imperialist religious groups. If, however, the U.S. decides not to do this, the religious parties will weaken. If India negotiates on Kashmir and the Kashmir conflict is peacefully resolved the religious militants will lose their appeal. If not, it will capitalise on Kashmir File perpetually displayed by the PTV. Now the policies of America and India are not in our control. Even the policies of the Centre towards the provincial governments may be beyond the influence of those who want a liberal, democratic and peaceful Pakistan. One can only hope for the best and keep one's fingers crossed.

Dr. Tariq Rahman, The News, October 17, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

The New Predicament

Pakistan's return to democracy more than three years after General Musharraf installed himself as the ruler has left behind more questions than answers in the wake of one of the most controversial transitions in the country's history.
While General Musharraf may well find reason to claim success - notwithstanding the gaps noted by the European Union's election observers - the transition indeed must take into account a series of events beginning with the much debatable referendum to allegations of pre-poll manipulation, and finally events on election day.
General Musharraf's critics may well condemn the so-called excesses, promising to keep the issue central to the electoral debate for months to come. But there can be little denial of how a conscious policy to narrow political opportunities for the two mainstream political parties of yesteryears have ultimately gone to benefit peripheral players.
Pakistan's new unfolding democracy, driven by a split mandate and spearheaded by an unprecedented victory for Islamic groups, indeed has become the beginning of the new predicament.
General Musharraf's one rallying cry in denouncing the past democracy was frequent to lament the 'sham' of eleven years of civilian rule before his coup. But never has there been an admission of the flaws which dominated politics in the past 40 years - going back to 1962 when the late General Ayub Khan consolidated his position and laid the foundation of military's dominance over political life.
Once again, despite all the official claims to setting the cornerstone for democratic progress, the series of recent interventions in politics have brought consequences which could easily become profound not just domestically but also for Pakistan's external interests. On the eve of an increasingly certain U.S. attack on Iraq to eliminate a regime which harbours weapons of mass destruction, there can be little comfort for Pakistan's security interests - especially if an Islamic party backed coalition comes to power. For Pakistan's many critics, that may well be the first opportunity to denounce the country further as a nuclear armed one where the regime is dominated by the religious clergy.
In the post-election environment, there are few solutions to the widely tainted political scenario with the damage that's already been done - thanks largely to the intense search for administrative solutions to complicated political challenges. The immediate signs of anxiety across Karachi's stock market where frenzied investors ran in panic the day after elections, if anything, could well be the sign of more uncertainty to come. Even the best economic management would offer little solace to the sentiment of investors who take the view that the long-term perspective, at best, remains murky as Pakistan heads into civilian rule.
For General Musharraf, the unfolding political scenario must offer three related challenges. First, in accepting the will of the people according to the mandate, as he has promised to do so, there can be no further progress in consolidating democracy unless fresh relaxations are introduced for mainstream political parties and their leaders. Forcing party leaders into exile - be it members of the Sharif family or the Bhutto clan, has proven to be counterproductive as the space they previously occupied has been seized by Pakistan's 'jihadi' politicians. Can there be any justification for blindly refusing to give space to previously condemned political figures, even in the face of mounting challenges to Pakistan's political outlook, and that too for acts within a limited historical time span of 11 years in sharp contrast to the more relevant four decades?
There are no easy choices to the questions surrounding the two previous prime ministers - both tainted with charges of corruption. Yet, the rules of the unfolding political game have already been distorted, thanks to such upsets as the election of at least one member of parliament whose group in the past has been in the frontline of the campaign against one of Pakistan's minority Muslim sects. Other upsets include the election of individuals associated with financial controversies such as the cooperatives scandal. In this already tainted environment - not helped at all by the observations from the European Union's election observers - there can be little comfort over prospects for political stability. At issue, more than stability, remains the factor of coming to political peace as the first step towards nation building.
Second, much of the comfort for the men in power must be drawn from their close ties to the Bush administration - ironically though, once itself criticised for the electoral happenings in Florida after the last U.S. presidential elections. If the fight against al-Qaeda remains the premise behind continuing U.S. support to the Pakistani ruling regime, there are no easy answers to some of the more pertinent questions. These are such issues as: how long would the war on terror continue; what would be the pattern of this war once the war on Iraq is launched; and perhaps last but not the least, can such cooperation be indefinitely sustained in the face of growing popular resentment.
In the short term, the assurance that Pakistan's tribal areas - a federally administered territory, have already been secured by the military to press ahead with the anti-al-Qaeda campaign, offers immediate relief but no long term solutions. The new ruling party of the North West Frontier, whose electoral message included the removal of western troops from Pakistani soil and the end to the campaign against al-Qaeda, may not find many tools beyond just sheer rhetoric to press ahead with its message. But in the long run, ignoring the calls from the provincial regime and a public outcry may well leave the government with few options - each an undesirable one. Ultimately, Pakistan's internal wrangling not only promises to open new federal-provincial wounds, but may well cause fresh strains for foreign policy interests. Ironically, as General Musharraf headed to Turkey for a meeting of the Economic Cooperation Organisation where other leaders including Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, were attending, Afghan officials did not hide their anxieties over the future difficulties in the fight against the Taliban, now that a sympathetic government had arrived in at least one Pakistani province.
Finally, Pakistan's already weakened outlook, in large measure the consequence of its political disorder and economic malaise, unfortunately may well remained locked amidst continued difficulties. General Musharraf takes much credit for stabilising the country's outlook, placing it back on the road to stability. But with so many gaps in the official claims, it's difficult to put across a convincing argument. In sharp contrast to success stories such as the large build up of foreign reserves or the conclusion of debt restructuring agreements - described by some as the outcome of the fight against terror - the outlook for the average Pakistani remains unchanged. The election trail with its visibly lacklustre context offered much in terms of first-hand accounts from those trying to make both ends meet, often without success. Pakistan's economic outlook remains clouded under the weight of proportionately the largest number of poor ever seen in its history.
With last week's elections coming out with few indications suggesting a turnaround in Pakistan's outlook, the unfolding future can only drive home one profound indication. The writing on the wall must be that politics of interventionism as practised in Pakistan, in contrast to freedom of choice, not just on polling day but in the months preceding the voting opportunity, can only open fresh wounds rather than offering a new healing touch.

Farhan Bokhari, The News, October 17, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Compensating Past Lapses

So the election 2002 is over. One would welcome the result, in spite of divergent reactions - ranging from complete satisfaction to outright disgust and serious apprehensions about the administration that a coalition of assorted bedfellows will spawn. But the election has brought about a much-needed vibration to shake the nation dispirited by depressing news about the plight of Muslims all over. Mir Taqi Mir described this state of mind in his couplet: Afsurdgi sokhta janan hai quehr Mir; Daaman ko tuk hila keh dilon ki bujhi hai aag. Election of October 10, as such, has provided the nation with another opportunity to mend its ways and get psyched to the task of nation building and improving its lot. One would look forward to an atmosphere of cooperation and tolerance among the political parties and the individuals, as we have hurt ourselves badly in the past due to discord, dissension and pre-occupation with self-promotion. We will have to desist from temptations ourselves as individuals, besides checking others through the creation of an honest and progressive ambience.
A major effort in this direction will have to be made by the newly elected legislators. They are looked upon by the ordinary people as role models. Except by their hangers-on, they are expected to be receptive to the problems of the people, engaged in their solution and engrossed in enhancing the well being of the people. Fulfilment of these demands, by itself, is a difficult task. The legislators elected in October 10 election, besides meeting routine demands of their constituents, will have to remove the stigma attached to politicians by deeds of their predecessors - in many cases their family members. One contends that there are specific areas of behaviour and conduct that have spoiled the image of politicians in Pakistan. They do not amount to a discovery. Nor are they listed here as dictates. But they are presented as reminders of what led to the load of accusations against the past public figures.
The first trait that had brought a bad name to politicians was their arrogance once they got into an office of the government. There is a very sizeable portion of Pakistan's population who hold firm belief that every ruler of Pakistan who was removed and humbled had committed an act of arrogance by declaring that they and their 'chair' were invincible. It is considered an affront to God Almighty - shirk, the biggest sin in Islam.
Second: Lack of humility and modesty which are recognised as qualities of a good human being. Since modest persons are not liable to provoke others by their behaviour or persona, they are liked widely and prove to be more effective in getting their views and demands accepted. One is not using 'modesty' here solely as the antonym of arrogance. Modesty is the quality of considering oneself as equal to others and treat them as such. Modesty and politeness are ingredients of egalitarian thinking which is akin to social justice. It leads to defence of the oppressed and condemnation of cruelty and high-handedness.
Third: A lot of trouble is brewed by isolation of political leaders from the public. In the name of security, protocol, privacy and official business, political leaders get confined to their living quarters, offices or the legislative buildings. This gradually cuts them off from the common people and they become oblivious of their problems. Doors of 'people's representatives' should remain open to the people at all times, so that the 'representatives' remain aware of the problems facing the society and the opinion about their own performance. Many of the prominent candidates in the recent elections were defeated only because the voters did not have any access to them once the elections were over. Those who turned into 'elite' after assuming an office in the government managed to perpetuate their presence in the corridors of power by instilling fear among their constituents. However, they were rejected at the first opportunity when the voters felt safe from their mischief.
Fourth: Cardinal sin of a public figure is to seek publicity and solicit recognition. It creates myriad problems. One is humbled before the officials whom he requests for publicity. There is always the chance of exploitation by those arranging promotion. Over-exposure remains a distinct danger. Bane of a craving for recognition is that one can fall prey to self-deception. One is also misled by their praise and tends to become intoxicated - thus satisfied - by small accomplishments, losing sight of bigger issues. Publicity seekers hardly, if ever, come to know of what their peers and the public think of their craze. They push for it in the name of keeping their voters informed about their achievements. It need not be mentioned that the best publicity comes with the quality of one's work and the respect commanded among the colleagues.
Fifth: Public figures should realise that they are in the spotlight all the time. There is no place for complacency after one's getting into public life. Living standards have tarnished the image of many a public servant, just as austerity has established many as honourable and noble. Ostentation in anybody's life is detestable. But for a public figure, it can be lethal. It is just not liked by the public. A strong suspicion arises about the integrity and honesty of a person intent upon showing off their riches and indulging in misplaced generosity. Display of wealth, influence and power may not be objected to in the presence of a person, but its adverse reactions travel far and wide. If not during one's tenure in public office, it can become a dead albatross around one's neck afterwards. It is wise to avoid such a stigma.
Sixth: In the same strain, one's personal life remains under strict scrutiny. Besides official attention, the colleagues, domestic help, service hands keep probing and scandalising one's life, and it is not confined to Pakistan. If one can manage a clean personal life, it is an asset for a public figure. The argument that a person is free to lead their life as they wish is not applicable in Pakistan. The Muslim society demands a public and private life which is straight and within the social and religious sanctions.
Seventh: All public figures face groups and individuals who are keen to get into their inner circle of friends and confidants. Most of them have an axe to grind. They develop 'social' relationship with important people by paying visits, offering gifts to the family, carrying out odd jobs, besides declaring their complete loyalty. They ask for favours after establishing a close link with the individual and the family. Then, there are people who do not ask for a favour but obtain gains by citing their close links with high public officials and dropping names. They may include relatives, friends, acquaintances, personal employees, etc. Whatever the status of their relations, their misdeeds get added to the roster of the politicians. This calls for extreme caution while extending help to constituents and the genuinely deserving cases.
Mir Jamilur Rehman, in his Primer For the Prime Minister (The News, October 12), has given sound specific advice to the future Prime Minister. I would mention only three areas for those who would join the cabinet or hold other offices: Do not pick up affront with other government institutions over trifles. Better be objective and open-minded. Never become dependent on a few officials and divulge your secrets and innermost thoughts to them. In distress, they might be the first one's to ditch you and become informers and witnesses. Do not delay decisions: And do not change them without very sound reason, like gross injustice, new evidence etc.
The key principle: Be modest, moderate and vigilant. And in public service, rise above self.

Dr. M S Jillani, the News, October 17, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Beware, Muttahida Leadership!

The unexpected emergence of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) as a force to reckon with, both at the centre and two provinces, is a welcome development in the stereotyped political scenario of the country. The unprecedented victory of this grand alliance of the religious parties owes itself to a number of important factors, the unparalleled unity among their various denominations being one of these. Other factors include Musharraf government's sudden volte-face with respect to the country's Afghanistan policy, his permission to the United States government to use the Pakistani ground and air space for facilitating the conduct of hostile operations against the Taliban, the presence of personnel of the U.S. armed forces and FBI on the Pakistani soil, including the free hand given to the latter to operate both in the tribal areas and the settled regions of the country in order to hunt for the alleged remnants of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation. Also in support of the MMA was a sizeable part of the anti-establishment electorate that was deadly against the large number of amendments effected by General Musharraf in the 1973 constitution, the setting up of the National Security Council, the unwarranted limitations on the sovereignty of the parliament, the self-appointment of General Musharraf as President for another five years through a referendum whose constitutional validity is doubtful, President's repeated reference to secularism in preference to Islamisation, state interference in the working of the deeni madaris, etc.
MMA's electoral success is not an unmixed blessing for its leaders. While it may enable some of them to enter the coveted corridors of power for a period difficult to determine for the time being, it will also put them through a variety of trials and tribulations, some of which may result in catastrophes of great magnitude if the leaders sacrifice diplomacy and good sense at the altar of gusto born of victory. Because of its policies as declared on the eve of elections and then confirmed in no uncertain terms immediately after the declaration of election results, MMA has earned two very powerful enemies. At the home front, it is the establishment led by none other than the President himself, and in the international arena, it is the United States led by a most revengeful president, George Bush. General Musharraf has every reason to treat MMA as an eyesore so long as the party sticks rigidly to its basic stand on some important issues as enunciated by Qazi Hussain Ahmad the other day. According to Qazi sahib, MMA would insist on the restoration of the 1973 constitution, the absolute sovereignty of the parliament with no institution or individual having supremacy over it, and the introduction of true Islamic Shariah in the country. This stand of MMA also indirectly means rejection of the National Security Council and fresh election of the President according to the 1973 constitution.
Theoretically speaking, as the political representative of a sizeable segment of the people of the sovereign state of Pakistan, MMA is fully justified in asking the U.S. troops to leave this country, and insisting that there is no need to give military bases to foreign forces for operations in a neighbouring country. However, in practice, this is another issue that is bound to spoil the taste in the mouth of General Musharraf who has given a firm commitment to America in this regard, as an ally in the war against international terrorism being fought under the leadership of George Bush. This is an issue that is going to be used by America against Pakistan, jeopardising various financial benefits promised by the Western financial institutions at America's behest. It is also liable to be used by George Bush as a pretext to declare MMA as an organisation having links with al-Qaeda, and hence demanding a ban on the party. India is also bound to exploit this situation by dubbing MMA as a party of fundamentalists and claiming that the inclusion of this party in the government would encourage officially patronised terrorism by Pakistan. As it is, the success of MMA is being painted in the Western and Indian media as the success of fundamentalism, causing alarm in international circles. The immediate result of this nefarious propaganda would be the scaring away of international investors who have been looking forward to the restoration of democracy in Pakistan before injecting any capital into its economy.
It would therefore be advisable for the leaders of the MMA not to open too many fronts to fight simultaneously with two extremely powerful enemies. They will not be able to avoid this eventuality if they keep sticking very rigidly to the stance that they have already announced. They must remain flexible in their demands and the line of action they intend to follow. For the present, the parliamentary strength of their party is not adequate enough to give them a free hand in the determination of the country's foreign policy. In any case, the major party in the parliament is sure to follow faithfully the presidential directives on all important policy matters, irrespective of the wishes of their coalition partners. Thus, MMA can at best hope to perform a limited leverage function at the centre. If it decides to withdraw from the ruling coalition as a protest on some issue, there would be no dearth of parties and individuals who would be too happy to fill the vacuum, leaving the MMA free to fill the opposition benches. The MMA leaders must bear this fact in mind before they set out to buy abortive fights against their local or foreign enemies. They should also remember the fate that met Erbakan, the Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey, and his Refah Party, when he bade farewell to diplomacy and came into a direct clash with the establishment as a result of his blunt statements and rash actions. And MMA is nowhere near the Refah Party as far as its parliamentary strength or popularity in the country is concerned.
The best course to be followed by the leaders of the MMA would be to remain in the opposition at the centre for the time being, form a strong government of their own in the NWFP, and enter into a coalition arrangement in Balochistan assembly. They must concentrate on good governance in these two provinces so as to earn a good name for the MMA on the basis of their performance in these two provinces. That will substantially increase the party's vote bank for the next general elections, making it a strong, all-Pakistan party with due representation in the Punjab and Sindh where its strength at present is far from satisfactory. MMA can turn the NWFP and Balochistan into model provinces from the point of view of good governance, even if adequate funds for the purpose are not forthcoming. Motivated by selfless service to humanity as most of the workers of the various component parties of MMA are, the party can perform miracles through a more judicious use of the available resources, preventing wastage and misuse of funds by bureaucracy. It must take immediate steps to eliminate corruption at the lower levels, launch a ruthless campaign against adulteration of foodstuffs and medicines and provide flour and cooked chapattis to the masses at subsidised rates. It should equip all government hospitals with adequate staff and drugs to ensure the availability of cheap medical assistance to the sick. The standard of education in government schools should be raised and the fees reduced so that a maximum number of children can have access to good education. Courts up to the district level should be made more efficient in providing quicker and cheaper justice to the masses.
The leaders of MMA should also remember that most of the political parties and individual politicians, who have started vying with each other to woo MMA, are doing so for the sake of their own selfish interests and not because they are really in love with this party. In fact in the heart of their hearts, all other political parties hate MMA as much as Bush hates al-Qaeda. Hence, while extending the hand of friendship to their future partners in any central or provincial coalition government, the MMA leaders must remain on guard against those whose dirty doings may pollute the good name of the MMA.

Masud Akhtar Shaikh, The News, October 18, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Political Musical Chairs

Political parties with a negotiating position in the new parliament are in the process of trying to assess where they will stand at the time of transfer of power. The situation is fluid and the outlook uncertain. Everyone agrees that no single party will be able to form a government on its own at the centre.
Several combinations are possible, but the probable contours of a stable coalition are still hazy. In view of the composition of the new parliament, one proposal is that all major parties should group themselves in some kind of a national government.
This will be justifiable only if there is prior unanimity among the components on a well defined set of principles, such as the full restoration of people's sovereignty without any role for the military. For various reasons, particularly the attitude of one of the major stakeholders, the PML(Q), agreement on an agenda like this seems unlikely.
One problem for both the PPP and the PML(Q) is whether to enter into an arrangement with the religious right-wing as represented in the MMA or seek to govern without it. Problems can arise either way. It is clear that unless one or another of the numerically more important parties reconciles itself to sitting in the opposition, the process of government formation may turn out to be a messy affair.
The role of the parliamentary opposition will thus be crucial in determining the stability of whichever combination first gets a chance to rule and in preventing the establishment from playing ducks and drakes again with another elected assembly.
The right of the opposition in a parliamentary set-up to try to unseat the government is incontestable. But this does not necessarily mean a constant state of confrontation between the government and the opposition. What it does imply is that the opposition, with considered and mature criticism of government policies and lapses, should try to convince the people that it is better able to lead than the administration in power and then wait for the next election to test its popularity and credentials. In the meantime, being in opposition provides a party with the opportunity to organize itself and reach out to its constituents (if it is not prevented from doing so by the government, which has happened all too often in the past).
Unburdened by the constraints of office, the opposition can adopt a far more principled stand on many issues and ensure that these are publicly debated. In our peculiar circumstances, the opposition can attempt to prevent further encroachments on the people's right to govern by also convincing the military that unfettered democratic rule is Pakistan's only hope of getting on in this highly complex and rapidly changing 21st-century world.
One can go on and on with the sermonizing on the do's and don'ts of government-making and democratic governance at this critical stage in the country's political transition. The basic thing is that only careful and responsible behaviour on the part of all those now engaged in the game of political musical chairs can forestall the collapse of another civilian interregnum in our political life. We all know who will have the last laugh in that case.
We need a government that has at least a minimum of natural affinity among its components and an opposition that is seriously interested in safeguarding the welfare of the people. The challenge is formidable. Whether the actors on the political stage will prove tall enough to measure up to the challenge remains to be seen.

Dawn, Editorial. October 20, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/20/ed.htm

The Challenge for Liberals

Pakistan's recently concluded elections have thrown up a new set of questions that may further complicate and exacerbate the already existing contradictions and conflicts within the society in general and the power structure in particular.
The entry of the religious parties into the parliament in full force, with their barely hidden contempt for the western model of parliamentary democracy, and their espousal of fundamentalism does not bode well for the future of liberal democracy in this country.
Why were they able to sweep the elections in two main provinces of the country as well as make serious inroads in the major cities of the country? What were the ideological undercurrents and the power play that underlay the run up to the elections? If the religious right had an agenda why wasn't the moderate mainstream able to counter it any better? These are some of the questions that we seek to address.
It is clear that as far as the parties other than the MMA are concerned, their campaign was bereft of any powerful economic or social themes or ideological debate. It contained only one remarkable feature namely the divide between pro and anti establishment political groups, something not insignificant in itself. Probably for the first time in our history a political grouping (PML-N) having its base and roots in Punjab stood up to the might of the establishment and contested the elections partly on the platform of rejecting President Musharraf's changes in the Constitution.
The military made no pretence of hiding its desire to have a permanent share in the future power set-up and declared that it was going to call the shots as far as all the important issues were concerned. The civilians who were to be transferred power were to operate within the shackles of the many constitutional amendments the government had put in place.
The two major mass parties, the PPP and the PML(N) that had at earlier times accepted a de facto role of the army in the power structure did not come on board this time round. Equally importantly, most politicians of all hues and colours rejected the constitutional amendments invoking the establishment of a National Security Council and the overbearing presence of the president. The PML (QA) appropriately nicknamed the King's party was the only exception, a role not uncommon to the gentlemen who are its leading lights.
In this backdrop the two major parties (PPP and PML-N) contested the elections with their backs to the wall faced with the formidable power of the state machinery arrayed against it. Confronted with this adversary, both these two parties, which can be characterized as politically moderate or liberal to different degrees, failed to counter the onslaught with any rallying cry that may have propelled them out of the proverbial corner into which they had been pushed.
The fragmented parliament and the divided house that these elections have produced is as much a consequence of the concerted effort of the establishment to achieve these very results as it is the failure of the moderate, liberal elite to present an alternative vision; a credible thesis against poverty, injustice and disempowerment of the masses.
It was simply not adequate as far as the electoral response was concerned to be a champion of unfettered parliamentary rule if that had failed or held no promise of a better future for the people. Faced with such a choice the response of the people has been quite rational. Where the state sponsored candidates offered them the hope of a respite through their patrons and by virtue of their proximity to the centres of power, they have voted for them in the form of the PML(Q) or the other such groups (Millat Party, NA, SNA).
Where, as in Sindh, the issue of the establishment and its conflict with the mass aspirations is better internalized, the PPP was able to keep its hold in a very significant way. However in other places it has been a different story. That the religious right has won big not only in the Frontier and Balochistan but has also made inroads in Punjab and Sindh suggests that the issue was not only the anti-U.S. sentiment as a fallout of the Afghan war but a certain populist appeal emanating from the egalitarian message of religion.
While the extent of this disillusionment with the liberal agenda is not too extended, as manifested by the election results, it may well be the beginning of a more general trend since the same abysmal human condition prevails in all parts of the country. If the educated middle class of Islamabad offers its only (urban) seat to the MMA while the same happens at several seats in Lahore, Karachi and Hyderabad, this is a phenomenon that clearly transcends the confines of the Afghan war fallout. A population betrayed again and again by the liberal politicians has sought an alternative in the religious leaders and their worldview.
There are two main ingredients of this worldview as manifested in these elections as well. Firstly recourse to the theme that religion offers the remedy to all the ills faced by society and secondly (maybe a corollary of the first) an anti-modernity that perceives the cultural attitudes of the modern world as manifestly alien. The former theme however carries within it a hope for the deprived, as religion with its egalitarian message emerges as the "the heart of a heartless world, the sigh of the oppressed."
Whether it can or cannot deliver on these promises is of course another matter but the populace, at least a significant part of it, has chosen to test their leaders on it. It is a trend that should be of concern to the liberal political opinion and politicians since it is a clear-cut expression of their own failure to present an egalitarian vision of the future and the path towards it.
Where do the liberals stand on the question of redistribution of wealth and resources in our societies? Have questions of class and of economics based on class ceased to be our concern? More importantly what are we going to do in a practical way to address these concerns if we have them? Why did we not react more powerfully on the manifestations of social injustice, as for example on the recent issue of the right of the people to the land they have tilled for generations as opposed to the right of the elites, both civil and military, to appropriate these lands and their produce? Our indifference on such issues has alienated and shall continue to further alienate even larger sections of people from liberal democracy.
Involved in our NGOism and our myriad poverty studies and workshops we have failed to respond to the human tragedy that confronts us daily at our very doorsteps. We and our modernity stand condemned in the hearts and minds of this class as they wander from door to door in posh neighbourhoods asking simply to fill their cans with water, plain simple water, which they have no access to as a matter of right.
Our modernity and its tools posit themselves as the weapons with which we disempower them since this is what they lack as they toil fruitlessly generation after generation. Like the mythical Sisyphus they roll this heavy boulder up the hill only to roll it down back again. However (borrowing an analogy from Sartre) as they roll it back they shall at some time ponder at the meaninglessness of this existence and when they do so we shall stand condemned.
The coming years may most likely see much greater instability and conflict if the religious right tries to convert its electoral gains into manifest changes and wrest power from its traditional brokers. As this struggle intensifies both the privileges and the worldview of the liberal elite will come under increasing attack.
As a society we may sink into even greater obscurantism and traditionalism if we don't confront the social and economic crises in our society with a much greater commitment to the people and their rights. Liberal democracy as we cherish it will only be able to survive if its message is coupled with that of social justice.
If we continue the way we have been going, it is well within reason that the religious right, given time enough, will be able to convince a sufficient number of people that this system holds no future for them. They (the religious right) may do so because the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy run counter to their claim of having all the answers for all the times.
The people, however, may respond in the affirmative because they will perceive the system as being irrelevant to the satisfaction of their basic needs, namely a right to the amenities of life and of livelihood. Unless of course, the privileged make liberal democracy work to the satisfaction of those very wants that the disempowered are demanding.

Dr. S. K. Hasanain, Dawn, October 21, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/21/op.htm

Confrontation or Compromise

With the parties of Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD), the PPP and the PML-N, taking a firm principled position against the Legal Framework Order (LFO) and General Pervez Musharraf's election as president through referendum they vehemently reject and Mutahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) also agreeing to the same position, the next Parliament is heading towards a confrontation with the establishment whose all King's parties and men put together don't make a majority in both the houses. Will there be a compromise or a perpetual conflict?
Thanks to ARD chief Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan's efforts, backed by Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif, the PPP and MMA, despite having serious differences on domestic and foreign policy agendas, have been brought together due to a commonality of their position on the 1973 Constitution, and amendments brought by the LFO, including the presidential election under the procedure set by it. If these parties continued to remain steadfast on their principled stand on the constitutional issues, then they could get a razor thin majority in the National Assembly and a comfortable upper hand in the Senate.
On the other hand, all the King's parties and men cannot cross the majority mark of 137 on the general seats in the National Assembly, even if all the independents decide to join the Musharraf camp. Despite further amending a bad parameter of filling reserved seats on the basis of NA seats won with the inclusion of independents, instead of the percentage of votes, and persuading the independents to join the PML-Q to raise its share in the 70 reserved seats, the King's parties will still not be able to touch 172 mark in a complete House of 342. In such a close divide, if it remains so, the King's parties even if they are provided a majority by horse-trading in the National Assembly, it will be impossible for them to get a majority in the Senate.
Despite bringing a hung Parliament by design, the game has slipped out of the hands of the establishment. But the latest Machiavellian method used by Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada to make an authoritarian order under the LFO a fait accompli hinders the democratic opposition to throw out the amendments brought by the military ruler since it lacks a two-thirds majority. Although the legal fraternity is divided over the constitutional status of the LFO, even if it is patently ultra-constitutional, most of them agree that the amendments have to be thrown out or accepted by a two-thirds majority of the two houses of the Parliament.
While the senior legal advisers of the military government insist that this Parliament has come into existence under the LFO and the creature cannot undo the creator (entirely) without the procedure set in the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court had already thrown the ball back to the Parliament in its judgment validating referendum under the PCO, it may not be inclined to take the burden of making history by restricting the effects of the PCO and LFO till October 12 or November 12 the democratic opposition would possibly seek. It is most likely that the Supreme Court will throw the ball back to the Parliament's court. Yet the PCO-LFO and COAS-President will remain devoid of any legitimacy and constitutional sanctity without either ratification or partial rejection of the amendments by the Parliament.
As the elections were held without first creating a national consensus on the future political and constitutional set-up since the establishment was bent upon keeping the leadership of both the moderate mainstream and most popular parties - the PPP and the MPL-N - the real political and constitutional battle will now be fought in the Parliament. Efforts, although quite flawed, to form a 'national government' and achieve 'reconciliation' have not helped a breakthrough either on the constitutional issues or on power-sharing.
By deciding to preferably sit in the opposition at the centre and forming a coalition in Sindh with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the PPP has placed itself in building greater pressure on the constitutional issues without conceding anything on policy issues to the MMA except winning it over to its side by prompting Maulana Fazalur Rahman who is somewhat closer to Ms Bhutto's position on Kashmir and finding a just and durable peace with India. Coincidently, with the decision of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to wind up its operations from Pakistan at the end of one-year contract, major demand of the MMA to pack up U.S. military bases from Pakistan has been met.
This development, perhaps known to MMA leadership, can facilitate a thaw between General Musharraf and the militant religious forces who have been a strategic partner in jihad before 9/11. Yet it cannot remove the fundamental differences on the war against terrorism as Pakistan has no option but to remain a strategic partner. Most embarrassing revelation by The New York Times, quoting intelligence sources, accusing Islamabad of being a major supplier of critical equipment for North Korea's nuclear proliferation that the latter has admitted for having indulged in by breaching its agreement with the U.S. on non-proliferation, will have very serious repercussions. The press leak has coincided with General Tommy Franks' visit to Pakistan who met General Musharraf. Although General Musharraf has categorically denied the wild allegation, the White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has refused to either contradict or confirm this report. Coupled with the concerns being expressed about the resurgence of 'Taliban-like' MMA in the whole Pakhtun belt of Pakistan, General Franks' visit was too crucial and he has expressed the confidence in Islamabad's continuing partnership in the war against terrorism.
These developments and Pakistan's continued partnership with the U.S. make a coalition of PMlL-Q with the MMA quite problematic, even though a conservative PML-Q finds itself ideologically closer to a radical religious right and shares its hate with the clerics against the PPP who may, by the next elections, prove to be the last asylum for the leading defectors of the PML-N in the Punjab who will be faced with a resurgent Sharif factor. The increased U.S. concerns regarding Pakistan have, on the other hand, brought the PPP and Ms Bhutto in a position to help keep Pakistan on the safest road of survival. Even in coalition with the MMA, the PPP is expected not to concede on social domestic agenda and foreign policy while fighting against the domination of military junta by forging an alliance with the MMA on constitutional issues.
Now both General Musharraf and his conservative allies, on the one hand, and a combined constitutional opposition, on the other, are left with two options: Either they take a course of confrontation that will lead to the breakdown of the new political set-up or a compromise. A compromise suits both General Musharraf and the democratic opposition, if the military establishment concedes major constitutional demands of the ARD in its own institutional interest in exchange for the return of the two leaders and separation of the office of the President and the COAS. There could be different variants of a quid pro quo, but what is most likely is that the powers that be and the political forces will not be able to solve their conflict in an amicable manner, as in the past. But can't we outlive the past and let the army go back to the barracks and allow the Parliament to find a way out.

Imtiaz Alam, The News, October 21,2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Walking a Tightrope

While, as per general perception, the agencies' planning and working might have impacted on the general elections, it will still be unfair to suggest that the electorate did not play the major part in the elections or in the split or fragmented mandate, a term heard these days along with another term, 'hung parliament' that according to the prominent lexicons means a parliament in which no party has a clear majority. The problem is therefore the lack of clear majority that no party has been able to get in the recently concluded general elections. Who was responsible for this division that has turned the political scene into a political hot potato and who will be the immediate or ultimate beneficiary are the questions that are being frequently asked everywhere around.
Then, there are the concomitant questions whether the beneficiary did work ingeniously or persistently towards this end for the alleged reason of acquiring long-lasting and greater power that is wrongly assumed to accrue to certain individuals or institutions if they succeed in undermining the repositories of people's power that a parliament is supposed to be in a completely democratic dispensation? Above all, is the question whether some individual or institution has actually benefited or is it merely a misperception that split mandate or the hung parliament will eventually suit some people or groups already holding the reins of government which in the instant case is either President General Pervez Musharraf himself or the President and his team of hardcore confidants?
An in-depth study of country's political history with focus on the role of some senior armed forces' functionaries - not to focus on the entire armed forces hierarchy - will reveal that the armed forces people have never been that practically vulnerable so as to need any props other than their own levers of power that they considered more than enough even during the times when a very few civilian rulers would assert aggressively to the extent of challenging the military seniors' powers including their powers to advise the elected governments. Actually, the few individuals in some national institutions who took it upon themselves to intervene were never dependent on civilian power although as per their conventions and established practice they did try to retain civilian colour or a touch of concern for the civilian rule, embarking on civilian routes at times. And, although much transformation occurred even within the armed forces' ranks due to the sustained supremacy of civilian rule in the world of today, those in control of the government and having a background of military, had barely made their plans contingent on the rise or fall of civilian power because of their conviction that their stakes being higher, they deserve to be taken for one of the main repositories of power.
It is thus this specific mindset that has generated a peculiar self-confidence among the military rulers who have always been predicting all okay in the end whatever the troubles coming in the way or coming the people's way. Even in the instant case, contrary to the commonplace opinion or the one repeatedly expressed by the politicians, President General Pervez Musharraf or his real backers within as well as outside the country, do not appear to be direct, immediate beneficiaries of the split mandate in any manner. And although no foolproof system can be put in place to keep any office - including that of the head of state - all-powerful forever, the incumbent President is confident that given the support of the armed forces which he will head for five years as well as the support of some foreign powers, his tenure is likely to last for these five years at least. He might not have, with this analysis before him, directly meddled with the electoral process aiming at division of the mandate as alleged by some politicians. Then, the President who has ostensibly remained committed to transparency and forthrightness originating from his self-confidence, might have also guessed well beforehand that the exclusion of some crowd-pullers or what we usually term charismatic leaders like Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif on account of their corruption, would be a step sufficient enough to keep the troublemaking elements out of the arena thus eliminating the need for underhand methods like the ones that could have resulted in split mandate.
Of course, split mandate is a curse for any democracy especially for democracies of this part of the world that have remained fragile for a variety of reasons most of which revolve around the battle for power. For Pakistan in particular where democracy has always walked a tightrope, split mandate is a bad omen despite the fact that no one can be held directly responsible for the division of mandate - neither the electorate nor the government.
In the case of government, however, many disgruntled quarters including several politicians put all the blame on what they call establishment - the name given to the institutions that control the centres of power for a considerable period of time - for managing a split mandate. That allegation may not be easy to prove because prima facie no such evidence has come to the fore especially in the case of recently held general elections but as for the responsibility of the electorate, even that theory is not tenable particularly because the electorate cannot be treated like one regimented unit under a unified command. The electorate doesn't work like that. It has to be diversified and discordant.
The contemporary era has witnessed split mandates in many countries including those where democracy has traversed distances. The only difference is that mature democracies manage to survive these troubles whereas weak democracies are subjected to additional pressures and risks in the wake of split mandate.
Some circles, however, take it in an altogether different way suggesting that since now politicians have had quite a good and bitter experience of things on the political map, their substantial maturity acquired over these so many years, might turn the split mandate into a balancing force making different parties in the parliament tolerant and somewhat reasonable towards one another. Diversity may not translate into confrontational politics that has been providing good pretexts to the non-democratic forces to liquidate the elected assemblies. Even the wide gulf between the convictions of the newly emerged political force in the parliament namely Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the religious parties' electoral alliance, is not expected to cause any damage since the advent of MMA as a parliamentary force might work as a strong influence to bring about a healthy change, albeit in the specific area of inter-party relationship within the parliament in the beginning.
Obviously, no one in the government or even in the Opposition in a parliament can be detached from the expectations and pressures emanating from other quarters in the same body politic and more so from the outside world. One has to mould in these circumstances. And as for this change, whatever its degree or volume, it does not essentially require total reversal of one's beliefs or ideology. The religious parties' leaders, having this realisation, will thus adapt, if not change, themselves according to the demands of the modern times although to a little extent because they know that this much adjustment may never require any unreasonable compromises. So, whatever the normal guesses being made, the situation is not going to be that bad. The MMA is rather likely to come up as a more mature group given the rigorous discipline followed by most of the religious leaders that tends to minimise the element of sentimentalism that had unfortunately crept into some strata of religious parties for a brief period of time. The Western powers including the United States and United Kingdom too should take it that way instead of feeling scared and apprehensive over the rise of religious element in Pakistan's politics.
It is also opined by some circles that the much-trumpeted facade of anti-US feelings as identified with some hardliners within the MMA, is likely to bring about greater understanding among the western powers about our religious factions' principled position. With that understanding having developed, the western powers might review their hackneyed policy that they have been maintaining since 9/11 though that re-appraisal may never assume the status of a U-turn in anti-militancy strategy. But at least in the case of Pakistan, after the election of MMA with 50 assertive members in the parliament, the hard line hitherto adopted by the western powers is not expected to intensify further for obvious reasons. Then, as regards the hard line that most of the religious parties have been maintaining vis-à-vis Bush administration's anti-terrorism drive that has been invariably interpreted as anti-Islam, that too is going to mitigate with the bartering of pressures, expectations and stated positions between the Pakistani leaders and international leaders.

Making the Myth of MMA

The emergence of MMA as a third force on the political landscape of the country is one of the unexpected outcomes of the national election held on October 10. The electoral success of 'liberal' political parties in all previous general elections held in the country, over the religious groups, showed a clear divide among electorate whose vast majority never mandated religious parties to enter the corridors of the state power. However, this is not to say that religious groups had no share in the state power in the past. They had always entered in the corridors of power from the backdoor and got more share than they had deserved due to their inflated nuisance value, which never corresponded with their electoral strength. This is the first time that religious groups are entering from the front door with legitimacy granted to them by the voters in the election 2002.
It is important to understand this shift in voting behaviour that has created political space for religious groups to take direct control over the state apparatuses at least in the provinces of NWFP and Balochistan. To understand the MMA phenomenon, political analysts belonging to journalism and intelligentsia have so far floated mainly two arguments. Firstly, anti-American feeling in the post September 11th and subsequent U-turn in government's Afghan policy which created a reaction that has been attributed as the main factor of MMA's electoral success. Secondly, it is argued that Musharraf's policy of keeping the main political leaders of PPP and PML(N) out of the election game resulted in a political vacuum that has been filled by the religious forces.
In our view both arguments forwarded to explain the emergence of MMA are too simplistic and do not take a holistic view as they ignore the certain relationship between the set of social and political factors that can better explain the electoral victory of MMA. To understand this phenomenon, we need to make a cognitive detour and make serious efforts to explore and explain the complex interplay of socio-economic and political factors responsible for shaping the current post-election scenario in the country.
We would like to emphasise two points here before we embark on presenting our analysis of the situation: (a) it is important to understand that MMA is the product of the state and power relationship, and the appeasement policy of successive regimes towards religious parties has contributed to strengthen their political base; (b) the relative electoral success of MMA is overplayed as absolute at the expense of ignoring the fact that they have secured only 11.10 percent of the total registered votes while in NWFP where they will be forming a government, their share of vote is only 13.7 percent.
In the past, the total votes of religious parties had remained between 5 to 7 percent with the exception of 1970 when they together got 22 percent of the total vote.
This is the first time in the political history of Pakistan that religious parties formed a coalition of purely Islamic parties and banded together to fight election from a common platform. Previously, some of the religious parties, who are part of the MMA, had entered in electoral alliances such as Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), Islami Jamhoori Itihad (IJI), Islamic Jamhoori Mahaz (IJM) and Pakistan Islamic Front. However, the nature of these electoral alliances was fundamentally different from MMA as PNA and IJI consisted of religious as well as 'liberal' parties and IJM and PIF did not have all major religious parties in their folds. Thus the MMA's electoral gain is not only because of the purist coalition of Islamic parities, but also due to split in 'liberal' votes in all four provinces. In NWFP, PPP's votes were divided because of PPP(S), ANP's because of Ajmal Khattak's National Awami Pary, PML(N)'s because of PML (Q). In addition to the split vote, some of the so-called liberal parties supported MMA's candidates against the candidates of ANP. This aspect of electoral adjustments is very much obvious from the situation of NA 7 Charsadda, from where Asfand Wali Yar contested election and PML(Q), PML(N) and PPP(S) supported MMA's candidate. Similar trends were witnessed in several other constituencies, which contributed, to the success of MMA. Moreover, there is evidence that many Afghan refugees, who are the potential voters for religious parties, had managed to acquire identity cards and get themselves registered in voter's list. Although it is difficult to say how much this factor contributed to 4 to 5 percent increase in MMA's vote bank, however, it is an important factor that needs to be taken into consideration while analysing the current political situation. Moreover, the MMA had managed to run a lot more superior electoral campaign as compared to other parties due to the organised nature of their internal party structures and control over mosques and madrasas.
As far as the argument regarding the absence of political leaders of two main political parties PPP and PML(N) facilitating MMA's success is concerned, it holds no ground. The PPPP has performed far better in Punjab and Sindh in the absence of its leader than in the election of 1997 when Benazir was very much part of the election campaign. Similarly, the ANP as a leading party in NWFP has lost despite the presence of their leaders in the election campaign. Therefore, the reasons for the success of MMA must be explored beyond the presence and absence of political leaders of mainstream political parties.
Our contention is that MMA's vote is neither purely ideological nor an indictment of the government's Afghan policy. There are a number of other political factors that are responsible for MMA's success. A stark split in the voter's choice of political parties for the national and provincial seats clearly indicate an ideological crisis in the country. A research study conducted by an NGO, Pattan Development Organisation, shows that there is significant split in the voter's choice of political parties at the provincial and national level. The analysis of MMA votes indicates that only 34% of them voted for the MMA for both candidates contesting on national and provincial seats while 66% of them split their vote between MMA and some other party. This shows a declining trend in ideological vote both for religious as well as liberal parties.
If we attribute MMA's success to the anti-Afghan policy alone then it appears from the election results that Punjab and Sindh did not mandate against the foreign policy. Major gains are made by the MMA in the province of NWFP and Balochistan where they had traditionally more influence. It is important to keep in mind that (a) the gain in the vote bank of religious parties is 4 to 5 percent while it has translated into much higher number of seats due to first past the post system of election (b) MMA's success in NWFP and Balochistan can be explained partly due to the Afghan factor and partly due to the fragmentation of liberal parties, and failure of civil society to mobilise voters around liberal agenda in these two provinces.
The huge success of MMA in terms of securing seats in the national and provincial assemblies, while the increase in their vote bank did not exceed from 4 to 5%, is mainly due to serious discrepancies in our electoral system. With the MMA's total vote bank of 11.1 percent at the national level including FATA, it got 52 (19.33%) seats in the national assembly while PML(N) with the same vote bank (11.23) got only 14 seats. The Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians who got the highest votes polled (25.01%) have won 62 (23.05%) seats as compared to PML(Q) whose vote bank is 24.81 percent less than PPPP but has won 77 national assembly seats. The 'First Past the Post' system has played a significant role in distorting the political reality.
In our view it is critical to highlight the fact that MMA's electoral success is not a victory of an ideology but a victory of pragmatism in the politics of our country. The short-sightedness of our mainstream political parties who had the history of making ideological compromises in the name of the theory of necessity has blurred ideological lines of their voters. While the alliance of religious parties has consolidated their vote bank, the fragmentation of liberal party divided their vote further which contributed to success of the MMA's candidates. The weak democratic base of mainstream political parties due to lack of party chapters at the local level, weak contact with electorate and their over reliance on the political and local elite rather than on party workers and voter has created confusion and alienation among their voters. Therefore, they were unable to mobilise their voters to come out to caste their votes.
It is critical for liberal political parties to restore the confidence of their voters which has been damaged further by political parties' intensive efforts concerning the seat adjustments in the pre-election phase and the creation of an alliance to form a national government in the post election phase, with other parties that have nothing in common in terms of their worldview and political ideologies. It is high time for the liberal forces to learn lesson from the election results and say goodbye to political expediency and act responsibly towards filling an ideological crisis in the country.

Sarwar Bari & Dr. Farzana Bari, The News, October 22, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Transfer of Power

Delay in the transfer of power was not unexpected as there are still several hitches that need to be removed, besides the holding of Senate elections, and before that making the four provincial assemblies functional. Moreover, with a short list of the potential candidates for the prime minister's office yet to emerge even eleven days after the elections, a delay could be on the cards. The split mandate has created a numerical conundrum that even a computer will not be able to crack. It will not serve the ends of the regime to commission the National Assembly only to see political confusion take over, which could lead to adjourning the Assembly session, and possibly creating another constitutional tangle. Thus, extending the date for transfer of power might be a necessity not an option.
However, according to a constitutional expert quoted by our correspondent in Monday's edition "Expediency is the consideration, and it is a matter of policy not law to defer transfer of power till a certain time." Consequently with President Musharraf having the authority to set the date and time for convening the elected house without attracting the mischief of law, there would be no pressure on him for hurrying the process. But, on the other hand, till the National Assembly is not operational, the electoral college for electing the members of the Senate will not be complete, the convening of the four provincial assemblies, notwithstanding. The continuous delay, therefore, will breed more problems for the military regime, compelling it to put its subsequent plans on hold.
While these issues constitute an obstacle course the government needs to contend with successfully, the main threat posed by any deferment in the date for convening the National Assembly will be the political impact it will have. The opposition parties which are well placed in the numbers game, already question the credibility of the government in view of the election results, and any delay will confirm their worst doubts. Announcing the date of convening the National Assembly shortly after the election results were made public, would have been the proper course. But since that was not done for a variety of reasons, valid or otherwise, every effort should be made to speed the process. This is important because the last time the federal government committed the blunder of delaying the calling of the house for one or the other reason, led to the break up of the country. It was a tragic experience and was expected to make our leaders wiser. But, it seems there is a creeping replication of the mistake made then for reasons that really have no basis. This needs to be avoided if peace and unity enjoy precedence over the political aims of the exercisers of power.

The News, Editorial, October 22, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Why This Strange Delay?

Twelve days have passed since the election but the National Assembly has not met yet. There was a sense of relief when President Pervez Musharraf announced that he would cease to be the chief executive on November 1. However, going by the hiatus in the process of power transfer, one fails to see how the government can meet the November 1 deadline.
It is true that because of the split electoral verdict, government formation is taking time. The leading parties have not yet been able to agree on a credible coalition formula. Some have yet to make up their minds as to whether they will sit in the opposition or try to be part of the government. But that should not stop the government from ensuring that the electoral process goes forward, constitutionally and logically. For one thing, why have not elections been held so far to the reserved seats in the lower house?
Is the government waiting for all the independents to show their hand? Surely, the three leading parties could continue their talks on forming a coalition government while the assembly completes the business of holding election to the reserved seats. In any case, the coming into being of the full National Assembly - with 342 seats - will not affect the parties' relative strength in the House.
No doubt, each party will have more members, but only proportionately, leaving the complexion of the National Assembly unaltered. Such an assembly could, for instance, elect the speaker and the deputy speaker and then wait for the parties to arrive at a coalition arrangement.
The latest development that is bound to raise concern is Federal Law Minister Dr. Khalid Ranjha's statement that the absence of a senate is creating some constitutional problems in regard to the election of the prime minister. Actually, it is the other way round, for it is the national and provincial assemblies which elect the senate. The senate has not come into being because the five assemblies - the NA and the four PAs - have not yet been called into session.
If they had been summoned immediately after the election results were announced, an upper house would have been in place by now. In any case, the minister is wrong on this score, for it is the lower house that elects its leader, and the upper house has nothing to do with the process of his election.
The delay in summoning the newly elected legislatures, therefore, needs to be fully explained. There are allegations that the generals have delayed assembly sessions because the 'king's party' has not yet been able to muster enough support to form a coalition government.
Another theory is that the military has not yet come to an understanding with possible candidates for the prime ministerial slot on the future relationship between the army and the elected government. Whatever the truth, the government should note the Supreme Court's decision of May 12, 2000, requiring the military government to hold elections to the national and provincial assemblies and to the senate "not later than 90 days before the expiry of the aforesaid period" (the three-year period beginning with October 12, 1999.)
While elections to the national and provincial assemblies were indeed held within the stipulated period, the government has to answer for not holding elections to the senate within the stipulated time. Any further delay will only complicate the political situation.

Dawn, Editorial, October 22, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/22/ed.htm

Living with the MMA

Every election in Pakistan, no matter how managed or controlled, has produced a ripple of optimism and hope for the future. Election 2002, however, will have the dubious distinction of going down in history as one that has yielded a wave of anxiety about the fate of the new parliament, government, and chronically endangered democratic process. An unprecedented level of uncertainty in the fragility of emerging coalitions is one critical factor contributing to the atmosphere of pervasive gloom. The second, and even larger stress-multiplier for moderate Pakistanis is the unprecedented sweep of religious elements in this poll.
The first question shaping this discourse is related to how the MMA, in what used to be a traditionally sparse parliamentary showing, run such a steamroller over their opponents, particularly in the NWFP and Balochistan. First of all, there can be little doubt about the contention that a critical factor responsible for their victory is the sidelining of the two mainstream parties of the country for this election. This theory is largely credible because elements who are not sympathetic to either party subscribe to this view. From the first day he assumed power, General Musharraf's government has focused on eroding the PPP and the PML[N], which had been so battered by October 10, that the political space created in their absence in many areas was promptly snapped up by the organised forces of the right. In this scenario, presumably the government was too busy working on about a hundred and fifty odd seats in Punjab and Sindh to even consider the two less populous provinces. The fact that the PML[N], which was ideologically the closest to the MMA, broke so quickly at the hands of the Musharraf government, obviously helped the religious right because the conservative, PML[N] vote in many areas switched promptly to the MMA.
Connected directly to this theory is the view that the government in its infinite wisdom, encouraged this rightist landslide so that General Musharraf can then take the Algerian alternative as a way of keeping the tribal areas in his and the U.S.'s control. This would not only give him a new lease of political life, it would also allow him to dispense with the democratic process by taking the bulwark-against-fundamentalism role. While this contention may or may not be true, there is no denying the reality that while these parties stood in alliance against the government after September 11, they have traditionally known to be pro-establishment. This was borne out by the manner in which most of the MMA component parties were allowed to gather and address large audiences well before the election when other opposition parties were not allowed to campaign or hold protest rallies.
Even if we assume that the MMA was being backed by the government to win 25-30 national seats, and if the rest have to be taken as a reflection of social and political shifts in these tribal areas, then it is important to attempt a serious examination of how these parties gained so much ground in parliament. Many analyses focus on the Afghan factor, which they maintain is a passing phenomenon. In this view, once the emotive impact of Pakistani bodies showing up in the tribal areas as a result of U.S. anti-terror operations has passed well into history, it is believed that the support for religious parties may just dry up in favour of nationalist or federal parties. Yet taking such a narrow view of fundamental shifts in these provinces, would not just be misleading, it would also be myopic. Many also attribute the MMA's new gains to the factor of unity. In the backdrop of a fractious political environment, the cohering of the warring religious parties around a single-point agenda against General Musharraf's foreign policy contributed significantly to the religious right's victory.
Another reason cited for their success is the failure of progressive nationalist parties like the ANP and BNP to reach out to their voters, who have in the last few years been lured by rival nationalist parties, which in turn split their vote. The widespread lack of development in these areas, low investment in the social sector and a growing network of madrassahs has catalysed the political consciousness of thousands of angry, and often hungry, young men into the reactionary political bloc. Parties that once spoke of land reform and social equity have found their dissipated radicalism taken over by the egalitarianism of the religious right, who use Islam as liberation theology for their rough and ready model of social justice. Here, the lowering of the voting age helped the MMA.
Conventional wisdom has focused on foreign policy as the first problem that will lock Musharraf in a conflict with the MMA. For the military establishment which will continue to run foreign policy, the MMA sweep may well result in a serious confrontation with the anti-Taliban agenda they have adopted in pursuit of American patronage. In this respect, General Musharraf's greatest challenge will be to accommodate U.S. goals in the region with the aspirations of this emergent political class. Yet the biggest fear being voiced by all sections across the political divide is that the tussle over Afghan-Kashmir policy turf between the elected government and the military may well plunge the nation into a renewed bout of instability. In the past any such power struggle has invariably resulted in the dismissal of these governments. Mohammad Khan Junejo was dismissed in part for pushing through the Geneva Accords against Ziaul Haq's wishes, while Benazir Bhutto's first government and Nawaz Sharif's second government were both reputedly sacked for clashing with the entrenched security elite's vision for the region. At the same time, the widespread perception in the West that these religious parties are breeding-grounds of jihad and terrorism will have to be confronted with the reality that these same parties co-operated with democratic forces in the country in pressuring the military government to hold elections.
One of the arguments being made by centrists trying to manage the powerful clout of the mullah wave is that perhaps their political mainstreaming will moderate some of their extremism. Keeping in view the fractious political culture of past legislatures, this is not a bad thing. The essence of all democratic processes is mutual tolerance and accommodation. Any working arrangements that temper the reactionary politics of the extremist demagogues in these parties should not be left unexplored. Yet statements by the MMA leadership about softening their stance on women, culture and the American coalition now that they are seeking to be the key bloc to government-formation in parliament should not always be seen as real indices of their ambitions to transform Pakistani society, because these are all part of power-jockeying for the moment. A proclaimed distance from Taliban-style Islam may set some minds to rest, but will only have substance once the coalition they form begins to govern. Although a spokesman for the alliance has already attempted to allay widespread fears about their demand for imposition of Shariah laws in the country, there is no guarantee that extremist language will not creep into the agenda particularly since no clear consensus is apparent among component parties. The degree of Islamisation that the Jamaat-i-Islami may agree to, for instance, may not be enough for the more radical, Deobandi JUIs. Yet unsurprisingly, even Qazi Hussain Ahmed has fired his first salvo for taking Pakistan back into the dark ages. His position on abolishing co-education in the country has sent a ripple of fear among moderates and working women who feel that the route to a better future for them is not through seventh century models of social ordering. The fact that parliament will have trouble passing progressive legislation is only one worry among the majority of Pakistani moderates who see no possibility of turning back harsh anti-women and minority laws like the Blasphemy Law and the Hudood Ordinances. The other anxiety gripping women and minorities now is that the old refrain of 'Chadar and Chardiwari' will be re-introduced into the political mainstream, especially given the failure of the last few governments in reducing the incidence of violence against women, particularly in southern Punjab and Sindh. In fact, whatever government comes in, whether it has the political will or not, it will have a promethean task pushing through bills like the madrassah regulation ordinance, which the Musharraf regime quietly shelved like all anti-modernist repeals, for an elected government to muster. What makes this danger more real is the fact that the MMA's final tally of seats in the provincial assemblies will give them the same unprecedented strength in the Senate, with the result that much of the domestic agenda will be dominated by them in the upper house as well.
Although progressive parties like the PPP have gingerly opened their channels of communication with the MMA, the only ideological glue that can hold the two together will be on the repeal of most of Musharraf's LFO amendments to the constitution. That remains the case with the MMA and the PML[N] as well, while the MMA's natural establishment allies, the PML[Q], have shelved all such conditions and are so far willing to live as a non-sovereign parliament. At the same time, the government's inordinate delay in calling the national assembly to session is being seen as an index of its unhappiness with the result, since they had only expected to nudge MMA into a small bloc they could manipulate. What has happened instead looks like a classic case of military fudge. The Ataturkist return to secularism that Musharraf found thousands of supporters from amongst the middle classes has now been buried in the sands of his political adventurism. Whatever the outcome, when history looks back at Musharraf's term as one that promised a return to modernity, the resounding answer will be that he failed spectacularly.

Sherry Rehman, The Nation, October 23, 2002,
http:www.syberwurx.com/nation/daily/today/editor/opil.htm

MMA should Abandon Coercive Proposals

Qazi Hussain Ahmad says no Islamic measures will be forced on the people by any Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal government. He accused the West of having misgivings about the MMA ulema when it told Pakistani women that they would be forced to wear 'hijab' in public by the MMA. He said it was also wrong to say that the MMA government was intent on banning music and films. According to him, the party had won through the democratic process and would be answerable to the people instead of coercing them. The same day, however, a newspaper survey revealed that the women of Lahore thought their rights would be curtailed in case the MMA joined the government. This confusion was certainly exacerbated by a statement from Qazi Hussain Ahmad's own daughter in London who said that the MMA would definitely ban coeducation in the country.
In Lahore, an MMA gathering has demanded that the present banking system should be dissolved to eliminate the 'curse' of interest. The MMA programme is focusing on the recommendations of the Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) and seeks to give them the shape of laws in parliament. The CII, sniffing the new air, has already declared Prize Bonds as un-Islamic. The CII has also held that prisons should be banned, currency notes should not have the likeness of the Quaid-e-Azam, women should wear the veil, those who don't say namaaz should be punished, etc. Add that to the irreducible consensual demand of kicking the Americans out of their 'bases' in Pakistan, and you may still see a change under an MMA dominated government that shakes the polity to its foundation.
Should we believe Qazi Sahib? Given the fact that our ulema have not yielded the Quranic principle of 'amr' (approval) and 'nahi' (ban) to the state, vigilante action under their governments could so easily proliferate. Indeed, had it not been for the toughness shown by General Musharraf in 2001, a group of powerful ulema was ready to enforce 'hijab' and namaz in selected cities of the country through 'danda' action. We have known Qazi Sahib's own youth wing join this 'danda' brigade on every New Year's Eve. The more austere and less "political" members of the MMA have won their votes swearing that they would put an end to the 'fahashi' cinema. Maulana Samiul Haq, unless his worldview has broadened, was known to be opposed to women's presence at the workplace together with men. Some cinemas in the NWFP are already bracing for the campaign. Unless Qazi Sahib can really rein in his zealots, the cinemas will have to be converted to plazas, and traditional pleasure seeking will go dangerously underground. Speaking of the democratic process, one MMA religious leader, who has won from Gujranwala, has taken oath in public to abolish democracy!
Religious violence has historically harmed culture and civilisation. The inspiration of the Islamic revolution led to the persecution of women in the streets of Iran; but after 20 years, the people, all devout Muslims, want the moderation of their civilisation back through President Khatami. The cruelty of Mullah Umar towards men who didn't keep beards and women who stepped out of their houses was mistaken for true Islam, but that is no more and Afghanistan is back into its old cultural routines. Pakistan's culture, like the cultures of the other Islamic countries, is Muslim in essence. Any coercive reshaping of it through force will bring down no blessings and will not succeed.

The Daily Times, Editorial, October 23, 2002,
http://www.dawn-usa.com/

Priority No. 1

It is customary in Pakistan for the losing political party to cry rigging, though not entirely without reason. However, the October 10 elections must be unique in that all including the supposed king's parties have alleged rigging; and not only during but also before and after the actual poll. A bizarre twist has now been given to the murky scenario by grumblings from within the PML (Q) which was being blasted as the main beneficiary of covert and overt official subversion of the politico-electoral process. Some PML (Q) stalwarts are reportedly pointing accusing fingers, although they have not yet publicly named their tormentors. But the innuendo is clear enough to focus the spotlight on their adversaries within the party and the provincial administrations of Sindh and Punjab.
Such allegations from within the PML (Q) notwithstanding, it is an unfortunate fact that the October 10 elections have already been recorded in Pakistan's checkered political history as having been manipulated by seen and unseen forces for their narrow institutional interest. And, the spate of allegations is not the only basis of this strong perception. There are credible reports of result manipulations in some close contests and in others the turnout was inexplicably far in excess of the national average. Tellingly, in all such cases, the winner was perceived as being officially sponsored.
After the infamous referendum, public trust was running very low and a very high standard of official neutrality was needed to dispel public suspicions. This, unfortunately, was not forthcoming and, regardless of the unfolding political scenario, the speculation and allegations will not go away. These have tainted not just the political beneficiaries of rigging or even the provincial administrations but also the judiciary which conducted the election and, above all, the Election Commission of Pakistan whose unfulfilled responsibility was to deliver truly free and fair polls. Naturally, sitting as he does atop the pyramid of power, the reputation of General Pervez Musharraf and his place in history is also at stake. As also of the military establishment and its brainchild, the elected nazims.
It seems in everyone's interest, therefore, that the malodorous atmosphere is clarified before the perceptions become ingrained with the passage of time and cause further institutional and individual damage. One way of doing this is to set a judicial commission to probe the matter. Even though the judiciary was a party to the election process and its own reputation is under increasing stress, these could also be reasons for it to feel the need to conduct an intrusive and transparent probe to sift the grain from the chaff, apportion responsibility and mete out deterrent punishment. If this is not done, then it falls on the new parliament to make this a priority issue. Since all parties carry grievances, there should be no problem in setting up a bipartisan parliamentary commission to investigate the matter and put an end to this damning practice which, if it is left unattended, will forever visit controversy and instability on Pakistan's already ailing democracy. Inaction, thus, is a non-option.

The News, Editorial, October 24, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Setting the Right Pace

The delay in calling the National Assembly to session continues to add to the prevailing confusion and uncertainty over the formation of governments at the centre and in the provinces. True, the October 10 election has turned up a split verdict, posing the difficult - and in our case, unaccustomed - problem of accommodation and compromise among parties and alliances with a major role to play in the making of governments. But that should not be allowed to stand in the way of an assembly session.
The interregnum cannot remain open-ended. There is a lot to be done besides choosing a prime minister. The election to the reserved seats for women and minorities must be held soon, a speaker and deputy speaker must be elected, and the NA and the four provincial assemblies have to elect the Senate. More important, an NA session will serve to end the confusion that seems to be increasing by the day and is made worse by profuse and ill-considered ministerial pronouncements.
A question was raised about independents joining a political party. The three-day period by which they should have done so ends today. This hurdle, too, has thus been crossed. The law minister says the prime minister's election will be by secret ballot: this is not the issue at all. The proposed amendment by which the president was to be authorized to nominate 'anyone' as prime minister was dropped; now it is the house itself that will choose the prime minister. This being the case, let the house meet and let the parties make their choice for the top office.
The issue here must be grasped broadly but clearly. The military regime has abided by the Supreme Court's decision of May 2000 by holding the general election within the stipulated three-year period.
The election to the Senate, too, should have been held within the period. However, that has not happened, and the apex court's deadline has been breached. That, however, is not the sticking point.
The Senate can meet later, because after all a president is not to be elected - General Pervez Musharraf having already 'elected' himself president for five years through a questionable referendum. The issue is that the lower house of parliament and the four provincial assemblies elected by the people should meet, choose the prime minister and the chief ministers, and get on with the business of running the state. The delay in calling the National Assembly to session will only serve to create uncertainty and prolong the present hiatus and drift.
The need for calling the assembly's session should be seen against the background in which the general election was held. There were arbitrary changes in the Constitution, new rules were framed about filing nomination papers, and the leaders of the two leading parties, the PPP and the PML(N), were kept out of the electoral contest.
If this was not a warped enough scenario, the polls have created a hung parliament. Delaying the post-electoral process will make the situation more and not less complicated and add uncertainty to our accident-prone political course.

Dawn, Editorial, October 24, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/24/ed.htm

Will the Transition be Meaningful?

Alongside the efforts to form a government, which appears to be a waiting game to see which group of legislators breaks ranks first, attention is focused on the pressure being exerted in respect of the sovereign powers of parliament.
This is not a new debate in Pakistan, having originated as choosing between the parliamentary or presidential forms of government, and later taking the shape of a struggle between the government and the army over which should control Pakistan's defence and foreign policies and, in effect, which institution should control the other. It has been an unfortunate waste of the nation's time.
Other countries have courts, parliaments and armies but because of a strong commitment to the rule of law, they do not flounder from one constitutional crisis into another. In Pakistan however, elections have become synonymous with a change in the political system and the electoral process of 2002 was no exception.
Consequently, it is no surprise that the birth of this parliament comes pre-packaged with possibilities that threaten its future. There is dissatisfaction with the quantum of its powers and there is concern that it may be ineffective in view of being a 'hung parliament.' A positive outcome in case of both is clouded by doubts whether the parties and legislators can muster the degree of responsibility necessary to help this parliament complete a full term of life.
To hope that this parliament, if invested with sovereign powers, can transform our society into a fuller democratic polity is as premature at this time as it was earlier. This is because parliament, which is both a repository and fulcrum of power, does not operate in a vacuum but requires for its effective functioning objective conditions, currently non-existent, in the judicial and executive branches of government. For its survival, parliament requires also a far greater measure of commitment from the legislators.
Those intellectuals agonizing over the question of oath-taking might recall that a large section of the representatives have already sworn, on more than one occasion, to serve parliament and protect the Constitution, and then worked to bring down both when they were excluded from a share in power.
The principal obstacle to the proper functioning of the parliament lies in the fact that it remains captive to special interests and privileged sections of society that use this institution to protect and promote their own interests at the expense of the rights and interests of the electorate.
The major assaults on civil liberties and personal freedoms, indeed the roots of political destabilization, are traceable to governments that possessed brute parliamentary majorities - those of Ayub Khan, Z.A. Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and the 'heavy mandate' of Nawaz Sharif coming readily to mind. That two of these parliaments were sovereign supports the fear that a self-perpetuating parliament, without checks and comprised of a self-serving body of legislators, can become more dangerous than a dictatorship.
Given, however, the representative ratios in this parliament, any debate on its sovereign powers is at this point merely of academic interest. There is the immediate worry of a 'hung parliament' and the spectre of political instability arising from weak coalitions, frequent making and breaking of government. The situation is not without its brighter thought, which is that fractured representation is by itself not necessarily a cause of instability.
For example, Italy has continued to prosper despite experiencing more than fifty governments in the past fifty years. In India, the minority-represented BJP has led multi-party coalition governments thrice since 1998 and a preponderance of coalition governments does not seem to have politically weakened Israel.
But in these countries, and other democracies, coalitions are not politically destabilizing because their constitutions, political systems and basic laws are settled issues that cannot be changed by extra-constitutional means, nor is it conceivable for their armed forces to abrogate the constitution. These conditions of course do not prevail in Pakistan and, therefore, a collapse of government that elsewhere would result, at worst, in early elections here take the shape of a constitutional crisis that may lead to power vacuum and inevitably to a military intervention.
Even if by a quirk of circumstances these factors suddenly turned favourably, in this parliament the working of a coalition government will be hampered by the sharp differences among the parties regarding the LFO (Legal Framework Order). This is compounded by disagreement in major areas of foreign policy, concerning relations with India and cooperation in the US-led war against terrorism, basic laws covering the economy (the issue of riba) and critical areas of governance relating to the spread of religious extremism.
Considering that in Pakistan foreign policy impinges on the management of the economy and matters of internal governance have a correspondingly high effect on foreign relations, this cyclical interdependence can be used by any of the parties to disrupt the government.
Other problem areas for the would-be coalition governments arise from the inclination of the component parties neither to share power nor to sit in opposition with a sense of commitment. Not even the clear majority of an incumbent government has a deterrent effect on its opponents, in or out of parliament, as witnessed in the 'horse-trading' sagas, involving switching of sides by scores of legislators, motivated solely by desire for power or revenge, during the revolving Bhutto and Sharif governments of the early 1990s.
There is also the proclivity of the parties not to accept election results with good grace when they find themselves in the opposition. Ms Bhutto had already said that the elections were rigged to keep the PPP out of power. The MMA, with only 15 per cent of the seats in the house and 11 per cent of the popular vote, insists it will "not let any one stop it from implementing the agenda for which (it) has received a mandate."
Smooth functioning of the new parliament also depends greatly on how it connects with the judiciary. The legislators are already in a state of discomfort because of the several judgments favouring the military regime during the past three years and their vulnerability to disqualification, through the new electoral laws, indicates that these relations will remain uneasy. Similarly, in the area of accountability, the largest party in parliament happens to be a sanctuary for many who might otherwise be facing prosecution, giving rise to apprehension that parliament's interest in this vital area of governance will be less than enthusiastic.
Also, what the parties and combinations bidding for power would do once in power is perhaps best exemplified by the candidates proposed for prime ministership. Without exception, the nominations reflect an acute insensitivity to the prevailing external and internal realities, as though Pakistan somehow revolves on an axis different from that of the rest of the globe. The candidates represent feudalism, status quoism, religious intolerance, disrespect for the law, and preference for isolationism that are a throwback to the past that this country desperately needs to break away from.
The upshot of it all is to argue that investing parliament with sovereign powers is as important as its commitment to norms and principles of parliamentary democracy. Parliament's strength does not arise from constitutional provisions, but from its own usefulness and efficacy. Where parliament responds to and serves the needs of the electorate, it is able through moral integrity and the support of the people to ensure respect for its writs by all other institutions of the state.
The leadership to bring about such a change in political culture must come from parliament itself and, although the immediate prospects may not appear to be very encouraging, there is still reason for hope. 'An institution,' wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "is but the lengthy shadow of one man." How the new parliament develops will be shaped largely by whoever is the leader of the house.
He or she can choose to dissipate the parliament's energies in debates questioning the legitimacy under which it functions or in attempts to retrieve those of its powers that have been abridged by the LFO. Or he can choose the path of pragmatism, accepting that there is no magic wand by which this fractured assembly can help transform society or, given the intellectual and moral limitations of the representatives, propose policies better than the existing ones to solve the serious internal and external problems facing the country. Similarly, Gen Musharraf has the choice of taking the institution of the presidency in a positive or negative direction.
There is little point to debating whether the system envisaged under the LFO is workable or not. It is not. It is a self-serving amalgam, born out of force of circumstances, and should be treated at best as an unavoidable transitory arrangement.
The larger national interest lies in ensuring that the new parliament and government become accountable during their incumbency, that their valid efforts to bring other state institutions to account are not hindered and that this parliament, no matter how many governments are made and broken, lasts out a full term. If General Musharraf and the prime minister together can effect a constitutional transfer of power from this parliament to the next, it will be an important milestone in the transition to democracy.

Shahid Scheik, Dawn, November 4, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/04/op.htm#1

More Women in Parliament

The allocation of female seats in the legislatures was a commendable step for the promotion of female representation in the political system of the country.
The crisis of female representation came to the fore after the provision of the reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies under the 1973 Constitution expired after the 1988 elections.
The securing of the reserve seats will have a positive impact on the promotion of female rights in society. The election of a number of female candidates on general seats from the remote areas to the national and provincial assemblies indicate that the society would be more accommodative of their role as representatives in future.
The lack of women representation in the assemblies reflected on the political system. The women who constitute around 41 per cent of the total eligible voters had below 0.5 per cent representation in the electoral system. Despite their sizable vote bank which increased during the five previsions elections, the women had a negligible representation in the legislatures.
It became apparent after the 1988 elections when the provision for special seats for women in the national and provincial assemblies expired. A need then arose for making legislation to restore the female seats in the assemblies but no consensus could be reached on the issue between the two leading political parties - the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
This would not have been difficult if they had agreed to do so. A two-thirds majority was required for the legislation to restore female seats but nothing was done. In the wake of 1996 elections, when the PML-N secured a landslide victory and got rid of the 8th Amendment, it showed little interest in the issue of the restoration of female seats.
The Pakistani political system has always been marred by the crisis of participation and representation. Having been under martial law for much of its existence, the country finds a specific class of ruling elite whenever a democratic order was allowed.
A class of society, comprising feudals, the moneyed people and the industrialists had been in power and in opposition. A large section of society seemed unable to be elected to the assemblies on a party or individual basis. In wider political analysis such an inadequate representation under an elected system cannot ensure the promotion of women's rights in society.
In addition to that male chauvinism in an entrenched tribal and rural social system was a major handicap for women to contest the elections. Those who supported female representation believed that women's rights under a democratic system can be better secured if they are allowed a separate electoral or reserved seats system.
In the past political parties gaining strength on ideological or ethnic grounds, such as Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-i-Ulema Islam, Balochistan National Movement, Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party and even Mohajir Qaumi Movement hardly allotted a seat or two for female contestants.
They supported the doctrine of lower and middle class people participation and raised their voice in support of female rights but in practice did not nominate female candidates in elections. The ratio of women elected on their party seats was below one per cent. While the ratio of women's votes in favour of the parties' candidates was fairly high.

Mansoor Akbar Kundi, Dawn, November 4, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/04/op.htm#1

Oath-Taking Only Under Real
Constitution: Qazi

The Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal Vice President Qazi Hussain Ahmed on Monday reiterated that the religious parties' MNAs-elect would take oath under the Constitution which was suspended on October 12, 1999.
"It is our firm decision to take oath under the Constitution, and Legal Framework Order (LFO) is not part of it," Qazi Hussain Ahmed said while talking to newsmen here along with Maulana Fazlur Rehman and other MMA leaders.
Qazi went on to maintain that the newly elected MNAs are well aware about the oath under the Constitution or the LFO. "We believe that the Constitution suspended on October 12, 1999, is the real constitution under which we will take oath."
To a question about LFO, he charged that the present government has been taking extra-constitutional measures for the last three years. "The one man decisions are not acceptable to the religious parties, as well as other three parties who signed a six-point joint declaration," he said.
We, he said, "are working on six-point declaration that comprises restoration of 1973 Constitution in accordance with what it was in original form before October 12, 1999, when this government took over. "We do not accept the National Security Council and its powers," he added.
"Maulana Fazlur Rehman is our unanimous candidate and he represents the deprived class," Qazi said, adding that the voter behind our success want to see him (Fazl) as Chief Executive in the new government.
To a question, he said the problems would be resolved after the assembly session is held. "All problems will be settled in due course of time after a process is started."
Meanwhile, the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal leadership, here on Monday, reaffirmed its stand not to withdraw Maulana Fazlur Rehman being its proposed candidate for the office of Prime Minister, while entering into arrangements with other political groups for formation of a government.
The MMA's Supreme Council meeting concentrated on the PM issue, after the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) did not come up with a clear cut announcement on its earlier commitment given to the MMA supporting Maulana Fazlur Rehman as premier.
"There is complete unanimity among the central leaders that Maulana Fazlur Rehman would be the prime minister in future government set-up, as no one of the two groups namely Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPP-P) is in a position to go without its (religious parties) support," said MMA leader Maulana Ghafoor Haideri when this correspondent approached him.
The meeting was basically convened to allocate Senate seats to the component parties. "The focus remained on prime minister issue and the formation of government, instead of finalizing the Senate seats," Haideri said.
In response to a question, he said the MMA leaders started another meeting in late hours of Monday to discuss the matter, and "may be able to announce about the Senate seats tomorrow (Tuesday). "This is an internal matter and we have no problem in finalizing these."
However, he said that the MMA and PML(N) leadership discussed in detail for launching joint candidates in two provinces, Punjab and Sindh to obtain some Senate seats. "Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan led a PML(N) delegation, that discussed with Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Maulana Fazlur Rehman about the possibilities of entering into arrangements."

The nation, November 5, 2002,
http://www.syberwurx.com/nation/daily/today/main/top4.htm

Post-Election 2002: A Silver Lining?

A genuine power play is currently underway in Pakistan. Politicians and the establishment are the two main antagonists in this power play. Very important for the evolution of genuine democracy in Pakistan. After decades Pakistan's uniformed political managers maybe recognising the limits to managed politics. Their blue print for the 2002 version of IJI is still to be implemented. The hurdles in its implementation persist. They range from the PML(Q)'s inability to get it right in the numbers game to getting the MMA to take the oath under the vastly amended Constitution.
Although the die has still not been cast on which way Pakistan's post Election 2002 scenario is headed, problems for the establishment have increased. If the politicians, not currently patronised by the establishment, have still not been able to firm up a coalition arrangement it is because a genuine coalition, not a pre-cooked one, is being worked out. Similarly the pro-Musharraf PML(Q), despite being the establishment's flag carrier , has been unable to as yet garner majority support in the parliament. The key group that the PML(Q) had banked on, the coalition of religio-political parties the MMA, appears unwilling to enter into an alliance with it. PML(Q) has rather quickly recognised that MMA is not the 'natural ally' that the PML(Q) leadership had maintained it was. MMA is into real power play. It is no longer anybody's party. Its posturing and parleys with all political forces including the establishment makes it no more an establishment party than others who have entered into a dialogue at different points with the establishment.
As the future of Pakistan's parliamentary politics unfolds four key points emerge as the silver lining in Pakistan's difficult and indeed dicey democratic period. One, that as far as the supremacy of the parliament, of the elected representatives and indeed of the vote is concerned, the ball is in the politicians' court. They have to demonstrate their ability to stand together to uphold at least some basic principles of democracy. They have to move beyond their political hostilities and competition, which of course is integral and legitimate within a democratic set-up. Instead they have to agree on some basic 'rules of the game' including the limits of establishment power and the responsibilities of the elected players. For all its confusion and delay in coalition building, Pakistan is witnessing a genuine post-election democratic process. This is all legitimate power play; at least where no 'invisible hands' are directing the political choir. Naturally the struggle and the negotiations will be over power sharing within the coalition partners. Politics is for power. Seeking positions and bargaining over it on the basis of one's own party strength is genuine.
Two, Pakistan's uniformed establishment is recognising the limits to its authority as well as the limits to which it can alone work out a vision for Pakistan. The largely fair and honest polling, for which the establishment deserves praise, has demonstrated that the people of Pakistan are prompted by considerations vastly different from that of the establishment when it comes to casting their votes. Benazir Bhutto's legal and establishment hounding, her corruption charges, her government's performance and even her occasionally questionable statements on foreign policy matters were not elements that were going to keep the voters away from the PPP. While the candidates' own personality made a difference, the key factor certainly was the Bhutto name.
After all the voters have brought Benazir's party back in the fray as the second largest political party holding 81 National Assembly seats. Similarly the political defeat of some of the establishment's favourite candidates and now the possibility of the most unlikely alliance between the MMA and the ARD must indicate to the establishment the paucity of its own political wisdom. The establishment has banked, at least in this round, largely on the bankruptcy of the political class. Part of the bankruptcy has also meant the inflexibility of certain political players. All that may be proven wrong. Maybe some fundamentals of Pakistanis politics will now be re-written; of reconciliation between previously irreconcilable players. Whatever the outcome of the current power play, the establishment will not have the last laugh on the Pakistani politics. With every passing day the political players are likely to establish and expand their own influence on the political scene; an influence that they had willingly ceded to the establishment over the past decades when their party and personality hostilities had pushed genuine political power play in the back ground, allowing the GHQ scripts to dictate the power play.
Three, a new experiment of genuine coalition making, a process of maturing power play is now under way. Pakistani politicians, pushed ironically together by the very establishment whose script would militate against unity of political parties, are now entering into genuine negotiations for genuine power sharing. Unlikely partners now hustle together, not in hidden conspiratorial ways but through open and transparent negotiations. As political figures like Benazir Bhutto, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Altaf Hussain and others negotiate it is a good omen for Pakistan's democratic process. PPP has shown political maturity by agreeing to an MMA candidate as the PM despite its own larger share of seats. If this agreement holds then MMA and PPP would also be in a position to bridge the unnecessary but real deadly divides among the religious and the rest in society, not just in politics. Mutual co-existence on some agreed upon principles is required.
Finally, the political dividing line between the pro-Musharraf and the other political parties is the restoration of the original Constitution and above all a rejection of the supra Constitutional body the National Security Council. The debate in the dividing line is neither foreign policy matters, nor the implementation of the shariah. These issues are of significance too and at the policy level will have to be worked out between the coalition partners. Yet different approaches in these two areas certainly is not viewed as irreconcilable by the MMA, the PPP and the PML(N). Politics is indeed the art of the possible. Depending on how this ARD-MMA coalition building fares many past impossibilities will appear possible. Meanwhile for Pakistanis the supremacy of the parliament has to be the key issue. It is the very foundation of genuine democracy.
Significantly the future of Pakistani politics still rests with General Pervez Musharraf. He still has with him the powers to dismiss the elected assembly if he considers it necessary for the 'national good' or 'national security.' Exercise of such powers will naturally draw him zero gains. And indeed a minus scorecard for Pakistan. Whoever manages the majority in the assembly has to simply be invited to form the government. The rest has to follow according to the actual Constitution.

Nasim Zehra, The News, November 7, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

NA Session Put Off by a Week: No New
Date Fixed

The government on Wednesday postponed the first session of the newly elected National Assembly for 'about a week' in a move that will delay the planned transfer of power to a civilian government.
A government announcement said the session, earlier set for Friday, had been delayed in response to demands by some politicians and because of 'logistical reasons,' but it did not give a new date for the meeting that must elect a prime minister. "The exact (new) date will be announced soon," it added.
The postponement will mean the delay in the transfer of President Pervez Musharraf's power of Chief Executive to the new prime minister.
The move was immediately denounced by opposition People's Party Parliamentarians (PPP) as a ploy to help the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) muster the required strength for the election of its nominee as prime minister.
The government move comes only a day after 15-party Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) and the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) of six religio-political parties agreed to put up joint candidates for prime minister and the National Assembly speaker and said they had the required majority to win the offices.
Before the brief postponement announcement, an official statement quoted President Pervez Musharraf as telling his cabinet on Wednesday that the government had "noted suggestions made by certain political leaders for the postponement ... to facilitate the ongoing consultations and discussions amongst them for the formation of an elected government."
He said the government was "keen that the country receives a stable democratic government and would give due consideration to every suggestion that helps achieve this objective." However, the statement quoted the president as making it clear that "the government would like an early convening of the National Assembly and there was, therefore, no question of an indefinite postponement as has been reported in a section of the press today."
"In response to the request made by heads of some political parties and for logistical reasons, the first session of the National Assembly has been delayed for about a week," the government announcement said.
The ARD and MMA on Tuesday withheld the names of their joint candidates, although the PPP had previously named Makhdoom Amin Fahim and the MMA Maulana Fazlur Rehamn for prime minister.
The PML-Q, nicknamed by critics as the 'king's party,' on Tuesday demanded a postponement of the session in a move seen by its opponents as a manifestation of a lacking of the required majority support in the 342-seat house to have its nominee, Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, elected as prime minister.
The PPP said the postponement was based on 'mala fide intent' and "motivated by the desire of the regime to assist the pro- regime king's party muster the requisite strength to enable it to form the government."
"The postponement...has lent credence to the perception that the regime is manipulating the post-election dynamics to weaken the anti-regime political parties," a PPP statement said.
It recalled that "such manipulation in the past in 1971" had disastrous consequences for the country and said: "The PPP demands immediate convening of the National Assembly and smooth transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people."
This was a reference to the postponement of the first session of the National Assembly elected in 1970 by then military ruler Gen Yahya Khan that led to the military action in former East Pakistan and the subsequent war that led to the creation of Bangladesh.
The PPP emerged as the second largest group with 81 seats and MMA third with 60, but they said on Tuesday they had garnered 174 votes with support of other groups which would be enough to elect their prime minister.
Parliament's inauguration has not been officially notified in the government gazette, and no member-elect has received official notification or invitation. Members-elect are normally given around four days' prior notification, add agencies.
"We have not yet issued notification for the November 8 session and we are waiting for government instructions," an official at the national assembly secretariat said.
Fahim Refuses to Back Fazlur Rehman as
Candidate for PM

ARD leader Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan formally announced JUI chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman as the ARD candidate for PM's office late Thursday night but PPP leader Makhdoom Amin Fahim told reporters at Nawabzada's residence that he was not so sure about his party's support to ARD candidate.
The major change in PPP-ARD leadership stance over future prime minister was witnessed when both separately talked to Sindhi newsmen on Thursday night, giving the most clear indication yet that PPP was still considering other options and trying to work out some deal outside the ARD.
Nasrullah Khan asked the PPP to give the name for the speaker of National Assembly to the ARD as he considered the issue of PM closed, but Makhdoom Amin Fahim said he would give both the names, for the PM and the Speaker, in a couple of days. When asked about Makhdoom's reluctance to name Fazlur Rehman as PM's candidate, Nawabzada said "everybody has a right to his opinion, but we will wait."
Makhdoom Amin Fahim's reply in the talks with the Sindhi press is being taken as a major policy shift as earlier, the PPP had cleared the name of MMA leader Maulana Fazalur Rehman for the slot of prime minister and was content with the National Assembly speakership and chairman Senate.
When asked about the Qazi Hussain Ahmad's statement against PPP issued in Lahore that PPP was black mailing the ARD, Nawabzada said, this was his personal comment and everybody had the right to have one.
Nawabzada said, he was told by PPP leadership that they would not strike any deal with PML-QA because of their sharp differences and will give the names in a couple of days.
Makhdoom on the occasion said, that he was open to dialogue and negotiations with all political parties as in politics nothing is final. He said, the party was contacting Benazir Bhutto in the U.S. and would soon inform the ARD about its final decisions.

The News, November 8, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Prospect of Defections Haunts PPP

The prospect of defections from the PPP has not subsided as reportedly 17 MNAs-elect have assured Faisal Saleh Hayat of their support and he tried to strike an unsuccessful deal with the PML-QA which found his demands too 'bothersome.'
A PPP insider admitted that the party had so far identified only five MNAs who were reportedly ready to ditch the party if an occasion arose. The source said, according to their information, besides Faisal Saleh Hayat, Raza Hayat Hiraj, Nouraz Shakoor, Munawar Manj and Rai Sikandar could ditch the party.
The sources said no headway could be made in the talks between the PML-QA and the so-called forward group of the PPP because the latter's demands were too unrealistic for the Q League to accept in the given political situation. The PPP group was seeking post of National Assembly speaker in addition to several posts in the new cabinet, they added.
However, the sources said, the PML-QA was not ready to believe the 'rebellious' group because the party was suspicious of their willingness to part ways with the PPP which was in a position to form government with the MMA.
Meanwhile, the PPP sources said, they received their own reports regarding likely defection by the PPPP MNAs and called all the suspect parliamentarians to Islamabad where, after extended discussion, assurances about their loyalty were obtained.
Reportedly, all the MNAs assured the party leadership about their loyalty and dismissed the rumours about their likely defection. The sources said no major dent would be made in the PPP unless 30-40 MNAs forsake the party.
Moreover, he said, in the given uncertain political situation no MNA from the party could take the risk of defecting because they would lose ticket in the next election. They knew very well that those who had defected from the party in the past had committed political suicide, he added.

Rauf Klasra, The News, November 8, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

MMA, GNA Agree to Continue Talks

The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal and Grand National Alliance evolved 'strategic understanding' on retaining and deleting several provisions of the Legal Framework Order, but differed on the referendum as a basis of presidential election, president's discretionary powers and the president in uniform.
However, both the groups urged the government to immediately convene the National Assembly session as delay was causing unnecessary disappointment for the public. "The two sides have made progress in their talks by agreeing to continue the process of consultation for the formation of government at the Centre and breaking the lingering political deadlock after the October 10 elections," said a joint statement of the MMA and GNA following their post-Taraveeh talks on Saturday.
The legal wizards of the two sides - Ch Amir Hussain and Arbab Ghulam Rahim from the GNA, and Liaquat Baloch and Hafiz Hussain Ahmed from the MMA - met on Sunday and identified areas of agreement and differences about the LFO.
This 4-member GNA-MMA committee was formed following an agreement reached between their leaders, who discussed the formation of government, political deadlock, restoration of constitution and the controversial Legal Framework Order.
A joint declaration released on Sunday said both the groups have agreed to continue their talks for the formation of the government, supremacy and independence of the parliament and restoration of the constitution.
The declaration further said that both the groups would cooperate with each other in accordance with the democratic culture and principles to take forward the political and democratic process, if any of the group got a chance to form the government.
Following the high-level meeting of both the groups, the 4-member joint committee discussed clause-by-clause all the issues including the restoration of the constitution, LFO, and overall political scenario.
One of the members of this committee told The News that three types of categories have been identified in the LFO: First, some provisions like NSC should be deleted; two, some provisions like holding of polls, voting age and change in the number of seats in the Senate, National and Provincial Assemblies and others should be retained in the LFO; and finally, the clauses and provisions including the presidential discretionary powers, referendum as a basis for presidential elections and others where the two sides differ.
Now, the committee will present its report to the summit level joint meeting of the MMA and GNA. This meeting will be held on Monday after Taraveeh, and it may be make-or-break meeting.
Following the Monday meeting and if the agreement is reached, PML-Q Parliamentary Leader Ch Shujaat Hussain will take these proposals to the government for discussion and decision.
Earlier, leaders of both the groups agreed that they would work in harmony to dispense their responsibilities in the supreme national interest, as being public representatives they knew how to deal with issues pertaining to the formation of government in accordance with the constitution, rules and regulations of the National Assembly.
The leaders also discussed thoroughly the issues of LFO, establishment of the National Security Council, Article 58-2(B) of the constitution, presidential discretionary powers, reserved seats and joint electorate system.
During Saturday talks, foreign, national, media, and economic policies, implementation of suggestions of the Islamic Ideological Council, and restoration of Friday as weekly holiday also came under discussion.
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Liaquat Baloch, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed and Syed Amir Hussain Gilani represented the MMA during the talks. Ch Shujaat Hussain, Sardar Farooq Khan Leghari, Shaikh Rashid Ahmed, Ch Amir Hussain and Mohammad Ali Durrani represented the GNA.

Shakil Shaikh, The News, November 11, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

23 PML-QA MNAs-Elect Decide to
Rejoin PML-N

As much as 23 MNAs-elect from PML-QA have decided to defect and rejoin PML-N after getting 'poor response' from the top leadership of the party, it has been learnt.
Sources close to the PML-QA top leadership told The News that these MNAs-elect had formally contacted the PML-N leadership and expressed their desire to rejoin the party. These MNAs were promised important slots in the National Assembly but later refused on the pretext that the party had to give slots to other allies and the party, which joined hands with them in establishing the government in the centre, they said.
They said the 'poor response' from the top leadership had forced them to contact their parent party leaders with a few guarantees that they would be accommodated against different slots in the lower house of the legislation if the party came to power or got its share in the centre or any province.
These MNAs waiting for proper time to defect belonged to Sialkot, Muzzaffargarh, Narowal, Kasur, Faisalabad and Khushab, they said adding that the list was with former PML-N MNA and state minister from Muridkey, who, on the directions from Jeddah, were busy holding secret meetings with these MNAs. The brave Rajput from Muridkey, who was in the NAB custody for over a year but did not bow, was stated to be the most trusted man of both PML-N leader Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and President Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif. The former MNA was trying his best to contact all the veterans of the party who had left it just to save themselves from cases. All his activity was so secret that even the senior leaders of the PML-QA were unaware of the secret meetings and the would-be deal and they remained busy in the centre.
The maverick of the PML-N was playing his cards one after the other in accordance with the directions he was getting from Jeddah, the sources claimed. The prevalent political situation forced them to first leave their parent party and join the king's party. After winning from their constituencies, they were promised slots but Chaudhrys, who were under great pressure from other parties, could not be able to fulfil their promises. The 'poor response' from their new leadership, forced them to get back to their parent party, where they at least had enjoyed a respectable position besides slots by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
Sources in the PML-N, confirming the report, said a senior leader from Muridkey was entrusted the task by the party's leadership to do the job and he was successfully doing it. They said that if the defection law was passed, majority of the MNAs from PML-QA would rejoin PML-N as they knew that immediately after the army exit from the government, they might not survive in the PML-Q as already differences were cropping up in the party over the division of different slots both in centre and provinces.

Arslan Rafiq Bhatti, The News, November 11, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

'Q' Reluctant to be PPPP's Sole
Coalition Partner

Pakistan Muslim League (Q) is reluctant to go with Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians as a sole coalition partner in the future setup, party sources told The Nation Sunday.
It would be incredulous to bring arch-rivals of the past together in wake of regime's failure to persuade all the parliamentary forces to evolve a government of national consensus, the sources described.
The sources were of the view that Q-League would only enter into power-sharing formula with PPP-P if other parliamentary forces also showed their willingness to become part of the consensus government. The Q-League would not budge from its stand of getting the top slot since being the largest party, it claims that is a legitimate demand.
According to the sources, the parliamentarians of the Q-League have strongly opposed any effort on the part of leadership to forge a two-party alliance with their ideological rival (PPP-P).
The MNAs-elect of the party are said to have conveyed their message to their parliamentary leader that the alliance with PPP-P would tantamount to compromise on the electoral slogans since the major vote-bank of the party belongs to anti-Bhutto section of the society.
The parliamentary leader of the party, Ch. Shujat Hussain, convened the meetings of the party's parliamentarians in order to know their opinion about the possible coalition with PPP-P.
The opinion emerging after intra-party consolation pointed out that majority of the Q-Leaguers tilted towards MMA which, according to them, was closer to Q's ideological convictions, the sources maintained.
"There is no light at the end of tunnel," political sources observed talking about the chances of any deal with the leadership of PPP-P. The sources were optimistic about the ongoing talks with MMA, and said that the consensus has partly been evolved between both alliances (GNA and MMA) and the rest of the issues are also expected to be sorted out within next one or two days.
They claim that the leadership of religio-political alliance has shown its flexibility over some crucial clauses of Legal Framework Order and the remaining differences would also be ironed out soon.

Going Through the Motions

Elections are already history. The trio of PML(Q), PPP and MMA have been struggling to come to an understanding between themselves about issues and policies relating to government formation. Two out of the three must join hands to form a stable coalition.
But these parties, along with their candidates for the coveted post of Prime Minister - Mir Zafrullah Jamali, Amin Fahim and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, respectively - are as much masters of the political situation as they are allowed by circumstances.
Among those of other political actors, the formidable role of President Musharraf continues to cast its shadow on the way political negotiations are progressing. He is the architect of the political as well as constitutional framework that produced the post-election conundrum in the first place. The nature of his role in the new set-up is the kingpin of the whole process of government formation.
Indeed, there are two parallel processes currently in progress: one, negotiations between the three contenders for power in the parliament and between each of them and smaller groups such as the PML(N), Muttahida Qaumi Movement, PPP (Sherpao) and various minuscule parties; two, negotiations between the Musharraf government on the one hand and various big and small parties on the other . The former process is front-stage, open and generally covered by the media. The latter is back-stage, secret and only sparingly reported by the press.
Initially, the PML(Q) felt comfortable with the MMA as a traditional ally in its bid for power. But, the latter has changed over time. It was not ready for co-option any more, after its impressive performance in the October elections. It staked its claim as a serious contender for power and showed a level of tenacity in its new role which surprised even its erstwhile senior partners in the PML(Q).
On its part, the MMA looked at the PML(Q) as a party of the president, which had no leader and no policy profile of its own. The MMA's electoral performance drew essentially on its stand against President Musharraf's pro-US policies in the context of the war against terrorism. An alliance with the PML(Q) would have required it to sign on the dotted line of Islamabad's foreign policy and thus turn against its mandate.
Similarly, that option would have forced it to accept the writ of the military-bureaucratic establishment, which had been perceived and projected by the ulema as essentially pro-western and potentially secular.
Ideally, President Musharraf would have liked the MMA's MNAs on his side but not its policies and priorities. The military establishment has amply shown an inclination to use what it considers the 'Islamic card' against contenders for power especially the PPP. But after the elections, it considers the MMA to be too big for its boots and has shunned bargaining with it.
The PML(Q) duly obliged, and turned to smaller parties in its bid to muster numerical strength to form government without the MMA and the PPP. However, its candidate for prime minister, Mir Jamali, has no support base of his own, either institutionally, that is, in the PML(Q), or locally, that is, in his home province of Balochistan. A leader only in name, Jamali would have served the purpose of the military government in the context of a different party count in the parliament.
The Musharraf government's interaction with the PML(Q) is largely perceived as an in-house arrangement. At the other end, it has shunned the MMA as its nemesis. Holding the third position in the parliament, the MMA represents a mandate which cuts across the aims and objectives of the ruling elite in terms of its strategic priorities, diplomatic profile as well as its educational and cultural policies.
However, the government seriously pursued secret negotiations with the PPP during the last four weeks. As a party which shares a major part of its national, regional and international perspective with the government, the PPP was no outsider to the political system.
All this reflects the fact that the deadlock is not between the three parties, as largely covered by the media, but essentially between the two - the PML(Q) and the PPPP. In more precise terms, it is a deadlock between President Musharraf and the PPP leadership. For President Musharraf, the real question is: how not to transfer real power and yet gain legitimacy by installing a representative government in Islamabad.
For Benazir Bhutto, the issue is multi-faceted. First, her party has made a comeback against heavy odds. It feels that a PML(Q)-led government would be considered a government of President Musharraf under another garb and thus create a dampening effect on the democratic sentiment throughout the country.
The PPP has argued that a government led by itself could create a new image for the ruling set-up at home and make it more acceptable to the EU, Commonwealth, SAARC and the international community in general.
The PPP has all along maintained a liberal stance on international issues, Islamic politics, as well as economic, cultural and educational policies. It boasts of a relatively stable leadership in both organizational and operational terms than its rivals such as the PML(Q), which is headless, or the MMA which has a collegial pattern of leadership led by the two heads of the JI and JUI.
The PPP's handling of the post-election situation of utter confusion relating to government formation reflects its cautious approach to an agreement with the Musharraf government. For the latter, it involves a partial loss of political initiative inasmuch as Benazir Bhutto would continue to direct the party activity by remote control. The strength of the PPP is a minus point for the military government.
Benazir has kept her options open by getting the ARD on board and keeping the MMA as a possible coalition partner in case the government and its parliamentary allies stay away and the process of government formation is halted at that end. Already, the postponement of the inaugural session of the National Assembly has agitated the public mind. Under these circumstances, President Musharraf would not like to keep the process of coalition-building pending for long.
At stake is reconsideration of the role of President Musharraf in terms of presidential powers under the LFO vis-a-vis parliament and prime minister. The National Security Council as a supra-cabinet body is widely understood to negate the very principle of representative rule. Article 58(2) (b) remains the antithesis of parliamentary sovereignty, much like it was in 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1996. The accountability of elected representatives to the non-elected government functionaries, instead of the electorate at large, is a mockery of public mandates.
The MMA as a contender for power is a residual category. It can lead a coalition government by default, if the two leading contenders fail to agree to coalesce. What will be the profile of a PPPP-MMA coalition government? Will it be a stable coalition? Is it likely to take a tough stand on all the controversial issues facing such a government, with the additional problem of re-electing the president, given the farcical nature of the April referendum? On the other hand, the PML(Q) and the MMA have resumed their talks, after the PPPP is said to have got engaged in serious discussions with the Musharraf government.
All these patterns of negotiations will stare all major players on the political chessboard of the country in the face in the coming days and weeks.
As long as an elected government is not in place, the arbitrary process of law making of the present set-up will continue. An ordinance a day keeps democracy away. Whether the government should make and amend laws even after the October elections is a question of legal morality. It is time to revert to the legitimate process of law making through public representatives.
Ironically, far more than mere numbers on the floors of elected assemblies, it is Islamabad's US policy, Kashmir policy, diplomatic profile in general, future relations with India, and at home Islamization of laws, institutions and public morality that can make or break negotiations between any two or more contenders for power.

Mohammad Waseem, Dawn, November 13, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/13/op.htm

324 MNAs-Elect Sworn in: Speaker, Deputy Speaker's Election on Tuesday

The first session of the National Assembly was held on Saturday in which 324 MNAs-elect took the oath, heralding the dawn of a new era of democracy after three years of military rule.
The session started amidst a brief uproar by Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal's Hafiz Hussain Ahmad to be followed by Javed Hashmi of the PML-N and Syed Naveed Qamar of the PPP. They said their MNAs would take the oath only under the 1973 Constitution and not under the Legal Framework Order.
The former Speaker of the National Assembly, Illahi Bakhsh Soomro, who later administered the oath to the MNAs, assured them that they would be sworn in under the 1973 Constitution and there was no confusion about that. He showed to the members the relevant clauses of the Constitution for taking the oath.
"There has been no change in the wording of the oath of members. Therefore, there is no need to be worried about," he declared.
A majority of the members welcomed the announcement by Mr Soomro, who was acting as the presiding officer, by thumping their desks.
Election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker will be held on Tuesday for which nomination papers will be received up to 12 noon on Monday.
When Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat and Rao Sikandar Iqbal of the PPP's forward bloc were called to put their signatures on the register, some of the members shouted 'lota, lota.'
Mr Soomro congratulated the members on their election and the restoration of democracy after three years. He said people had great expectations from them and hoped they would perform in a better way.
The presiding officer called upon the members to keep personal interest aside and work for strengthening democracy and prove to the world that people of Pakistan always looked for democracy. All the members thumped their desks when he stated: "Parliament is a supreme body and everything flows from this august House."
The newly-renovated hall of the National Assembly was jam-packed as more seats were brought in to accommodate 125 additional members, including 60 women members and 10 representatives of minorities.
The increased strength of the National Assembly is 342, but only 324 of them were present to take the oath. Some of the members who had also won their provincial election did not take the oath as members of the National Assembly. Seven members were elected from two constituencies each; at least one member was out of the country and the election result from one constituency is still awaited.
Seven members who were elected from more than one seats and took the oath were Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Aitzaz Ahsan, Shaikh Rashid Ahmed, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Sardar Asif Nakai. They were the first ones to be invited to sign the Roll of the Members.
The session, which was convened at 11am, was delayed by about half an hour during which the MNAs kept meeting each other.
PML-Q's parliamentary party leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain was prominent in seeing his party colleagues. He especially met Mr. Hayat, the leader of the PPP's forward bloc.
Provincial governors, services chiefs and diplomats witnessed the proceedings of the National Assembly which, due to the condition of graduation for the MNAs, is said to be the only all-graduate national assembly in Asia.

Dawn, November 17, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/17/top1.htm

A Democratic Future

The 342-member National Assembly came into being yesterday with the swearing-in of the legislators elected on October 10. Before that, General Pervez Musharraf had taken oath as president for a five-year term based on the April referendum.
The legislators were sworn-in according to the oath contained in the 1973 Constitution, and some MNAs made it a point to emphasize that this is what they were doing, thereby making clear their reservations about the Legal Framework Order.
However, the oath taking passed off without any serious interruptions. The election of the speaker and deputy speaker has been scheduled for Tuesday and of the prime minister shortly thereafter. But the shape of the new government was still mired in inconclusive negotiations even as the house met. The Constitution has also been revived minus some key clauses, including the one prohibiting floor crossing.
This is seen as a manoeuvre to retain space for enticing more MNAs to the side of pro-government parties till a working majority can be mustered. A feature of the new house that deserves notice is the large presence of women on the legislative benches, a development that should improve both the content and tone of parliamentary proceedings. The government's intentions with regard to the convening of provincial assemblies and formation of the Senate remained unclear till this writing.
The National Assembly has met within the context of the military intervention of 1999, its validation by the Supreme Court, the court's direction that elections be held within three years, the steps taken by the military government during this period, and gross interference with the electoral process.
An assembly born in such circumstances should be seen as the outcome of a flawed, tightly managed exercise. Its effectiveness will be further circumscribed by the presence of a president in uniform armed with the power to dissolve parliament. However, on the other side, there can be the more positive view that large sections of the electorate defied pressure and blandishments and voted according to its choice, and that the assembly is not as unrepresentative of the popular will as might appear at first sight or might be suggested to be the case.
The military's role in the country's politics has never been subjected to so much scrutiny and debate as now, and even a tentative return to representative governance will consolidate this positive trend. The longevity of direct army rule is gradually being shortened, and if parliament plays its cards well and wisely, we may begin to move towards an era of unfettered democracy.
The most immediate test of wills will be on the LFO. Should it be considered a part of the 1973 Constitution or be treated as being open to debate? There is little disagreement on many of its provisions, but several are controversial, including those relating to the National Security Council and Section 58(2)(b). If the president is sensitive to popular opinion, he should have the contentious clauses encapsulated in a bill and have it moved for parliament's approval, indicating his readiness to accept the outcome. This may break the current logjam, but more important than that, it will make a clean break with the past practice of army chiefs seizing power and then 'restoring' democracy in tightly controlled doses.
It is impossible to believe that we can continue to have our politics run forever by a small group of unelected people who have an almost messianic faith in their own wisdom. There has to be a democratic future for us.

Dawn, Editorial, November 17, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/17/ed.htm

Cracks in GNA over Speakership

Cracks have appeared in pro-government Grand National Alliance over the office of Speaker National Assembly, as the National Alliance have refused to attend the GNA's joint parliamentary party meeting scheduled here for today (Monday), The Nation has learnt.
The parliamentary party of National Alliance met here with Muhammad Ali Durrani in the chair, and unanimously decided not to attend the joint parliamentary party meeting being held at the national assembly secretariat.
The NA meeting also decided to adopt a resolute stand over the office of Chief Minister Sindh, as the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid) had given an assurance in this regard. "Yes, we are not going to attend the meeting, which should be called not a GNA meeting but a PML-Q meeting," Riaz Hussain Pirzada told The Nation here shortly after the NA parliamentary party meeting.
Pirzada said he has filed his nomination papers for the speakership and would be contesting the elections. "We all were of the view that we should not attend the meeting convened by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in protest against the one-sided decisions on part of the PML-Q despite the fact that we are active members under the banner of GNA."
Another MNA Saleem Jan Mizari also endorsed the views of Riaz Hussain Pirzada, and said the Q-League has yet to accept their demand for the CM Sindh slot. "They cannot take a decision without taking us in confidence."
Mehmood Hashmi, the NA spokesman, informed that the parliamentary party meeting dicussed all issues including the prime ministership, speakership and the CM Sindh and "unanimously decided not to participate in the meeting convened by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain."
Hashmi said in response to a question that the NA parliamentary party meeting expressed reservations over the decisions being taken by the Q League and not accepting our demands. "What can I say, this is upto our parliamentary party leader Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari," he said when asked whether there were chances of withdrawing supporting to PML-Q.
Meanwhile, hectic political dialogue between three mainstream parliamentary groups continued late into the night, as everyone is testing each others' nerves at a time when today (Monday) noon is the last date to file nomination papers for the office of speaker and deputy speaker national assembly.
The tripartite dialogue that began in the morning hours when PML-Q Parliamentary Leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain called on Maulana Fazulur Rehman at Madrisa Haqqania, and exchanged views over a formal agreement between the GNA and MMA about forming a joint government in centre.
The sources informed that both Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Chaudhry Shujaat refused to compromise on their individual stands on the office of prime minister. "They exchanged views over the LFO's contentious clauses without making clear headway that can lead towards the formation of a joint government between the two alliance, the GNA and MMA."
Shortly after this meeting, Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarian President Makhdoom Amin Fahim went to the residence of Maulana Fazlur Rehman to discuss the current political scenario. "Yes, they held a meeting, but the issues are still at a standstill position."
Later Makhdoom Amin Fahim hosted an Iftar-cum-dinner where all the mainstream politcal leadership except the GNA participated. The political leaders including Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Chaudhary Nisar, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, Tahirul Qadri, and others were seen whispering with each other and huddling together for private talks.
In the late night hours, the MMA leaders, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed and others held their own meeting to exchange views after the PML-Q refused to withdraw its candidate from the slot of prime minister.
There were reports that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain was engaged in a meeting with MMA leadership in the late night hours at an undisclosed place. "At this stage, we cannot say what will be the results of MMA-PML(Q) dialogue," said political sources.
There were also reports that this highly important meeting was also being attended by high government functionaries to talks about the issue of LFO and evolve a patch up between the religious alliance and the GNA.
At the residence of Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, the PPP-P leaders held discussions with him for a couple of hours soon after the Iftar dinner hosted by Makhdoom Amin Fahim. "The PPP-P is too late," source quoted Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan as saying.

Dilshad Azeem, The Nation, November 19, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/181102/main/top1.htm

Majlis Looking for Package Deal

The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) is quite hopeful of clinching the office of the Speaker, as the grand religious body is looking for a package deal as a pre-condition to be part of the government.
Sources in MMA disclosed that the contents of the deal or the package that the parliamentary groups are ready to offer to the later will ultimately determine the fate of future negotiations over the government formation as well whether the MMA joins the government or opt for opposition.
The MMA is engaged in negotiations with both the PML(QA) and PPP.
According to the MMA inside sources, the MMA is very serious about keeping the office of Speakership in the future set-up. "There is a realisation that seeking the office of the PMship will be like crying for the moon, so it is better to be contented with the Speakership," a senior MMA leader murmured.
The sources further revealed that both the PPP and the PML-QA have offered Speakership to the MMA.
He said the talks between the PPP and the MMA have already failed, paving way for religious leadership and PML(Q) to come together to form the coalition government.
The sources said in future negotiations, the nature of the package will figure prominently. The MMA insider informed The Nation that they are looking for a good package, in addition to the Speakership.
In case there is a breakthrough between MMA and PML(QA) or between MMA and PPP, a least likely scenario - though there is a less likelihood of this option - Liaquat Baloch, Naib Amir, JI, will be the MMA candidate for the Speakership.
It is interesting that there are differences in the MMA over the future course of action, the major component of the MMA, JUI-F finds itself closer to ARD. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of the JUI-F, is in constant touch with the top leadership of the ARD as the momentous day is approaching to ascertain as to who will be the Prime Minister of the country.
While Jama'at-i-Islami, which is another influential component of the alliance of the six religious parties, is inclined towards the PML-QA.
Political analysts think that it will be quite interesting to see how the two major components of the MMA reconcile their differences if they opt for joining the government.
According to previous reports, MMA has hinted at sitting on the opposition side. However, if the negotiations between MMA and 'Q' succeed, it will be a major shift from their previous stance.
Meanwhile, a decisive meeting between the MMA and the GNA top leadership is scheduled for Sunday late night. The source said that the GNA has assured the MMA that it would stand by MMA in the House to oppose the contentious amendments pertaining to NSC, 58-2(B) and the power vested in the President for the appointment of the Services Chiefs and the Governors.

Rana Suhail, The Nation, November 19, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/181102/main/top8.htm

MMA to Sit in Opposition, Says Qazi

The parliamentary leader of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, said here on Tuesday the MMA would sit on opposition benches. He was talking to mediamen on the occasion of speaker and deputy speaker elections here at Parliament House.
"Our demands have not been fulfilled so there is no point to further continue the negotiations regarding the formation of government with other political parties," he added.
He said the MMA had differences with PML-Q on Legal Framework Order, powers of president and retaining of both the posts - President and Chief of the Army Staff (COAS); which could not be resolved.
Earlier, talking to the journalists, MMA leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmad said his party still had the same stance that if the president desired to retain his post, he should be elected by the parliament.
Similarly, he said, the constitutional amendments introduced by the present government should also be approved by the parliament by two-thirds majority.
When asked about the decision of Alliance for Restoration of Democracy chief Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan regrading support in favour of Maulana Fazlur Rehman for the slot of prime minister, he said, the other parties in the ARD should respect the decision taken by its leader two weeks ago. The MMA is still firm on its stance and ready to accept the ARD decision, he added.

Dawn, November 20, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/20/top5.htm

Speaker's Election

The success of the PML(Q) in winning the Speaker's election has assured it of a repeat performance in the prime minister's election on November 21 if all things remain equal. Chaudhry Amir Hussain, the King's Party nominee, won with a clear majority with even the total votes polled by his two rivals being less than his. But much as the outcome was definite, the same cannot be said about the election process which left much to be desired. There were too many surprises like unexpected rejection of several votes and fewer votes being cast than the strength of the House that caused considerable disquiet in the House. The sense of the House required the new Speaker to look into the incongruities that marked the solemn occasion.
The election of the speaker, however, is a happy augury of the rebirth of democracy after three years of military rule, as he, more than any other elected office holder reflects the sovereignty, independence and dignity of the Assembly. This places an onerous responsibility on the shoulders of Chaudhry Amir Hussain who will now have to preside over a highly polarised House under the watchful gaze of a khaki shadow. He will need the support of all the members to ensure that the National Assembly far from becoming a mid-term casualty of a whimsical decision completes its term.
The first acid test the new speaker faces will be the election of the prime minister in a contest that, in spite of Tuesday's results, is expected to be close. The political parties might have learnt from the errors they committed in the speaker's election and may put up a better fight. There is too much at stake in the prime minister's office that calls for determined contest. But even if PML(Q) also collects the chief executive's trophy by a show of strength, the tally it musters would still be short of the numbers required to pass the controversial agenda.

The News, Editorial, November 20, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

Tuesday Elections

While the opposition candidates for the posts of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were defeated on Tuesday, all have noted that the government side too failed to rally around 180 members as being projected by its spokesmen. The MMA and PPPP candidates jointly got 151 votes for both seats being contested which indicates their combined strength at present. In case the opposition had put up a joint candidate, and had obtained nine votes for him, he would probably have won. Two reasons made it possible for the government to win the contest. Manipulation of the political process by offstage players being one and distrust between opposition groups being the other. It was obviously interference by the unseen powers which led to defection in the PPPP ranks, reflected in the party's candidate for Speaker getting ten votes less than its official strength. The fact that government officials started interfering on a large scale to secure defection both from the PML(N) and PPPP long before elections was widely noted and commented upon. After the elections the National Assembly session continued to be delayed to help the King's Party consolidate its position. It seems to have been convened only when finally the agencies gave the green signal.
Blatant as the government interference has been, the opposition parties' conduct has also contributed to their defeat. Knowing well that the government was bent upon humiliating them, they failed to close ranks, preferring to give priority to party or personal interests. The ARD decided to support the MMA candidate for the post of the PM while its major component, the PPPP, avoided announcing support for him till the last moment, creating doubts about its real intentions. This led many to conclude Ms Bhutto was reluctant to support the candidature in deference to Washington's reservations. That the party remained ignorant of Ms Bhutto's intentions till the end became clear when the party first declared support for the MMA's candidate for the Deputy Speaker, only to withdraw it on receiving instructions from abroad. The party simultaneously bargained with the MMA and the government, which was widely objected to by its opponents. The MMA too would have been in a better position to bargain with the PPPP if it had not taken a rigid stand on its own nominee for PM. Had the opposition parties developed an early understanding on a joint panel, they would not have given the administration the time it badly needed to manipulate a majority. The electorate had given the opposition enough votes. The latter squandered the advantage through shortsightedness.
The opposition still has a chance to improve its fortunes, provided it can plan beyond gaining personal or party advantages. The National Assembly will have the strongest opposition in its history. It would be quite a task for the government to keep the disparate groups in its coalition together. A united opposition could rally support from dissidents for a possible in-house change. The least it can do is force the government to adhere to the rule of law and good governance and to deter it from encroaching on civil liberties.

The Nation, editorial, November 21, 2002,
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/211102/editor/ed1.htm

Jamali Elected Prime Minister

Bearded Baloch leader Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, a consensus candidate of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-i-Azam and Grand National Alliance was elected Pakistan's 16th Prime Minister by a whisker.
Jamali bagged 172 votes in a House of 342, though in this return-of-democracy battle, 328 votes were polled with one abstaining. It has happened for the first time in the parliamentary history of Pakistan that a Prime Minister has been elected with an overall lead of just one vote over the required 50% votes.
"Mir Zafarullah Jamali has been elected with an overwhelming majority," Speaker Ch Amir Hussain made the announcement following the prime ministerial contest and vote-count. It was followed by thumping of desks, and traditional embraces and congratulations showered on the Baloch Sardar, who at one time served as a security guard for Mather-e-Millat Fatima Jinnah, sister of Quaid-i-Azam, in the early '60s.
"In am thankful to Almighty Allah, and then this House for electing me as Leader of the House," said Prime Minister-elect Zafarullah Jamali in his first address to the National Assembly after he won the confidence of the House through ascertainment secured by division at a special session of the Assembly.
Jamali, the first Baloch to be elected as Prime Minister from the underdeveloped area-wise largest but population-wise smallest province Balochistan, outnumbered his nearest rival from Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal candidate Maulana Fazl-ur Rehman, who secured 86 votes. The third candidate for the contest, the articulate Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who hailed from Multan and belonging to Pakistan People's Party-Parliamentarians, bagged only 70 votes, as 10 of his party colleagues shifted their loyalties.
A total of 329 members, out of 330 present including the Speaker, took part in the election. However, recently elected Mehmood Khan Achakzai, who also hailed from Balochistan, abstained from voting and kept sitting in the House.
Mir Zafarullah Jamali, who was a consensus candidate of Grand National Alliance and a combination of other smaller parties, recorded his name in parliamentary history with distinction, as he is the first Baloch from Naseerabad (NA-266), who has been elected Leader of the House.
Many observers maintain that he was elected Prime Minister with a majority of just one vote over and above the required 50% of the total strength of the House. However, the other view was that the requirement was just 165 votes, as only 329 members were present.
"The Prime Minister-elect owes everything to 10 PPP-P parliamentarians who switched their loyalties, as the law on defection is still kept inoperative," said a PPP(P) member, who regretted that the Prime Minister would continue to thrive on the strength of "turn-coats."
With early proceedings of the House marred by heated debate on the Legal Framework Order, the election for the Prime Minister was conducted on the basis of division, as three lobbies were located where members went in after recording their votes. The members went in lobbies of their choice.
Now the Prime Minister after he takes oath, will have to take vote of confidence within 60 days, though in-between the by-polls on at least 7 seats (to be vacated by those who won two seats) and some others to be vacated by those who opted for provincial assemblies, will be held and the House will be completed.
Intense lobbying took place within the House, as all efforts of the PPP(P) leaders to win back the 'turn-coats' prove abortive. Faisal did not pay any heed to his one time party colleagues. He indulged in hectic arguments to justify his decision, though his decision was not viewed favourably by those who believe in the concept of parliamentary loyalties.
The PML(Q's) efforts to win over Imran Khan also failed, as he voted for the religious leader Maulana Fazl-ur Rehman. Besides the PML(Q), the Grand National Alliance, MQM, PPP-Sherpao, Pakistan Awami Tehrik, PML(Z), PML-Junejo, PML-Functional and several members from FATA voted for stocky Jamali.
The PPP(P) members voted for Qureshi, a parliamentarian par excellence, but in the process the PPP(P) lost 10 votes as Rao Sikandar, Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat and others voted for Jamali, who claimed to have personal friendship with them since his college days. "We have requested for their votes, and not purchased them," said Jamali.
The most interesting decision was taken by the PML-N whose members voted for Maulana Fazalur Rehman. The Prime ministerial election took place after almost six weeks of the October 10 elections, primarily because of the hung parliament, which resulted in prolonged consultative process among the major political groups.
"The entire exercise was calculated and neatly planned with precision to get elected Jamali as Prime Minister," said one political observer, "I think Jamali can better be called as One-Vote Prime Minister."
A large number of ministers, politicians, and foreign envoys witnessed the election proceedings, though fumbling Speaker on many occasions amused those watching the election process.
"Leave behind everything, the democracy is restored and it is nice to see Parliament working for stable and strong democracy," said one MMA leader, who promised to play a constructive opposition role.

New Prime Minister

Pakistan has finally got a prime minister three years and 40 days after the last one was overthrown in a coup halfway through his term, arrested, tried, convicted and banished abroad. The one before was dismissed halfway through her term, indicted in several cases, allowed bail and went into voluntary exile. The new Prime Minister, Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, therefore, takes office under the dark shadow of the fate that struck his two unlucky predecessors. But this should not be a matter of anxiety as given the fact that the outgoing military regime which would now continue in the person of a COAS-President would not like to invite odium by repeating a mid-term denouement. If all things hold, the new prime minister from Balochistan should be able to match the proposed five-year term of the president.
Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali has the distinction of being the first person from Balochistan to rise to the dizzying heights of the chief executive's office. His selection by his party in this respect is a matter of satisfaction, as his province will at last get the attention it deserves. His election might well provide the necessary push to bring the most neglected area of Pakistan at par with other parts of the country.
However, Election 2002 exercise and the results more or less approximate Ziaul Haq's strategy of creating a government that came up to his perception of a civilian ruling system. Mr Mohammad Khan Junejo, a soft-spoken, honest person from Sindh was given the task of materialising the military dictator's scheme. He failed and was dismissed along with the entire political edifice that was constructed. But, while Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, might not be a model of Mr Junejo, his task will be perilously similar. He will have to prove the success of the reforms that have changed the complexion of politics, besides defending the controversial amendments and the LFO that are the foundations of the reforms.
The question, therefore, will not be how well he will fill the bill, but that as a political animal how well will he be able to acquiesce to the awful tasks he will be required to undertake. This will be a critical test of the military regime's three-year long exercise to create a brave new Pakistan.
However, much as President Musharraf and the generals would like to ensure the success of their plans and even bend some of their own laws, it is difficult to see the future government having an easy run. The agenda the Jamali regime will be required to fulfill is arduous, the opposition, unlike the past, will be formidable and aggressive and the new prime minister is not assured of finding a strong team from among his party colleagues. But probably the most challenging factor will be the depressing shade of the NSC on the sidelines, of which, ironically he too will have to be a member and will be required to deliberate on the fate of his government.

The News, Editorial, November 22, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

An Uncertain Start

The country has a new prime minister after three years of military rule. The COAS, who acted as Chief Executive in that period, remains president under the dispensation largely fashioned by him, and the political scene bristles with contradictions.
It is still uncertain whether the life of present parliament will prove more durable than of its predecessors and representative government will come to be accepted, worked and respected as a permanent pillar of state. But even as the repeatedly betrayed and bluffed but essentially trustful people of Pakistan keep their fingers crossed on this score, an elected premier and an elected National Assembly nevertheless mark a step towards the restoration of democratic rule.
The elections for speaker and deputy speaker on Tuesday had established a clear lead for the PML(Q), and it was a foregone conclusion that the party's candidate for prime minister, Mir Zafarullah Jamali, would have little difficulty in mustering the needed majority.
However, he did not get the 180 votes which his backers had predicted for him but actually managed to scrape through with just a one vote majority. Over a dozen members did not take part in voting for various reasons, and going by the trend, Mr Jamali's position should be reinforced in the coming days. Both his rivals, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, rose to congratulate the leader of the house in a graceful display of parliamentary etiquette.
Mr Jamali is the country's first prime minister from Balochistan, and this distinction should make him more conscious of his responsibility to guard the interests of the backward regions of the country as well as the underprivileged sections of society.
Mr Jamali comes to office carrying a great burden on his broad shoulders. The skullduggery that created his party and which subsequently ensured his majority means that he will be constantly under pressure to prove his credentials before what appears to be the largest parliamentary opposition in Pakistan's history.
More, he has to grapple with the sharp division over the Legal Framework Order and its place in the constitutional framework. Prior to his election, there were heated speeches over whether the LFO should be considered part of the 1973 Constitution. These outpourings were sparked off by a remark by the new speaker to reporters that he considered the LFO to be a valid constitutional amendment.
It would have been better if the speaker, as a neutral person, had deferred comment on the issue, although one understands the logic of him and his parent party, the PML(Q), supporting the idea. But the issue is not going to go away, and President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Jamali may ultimately find that they have no option but to submit the LFO for debate in parliament. This will also be the only just and sensible way for the authors of the LFO to get some form of popular approval for the controversial measure, which has far-reaching implications for the country's political system.
It was hoped that General Musharraf would display an understanding of the deep misgivings created by the LFO in his address to the nation on Wednesday night. But, obviously on the defensive over his political moves, he chose to concentrate on his government's economic record, on which he was of course on firmer ground. He ignored the points raised by his critics about the military's attempts to further entrench its role in politics and appeared to take it almost for granted that his administration's policies would be continued without question by the new government.
Some of the positive achievements made in terms of bringing stability to the economy need to be consolidated. The president also outlined areas where the development effort has to be stepped up - alleviating poverty in the rural areas, providing jobs for the educated unemployed in the urban areas, and improving the condition of unskilled workers.
It would have made for a more rounded address if he had also said he had made changes in the political system according to his own perceptions of what he considered necessary and desirable, but that these changes would now be open for a final decision by parliament. It is respect for the supremacy of the people as reflected in parliament that forms the 'essence' of democracy and not belief in the infallibility of any one institution, group or individual.

Dawn, Editorial, November 22, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/22/ed.htm#1

MMA Set to Form Govt in NWFP

The stage was set for the installation of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) government in the NWFP when its candidates convincingly won election for the offices of the speaker and deputy speaker of the provincial assembly on Wednesday.
Bakht Jehan Khan, a committed Jamaat-i-Islami man elected MPA on the MMA ticket from Buner district, polled 81 votes to defeat ANP's Syed Qalbe Hassan in the contest for the office of the speaker. The latter received 39 votes of the combined opposition comprising the ANP, PML-Q, PPPP and PPP (Sherpao).
MMA's Ikramullah Shahid, elected MPA from Mardan on the quota of JUI (Samiul Haq), also obtained 81 votes to become the deputy speaker. His lone rival, Nighat Yasmin Orakzai of PML-Q, got 37 votes. It was the first time in NWFP's history that a female member of the assembly contested election for such an important office.
After his election, Bakht Jehan was administered oath of his office by the outgoing Speaker, ANP's Hidayatullah Chamkani, who was profusely praised by parliamentary leaders of all the political parties for managing the affairs of the House in a just and democratic manner.
Chamkani provided glimpses of his witty and friendly nature while presiding the session in which election for the speaker was conducted. He also handled a number of points of order, some of which were important and the other frivolous, in a tactful manner.
The new speaker, who served as an MPA on three occasions in the past, later supervised election of the deputy speaker and took oath from the winning candidate, Ikramullah Shahid.
The NWFP Assembly would now meet on November 29 to elect the Leader of the House. MMA's Akram Durrani, who belongs to Maulana Fazlur Rahman's JUI and was elected MPA from the southern Bannu district, would face no difficulty in winning the election to become the chief minister even if the opposition fielded its candidate against him. In fact, Durrani has been enjoying protocol and security normally reserved for the chief minister since the past few weeks.
The opposition had calculated its strength at 42 in the 124-member NWFP Assembly, where four seats are vacant. But the opposition candidate for the speaker received 39 votes. An ANP MPA, Khalil Abbas Khan from Nowshera, had gone to holy Makkah to perform Umra. Still the opposition candidate should have received 41 votes, including 10 each of PML-Q and PPPP, nine of ANP, and 12 of PPP (Sherpao). It was speculated that two opposition MPAs voted for the MMA candidates for both the speaker and deputy speaker. But their identities may never be revealed because the election for the two offices was conducted through a secret ballot.
In the subsequent election for the deputy speaker, the votes polled by the opposition candidate Nighat Orakzai dropped to 37. The loss of another two votes by the opposition was attributed to absence of a couple of MPAs because the MMA tally remained static at 81 in the election for both the speaker and deputy speaker.
The MMA's own strength in the assembly is 68. The PML-N's five MPAs, Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf's lone member and five independent MPAs also voted for the MMA candidates. Besides, the MMA contestants got two votes from dissident members of the opposition to raise its tally to 81.
That is a formidable figure and is double the strength of the combined opposition in the House. Nevertheless, the opposition parties managed to set aside their differences to join hands to put up a fight against the MMA. As some of the opposition leaders, including ANP's Bashir Bilour, PPP (Sherpao)'s Syed Murid Kazim, PML-Q's Mushtaq Ghani and PPPP's Abdul Akbar Khan, said in their speeches while felicitating the newly elected speaker and deputy speaker, the result of the election was a foregone conclusion but they fielded candidates against the MMA nominees to uphold the spirit of democracy.

The News, November 29, 2002,
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

61 Balochistan MPAs Sworn In

The inaugural session of the new Balochistan Assembly was held here on Thursday in which 61 MPAs-elect took oath.
Sheikh Jafar Khan Mandokhel presided over the session, after being appointed presiding officer by governor Balochistan.
Soon after taking oath Maulana Abdul Wasay, parliamentary leader of the MMA in Balochistan Assembly, stood up and asked the presiding officer that under which law he had taken oath.
Nawab Mohammad Aslam Khan Raisani of the PPP also took the floor and said that all members of the assembly wanted to take oath under the 1973 Constitution. He said that they would not take oath under the Legal Framework Order.
The presiding officer, Jafar Khan Mandokhel, assured the House that members would take oath under the 1973 Constitution as was done by the NWFP and Punjab assemblies.
"It is the same oath written in the 73 Constitution," Jafar Khan Mandokhel said and requested them they should first take oath and later on they could speak on the floor of the House.
In the meantime the MPA-elect of Balochistan National Party (Mengal group), Akhtar Hussain Lango and Mir Akbar Mengal wanted to speak on a point of order.
The presiding officer told them that they couldn't speak in the house without taking oath as member of the assembly. They said that they would not take oath until officials of the Frontier Corps nominated in the killing of two citizens in Panjgur were not arrested. However, Jafar Khan Mandokhel, did not allow them to speak on point of order and asked them to take oath with other members of the assembly.
Both the members did not take oath and left the house when other members stood up for taking oath.
Sixty-one MPAs, including Jafar Khan Mandokhel took oath as member of the assembly. Those who could not take oath on Thursday are: Mir Balach Khan Marri (Independent), Akhtar Hussain Lango and Mir Mohammad Akbar Mengal. Balach Khan Marri was not present in the House. Sardar Yar Mohammad Rind had already taken oath in the National Assembly.
After the oath-taking and signing of the register, Abdul Rahim Ziaratwal, stood up on a point of order and informed the House that FC officials, who were nominated in the FIR, were arrested and after their arrest, the BNM members should also be administrated oath. The chair informed the House that they could take oath in the next session.
The PO announced the schedule of the election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. According to the schedule nomination papers for both the offices would be received until 12 noon on Friday. Polling would be held on Saturday. The assembly was adjourned until Nov 30.
In the first session of the Balochistan Assembly all the 12 elected women members were present and they were allotted separate seats.

Saleem Shahid, Dawn, November 29, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/29/top2.htm

Fahim Asks Jamali to Prove Majority

People's Party Parliamentarians chief Makhdoom Amin Fahim on Thursday demanded of Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to prove his majority in the House after the MQM's decision to sit on the opposition benches in the National Assembly.
Asked whether the PPP would requisition the assembly session for this purpose, Mr. Fahim said: "It is for the government to prove its majority."
Talking to newsmen at an Iftar, Mr. Fahim said it appeared that the Jamali government was standing on crutches, and after the MQM's decision its credentials had become questionable.
The PPP leader expressed concern over an indefinite postponement of the Sindh Assembly's inaugural session and demanded that it should be called immediately. He said the PPP had the required numbers and was striving to form a government in the province. The government had postponed the session to block the PPP's path, he claimed.
He cautioned the government against negative repercussions of the use of "coercive and highhanded means" to install a government of its own choice in Sindh.
Mr. Fahim emphasized the need for strengthening democratic dispensation and called for continuing dialogue between political parties.
Asked what action the PPP was contemplating against Faisal Saleh Hayat and other defectors, he said the action would be taken according to the party constitution.
Mr. Fahim declared that attempts to create a forward bloc in Sindh would not succeed and demanded "fair play" in the power game.
The PPP leader said people had hoped that elections would be a landmark in ushering in clean and healthy politics. But unfortunately that was not true as horse trading was going on and members of parliament were being coerced to change their loyalty, he added.
He told a questioner that Nisar Khuhro was the parliamentary leader of the party in the Sindh Assembly and the name of the candidate for the chief minister's slot would be announced at an appropriate time.
Analysts believe this could be a hint at springing a surprise on the pattern of the National Assembly, but an insider said that the party would follow the pattern of Punjab where the parliamentary leader and chief minister's candidate was the same and Mr. Fahim's reply was merely a technical one.

Dawn, November 29, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/29/top3.htm

Pervaiz Sworn In as Punjab CM

Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi of the PML-Q was sworn in as the 14th elected chief minister of Punjab here on Friday evening after his ascertainment as leader of the House in the morning.
Governor Khalid Maqbool administered the oath to Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi at the Governor's House. Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali was also present.
A large number of federal ministers, members of the National and Punjab Assemblies, senior civil and military officers, including Lahore Corps Commander Lt-Gen Zarrar Azim and others, attended the ceremony.
Chaudhry Pervaiz was elected through the division of the House. He secured 235 votes, including 10 of the PPP dissidents and one of the PML-N, in a special session of the provincial assembly held earlier in the day. His rival Qasim Zia, fielded jointly by the PPP and PML-N for the slot, bagged 102 votes. Nine members of the MMA, including two women, abstained from voting. But they remained inside the House, saying that they wanted to remain 'indifferent.'
In all 337 legislators participated in the process of ascertainment of the leader of the 371-member strong House. At present, the strength of the House has been reduced to 357 out of which 353 have taken oath so far.
The PPP dissidents included Abdul Rashid Bhatti, Imbisat Khan, Rana Aftab, Makhdoom Ashfaq, Shaukat Ali Dogar, Aamir Usman, Rai Mansab Ali Khan, Hasan Raza Kharal, Naveed Jahanian and Wallayat Khagga voted for Chaudhry Pervaiz.
A PPP old guard and former provincial minister Nazim Hussain Shah did not attend the session on account of his illness. Three other PPP members have gone to perform Umra with the party's permission.
Talib Dogran of the PML-N was among those who crossed the floor. Chaudhry Pervaiz got less votes than Afzal Sahi who had secured 243 in the election conducted through secret ballot on Wednesday.
Immediately after his election as leader of the House, Chaudhry Pervaiz thanked President Gen Pervez Musharraf for fulfilling his promise of holding the election on schedule.
He also urged the need for protecting and promoting democracy. Otherwise, he said, the "result would be the same as had been witnessed by the previous assemblies."
The PML-Q leaders, Chaudhry Shujaat and Majid Malik, and advisor to the prime minister Shaukat Aziz, former leader of the Opposition in the Punjab Assembly Saeed Manais, and Chaudhry Wajahat were among those who witnessed the election from the gallery.
The Punjab Home Secretary, Ejaz Shah, a retired brigadier, was also present at the time of the division and was seen exchanging pleasantries with the PML-Q MPAs.

Intikhab Hanif, Dawn, November 30, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/30/top3.htm

Akram Durrani Elected
NWFP Chief Minister

The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal's candidate, Akram Khan Durrani, hailing from southern district of Bannu, was elected Frontiers' 22nd chief minister with an overwhelming majority here on Friday.
Laying down the priorities of his government, Mr. Durrani put an immediate ban on the sale of liquor and all sorts of gambling in the province. His government would implement MMA's manifesto that was the base of their success in the elections, he added.
Mr. Durrani bagged 78 votes against the joint candidate of the four-party opposition, Qalandar Khan Lohdi, who secured 41 votes. Mr. Lohdi from Abbottabad was jointly put by the Pakistan People's Party (Sherpao), the PPP Parliamentarian, the Awami National Party and the PML-Q.
All the five independent members led by Sardar Inyatullah Khan Gandapur and the members of the PML-N voted for Mr Durrani. Later, one MPA from Mansehra, Shujah Salam Khan, joined the MMA.
MMA secretary general Maulana Fazlur Rehman and some other MNAs, who were present in the gallery, also witnessed the polling for CM slot. After his (Fazal) meeting with the PML-Q spokesman, Chaudhary Shujahat Huassain, it was expected that the PML-Q would side with the MMA, but it opted for otherwise.
The international electronic media, including BBC Television, ARY, Japanese Television Network NHK and Geo TV made the extensive coverage of the event. Newsmen, representing foreign newspapers were also present for the coverage of the House proceedings.
Earlier, when Speaker Bakht Jahan Khan read out a presidential order for holding the election for the CM under the Article 130 (2-a) MPAs Mohammad Amin (Swat), Akhtar Nawaz (Haripur) and Mazhar Jamil Alizai tried to speak on points of order, but the speaker disallowed them.
Mureed Kazim of the PPP-S, Sirajul Haq and Pir Mohammad Khan of the MMA read out, one-by-one, resolutions in favour of their candidates contesting for the post of chief minister.
Before seeking show-of-hand for the CM election, Speaker Bakht Jahan Khan spoke at length on the occurrence of historic events like revelation of Quran, creation of Pakistan, battle of Badar and conquest of Makkah during the month of Ramadan. He told his fellow MPAs that he would remain impartial in the House and work for the parliamentary traditions in a better way.
After winning the coveted slot, Mr Durrani said he would work for the betterment of the people who were pinning great hopes in this House for the solution of their long-standing problems. "I am a follower of late Maulana Mufti Mahmood, who made some historic decisions for the rights of the people. I will cooperate with the federal government to get our due rights from the centre. But I will not hesitate in rendering resignation, if it comes to the crunch, in this House," he added.
He said his government would bring concrete changes to the law and order situation, education, health and industrial sector. The poverty and unemployment were the most pressing areas where they would seek federal government's assistance for their eradication, he added.
Bashir Ahmed Bilour of the ANP, Abdul Akbar Khan of the PPP, Mushtaq Ahmed Ghani of the PML-Q, Mureed Kazim of the PPP-S and others congratulated Mr. Durrani on his success in the election and reminded him that opposition was an integral part of any good democracy.
Mr. Gandapur advised the new chief minister to refrain from any sort of hostility with the federal government, because this poor province could not sustain any confrontation with the centre on any issue.

Mohammed Riaz, Dawn, November 30, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/30/top4.htm

National Consensus

Within hours of the polls closing on Oct 10, a very wrong perception of the early returns, which was indicating that the Muttahida Majlis-I-Amal was sweeping the polls in NWFP and Balochistan, sent alarm bells ringing all over. Analysts took it to mean an overwhelming majority in Punjab and Sindh as well. Within minutes almost every news channel in the world was predicting a 'Talibaan' government in the country, attributing this to the 'wave' of anti-American feeling 'rampaging' through Pakistan. As later results clarified, the 'wave' was confined mostly to the western border in areas adjoining Afghanistan. Available statistics and educated analysis thereof reveal a different picture.
The vote MMA garnered hardly exceeds what the alliance partners individually obtained in the 1997 Elections. There is certainly anti-American feeling, but that had very little to do with the vote, the core concerns affecting the individual voters were more earthly, food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, transportation, access to potable water, electricity, gas, etc. An additional worry was the lack of employment, followed by corruption and law and order. Moreover the other major parties were very badly split.
The Awami National Party (ANP) shot itself in the feet in the Frontier by making major mistakes, one was continuing the family control over the Party forcing veterans like Ajmal Khattak to quit, next was the anti-Talibaan Party line on Afghanistan. What really floored them was their electoral alliance with the PPP-P. With historic bad blood at the grassroots level between PPP and ANP, the party faithful had other ideas than the understanding between their leaders. Despite Sherpao's defection, PPP survived (but only just), the ANP was wiped out.
Fifty years or so after Pakistan's independence, democracy finally seems to have broken the stranglehold of the tribal leaders of Balochistan. The military option has been tried several times against them with disastrous results for national unity. The Baloch are a fiercely proud people, during military interventions they would rally around their autocratic tribal Sardars despite suffering their excesses. Except for Sardar Ataullah Khan Mengal, most prominent Sardars are not practising democrats by any stretch of imagination. These tribal chiefs have denied their tenured and hapless following even the basic necessities of existence, education being one of them. They invariably blackmail Federal Govts with their nationalist rallying call. Things are only slightly better in the Pathan belt north of Quetta. In the coastal belt, the influence of the tribal leaders is limited, Mrs Zubeda Jalal has shown this by becoming the first Baloch woman to be directly elected to the National Assembly. Only the lone wolf in his lair, Sardar Akbar Khan Bugti, retained his Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP) hold in his tribal fiefdom. The word 'democrat' can only be used with Akbar Khan even tongue-in-cheek. The superb civilian administration of honest and effective governance run by incumbent Governor Justice (Retd) Amirul Mulk Mengal has been a major plus point. For the first time in Balochistan (after Lt Gen Sardar FS Khan Lodi) an exercise of merit was a first priority.
Mohammadmian Soomro is a very personable man, but he concentrated on his individual PR and personal political pursuits at the cost of good governance. As expected the PPP got a major number of the seats being contested for the National and Provincial Assemblies but not an absolute majority as claimed by them pre-polls. The MQM showing was disappointing but they were done in by a number of factors, not the least being the manipulation of polling itself on Election Day on a few picked seats. The MMA made good use of their incumbency in Local Bodies (which the MQM had boycotted a year earlier) and got a few seats against the run of the tide. There were some serious electoral deficiencies but since all Parties without exception were involved in this in their own strongholds, one can say it equalized the overall results. What is notable is that the urban-rural divide has narrowed considerably.
Mian Nawaz Sharif had managed to alienate most of the Province's legislators the second time around (1998) by his failure to emerge from the cocoon of his inner circle (the first time they defected en bloc in 1993). Even the late induction of Shahbaz Sharif as Party Chief (in August 2002) did not help matters. One feels PML (N) were unduly done in by the shenanigans of the local administration, they should have won double the number of seats they finally got (14). The present administration simply followed the anti-Sharif script written in 1993 by PPP's Chaudhry Altaf Hussain as Governor and the PML's Mian Manzoor Watoo as the Chief Minister. This time even the hard-core Nawaz loyalists of 1993 joined the defectors pack, Ch Shujaat Hussain and Mian Muhammad Azhar, becoming their leaders. The PML (Q) would have been the majority party anyway, the administration's intervention only increased the vote tally. Give the PPP credit for staging a strong comeback, Qasim Zia is certainly a major improvement over Jahangir Badr.
The more one studies the results of the 2002 Elections, the more one comes away with a feeling of satisfaction. By giving what amounts to a divided verdict, the Pakistan people having suffered endlessly at the hands of our leaders, have struck back by throwing the gauntlet back at them, either compromise for the sake of the nation or suffer the consequences thereof! The fact that the leaders of all the parties are able to talk to each other without inhibition and without undue recrimination is a huge plus point. In their search for partners to form the government at the Centre and in the Provinces, the results should influence all the electoral opponents of Oct 10 to only one conclusion, in the circumstances availing externally and internally, the best possible thing for this country is a transition from a selected national regime to an elected national government. As for the MMA there is nothing better than the responsibility of governance to cool their passion, not only about foreign policy, but a host of issues.
Look at the numbers and the options thereof. In the Centre PML (Q) emerged as the largest party on Oct 12 with 76 seats, as opposed to 63 for PPP-P and 45 for MMA. Because of the new rule mandating independents to join a party of their choice within 3 days of the official results being announced, PML (Q) showed reach about a 100 legislators plus in the next few days, not counting the reserved seats for women and minorities. Theoretically they could cross the magic figure of 135 by aligning themselves either with the PPP-P or MMA, both of whom will also gain a few "independents". Even if PPP-P or MMA coalesce and bring PML (N) into the alliance, they will be still short of the minimum 135. They go over the top only with the MQM, and that too only just. MMA can make the governments in NWFP and Balochistan almost on its own, in the Frontier they will bring in PPP (Sherpao). There could possibly be an uneasy coalition between PPP-P, MQM and MMA in Sindh, but Punjab will have a strong PML (Q) government on its own. Can a weak government in the Centre, albeit with three Provincial Governments afford to have a strong government Opposition in the largest Province, and worse a very strong Opposition in the National Assembly?
If PML (Q) decides on a solo ride, with a coalition of smaller parties in the Centre and the Punjab government, can they survive for very long as hostage to the smaller parties and with strong Opposition governments in place in NWFP, Balochistan and Sindh? Howsoever one works out permutations and combinations, one comes to only one conclusion, the only option is a government of national consensus. And even better, in arriving at a national consensus, each of the political parties will have to surrender some of their pet hang-ups and search for a common denominator in the national interest. The electorate has ensured that the interests of the political parties must coincide with that of national interest. Let's not forget the individual ambitions of the legislators to be part of government. Having stayed out in the cold, the elected representatives need to have access to means to solve the day-to-day problems of those who elected them. In politics there is no altruism, the measure of access for funds is directly proportional to the loyalty given to the ruling Federal regime. Politicians need to be part of the gravy train, to achieve national consensus everyone (and all three of his/her respective blind leaders-in-exile) will have to make compromises.

Ikram Sehgal, defence Journal, November 2002,
http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/nov/consensus.htm

Politicians and Power Game

There had been a deadlock after elections 2002 in Pakistan regarding the formation of government. Neither could political parties nor any alliance converge on any principle in this regard during the period. The politicians allege that the government in general and the agencies particularly are responsible for this stalemate.
But, this all could not happen covertly. According to reports published in media the political parties had engaged in a deadlock on certain issues and some senior public elites had intervened and tried to convince them on the issues. To this effect the general opinion has had that since 1977, a trend has been felt that the military establishment files references against some politicians in the name of accountability and as a result they join hands with establishment to save their skin. When a highly disciplined institution governs a country, a number of politicians will say that they have no freedom of speech in the presence of these powerful agencies.
It is true that prior to Mir Zafar ullah Jamil's assuming the office of the Premiership, General Pervez Musharraf regime's attitude towards the Constitution and democracy was clear and one can understand it. However, now the question is that on what grounds the political alliances and parties, which also have presence in the Parliament to great extent, decide to support or oppose Musharraf regime, in principle or according to their limited agenda?
If we analyse our political history to identify some basic principles of politics, we will be disappointed, because only political expediency drove together or apart the politicians and political parties. Constitution, in Pakistan, has been disgraced over many times. The appetite for power created divisions and differences among political parties that benefited military regimes.
Now, the question arises that what situation persists? Of course, presently, it seems that the military establishment is only thinking about its own interests.
It is gesturing that it cannot be harmed. Like, there was no need of provision such as calling the former speaker of the dissolved Assembly to preside the new Assembly because his tenure was over. But the military establishment assumes that this will not harm it. So such gestures will come which have no impact on the standard role of the establishment. In fact, the games of the Parliament are still to start when even the Prime Minister will want some privileges particularly on the pressure of the opposition parties. But, the real game will start after the completion of Senate elections.
However, apart from Musharraf regime's policies after the October election, the performance of the politicians may not be ideal at all, because they are not playing politics. Only a few small groups and individuals are playing politics. For the time being, they will run the country while maintaining the status quo.
According to Mr. Atizaz Ahsan, the LFO issue will go to Court. The Presiding Officer (former Speaker) said that the oath was being administered under a constitution, which did not contain the LFO, no matter what the legal position is. General Musharraf, and his ex-Law Minister Mr.Ranjha and now the newly elected Speaker Ch. Ameer Hassan argue that the LFO is a part of the 1973 constitution. In future there will be confrontation. The issue will go to the courts. The government has not given the copies of the constitution to the members as yet.
It is also observed that more or less 160 members will oppose every issue in Parliament. The response to this extent is that in Pakistan, 50% members of the parliament have taken oath believing in something else, while the rest are viewing this constitution with a different angle. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Peerzada, who is one of the main architects of the 1973 constitution, was asked to resolve this tangle.
Mr. Peerzada, was of the opinion that, if you see the constitutional situation, it is not different from what it was during the period of General Ziaul- Haq Sahib, through Presidential Order No. 14 which was a Revival of Constitution Order, had made an attempt to include in the constitution permanently, some clauses that could solidify his position. When it came in the Parliament, the parliament said that it could not be in that way. But the Parliament itself debated them and brought them in the constitution through two-third majority in the form of 8th amendment.
At present the difficulties, which General Pervez Musharraf and his newly elected Prime Minister Mir Zafar-ullah Jamali confronted with, are that they cannot secure two-third majority to amend the constitution. Therefore, they say that the LFO is a part of the constitution. It is a very dangerous situation. It is therefore necessary to set other things aside and settle the debate about the LFO.
Suppose this debate is not resolved, one can ask, then what will happen? The nation witnessed what happened during the election of the Speaker. On each and every issue in every debate 150 or 160 members will oppose the government. It will become a very difficult issue. In the history of Pakistan we never saw such a large opposition in the parliament. The position of those who think that they have taken oath under the 1973 Constitution, is that they took oath according to a schedule given in the constitution. They have become members and will remain so. The real test will come when some action is taken. When the Government approves it with 170 votes and the opposition votes against it, the government will consider it part of the constitution but the opposition will not.
Such a crisis did take place in 1970 and we saw the result. It is now binding on the present members of the Parliament that they should decide the status of the LFO or the things, which are acceptable to them in the LFO. They should sit with General Pervez Musharraf and decide. No matter even if it is written hundred times in the LFO that it is a part of the constitution, the actions taken during these three years do need indemnity.
Poverty alleviation to be major task for the new government. General Pervez Musharraf during his three years government has pursued a programme of economic reforms for which he has won much praise. Now with the new government slowly taking shape, will this progress continue? There has been some concern that an elected government could set aside some of the reforms that General Musharraf has started.
In this regard economists say that the new government may not derail at all; right now the sense is that General Musharraf is going to keep charge of economic policy. There is speculation that the Finance Minister under his government for the past three years Shaukat Aziz is going to be backed by Musharraf to the Senate election in the next few weeks and once elected as a Senator, Mr. Aziz is expected to return to cabinet as minister. So all in all, as far as economic policy is concerned the expectation is that Musharraf would expect the new government to carry forward his economic policies.
The United States has shown a lot of support to Pakistan over the past year; under the present situation one can think this will encourage the new government to continue much of what has already been set in. However, to some extent of course, the US support is crucial and therefore we do not think that in any way the new government could go against that. But there are issues related to the economy, which remain so far untouched. One big problem for this economy is that there are reports that the level of poverty has grown in a significant way during past few years. There is variation of numbers but the rough estimate is that almost third of Pakistan's population now is impoverished and that is a very bad sign for economic and political stability. So, these areas merit serious attention of the new government.

Dr. Syed Ahmad-uddin Hussain
http:frontier@.net.pk/2002/December 2, 2002

Sindh PA Session: Crisis Haunts
Establishment

The impending crisis, originally created by the split mandate and gradually deepened during the ensuing abortive manoeuvrings by all the parliamentary groups in the Sindh Assembly, is still haunting the Establishment though the inaugural session of the newly-elected House has been rescheduled for Thursday. It is the same situation which had prompted the competent authority to postpone the session twice before.
In the Thursday's session, if held as per the new schedule, the members-elect will be sworn-in before electing speaker and deputy speaker of the House. However, it is quite clear from the outcome of the series of talks between majority and minority parties/groups, that none of them has succeeded in ensuring a simple majority that could have led to the smooth process of election for any slot within the House.
Political circles fear imposition of Governor's rule as an ultimate way out that will certainly stir an even deeper constitutional crisis. So far no parliamentary group has come out with an incontestable claim of enjoying a simple majority for its favourite as Leader of the House.
With five assembly members having chosen their dual National Assembly seats, the actual strength of the House, i.e. 168, has restricted to 163. The single majority party is the PPP having 67 members followed by the MQM with 41. The PML-Q has emerged as the third largest party with 15 members while the National Alliance, PML-F, and MMA have a strength of 14, 13 and 10 members respectively. There are two Independents and one member of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement in the House. The PPP Parliamentarians which, at one stage, was likely to muster support of the PML-F in addition to the much expected favour the MMA in its bid to field Nisar Khuhro as a consensus candidate for the Leader of the House, also seems to be isolated at this moment.
Political observers pointed out that soon after the announcement of the new date, i.e. Dec 12, for the holding the opening session, the PML-F chief reiterated his full support to the Muttahida candidate, Syed Sardar Ahmad, as the Leader of the House. Likewise, the Sindh chief of MMA, Maulana Asadullah Bhutto, also appeared not very happy over PPP's response towards the 27 conditions unveiled by the alliance.
Talking to Dawn on Thursday, Maulana Bhutto said that the PPP leadership had not only failed to respond positively to the conditions, its chairperson, Benazir Bhutto's statements that she had issued time to time, had prompted the MMA to keep reservations. When asked if MQM or PML-Q had opened up any channel to win their support for the job, he said: "not yet."
The camp of King's Party also appeared to be ripped off after Dr. Arbab Rahim was disowned by the PML-Q's Sindh President, Ghous Bux Maher, who is also a federal minister. Besides, PML-F chief, Pir Pagara, has indeed refused to back his candidature.
This turn of events has further confused the situation as the King's party, led by PML-Q, has failed to nominate any other member as an alternative candidate acceptable to all the five groups for the job.
Other names, like Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah of PML-F, Jam Madad Ali, Arif Jatoi of National Alliance, Papu Shah of PML-Q and Mohammad Ali Maher (Independent), which are being floated by the interested quarters, have failed to get considerable support from other groups.
When asked about the prospects of the MQM nominee for his election as the Leader of the House, Imtiaz Sheikh said that it depended on the leadership of every parliamentary group in the Sindh assembly.

Habib Khan Ghori, Dawn, December 6, 2002,
http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/06/top5.htm

Good Governance Versus Populism

Good governance and populism cannot co-exist for long. History is replete with instances of (1) popular leaders failing to give good governance and (2) leaders who give good governance being hardly popular, at least during their lifetime. While it would be too simplistic to say that popular leaders are not capable of good governance, that is only possible by leaders who are prepared to be unpopular i.e. have the ability to take tough decisions. Sher Shah Suri, who drove the Moghul Emperor Humayun from his throne, was hardly as popular as the royal potentate he deposed, yet the short five years of reign before he died (and Humayun was welcomed back by a fickle people as a conquering hero) is quoted as the one rule in the history of the subcontinent that is seen as the best period of South Asian administration. For that matter the two hundred years of British rule till 1947 over India was hardly populist in nature, it was tough but fair and counted as an example of good governance.
If we are to add up the "good governance" scorecard of the military regime up till October 12 there are many more pluses than minuses, if we were to go back further to the days before the President started his Referendum campaign, then those pluses are far more than those visible today. The "Referendum" can be said to be the watershed of the Musharraf Regime; his rule being divided into the period "before Referendum" (BR) and "after Referendum" (AR). On the balance sheet the military regime has done extremely well BR but in public perception it has failed the acid test of credibility AR. While there were some misgivings before the elections as to supporting of favourites, a lot of people who supported Gen Musharraf wholeheartedly have been turned off AR by the goings-on of the last 9 weeks or so. The October 12 results dictated a PML(Q)-led coalition in the Centre, an MMA government in NWFP, Balochistan with a "pot-pourri coalition" inclusive of the PML(Q) as a senior partner and PPP-led coalition in Sindh. This master plan was scuttled by the "Fazlur Rehman spanner" Ms Benazir Bhutto threw into the works; thereafter the regime's wise men decided that the PPP did not deserve any democratic consideration. In the process they used the "Patriots" to shoot down the PPP's aspirations for having their man as Prime Minister, they then got carried away and put an end to any PPP hopes to making the government in Sindh. While this may be good in the short run, the compromise choice of Chief Minister, Ali Mohammad Maher, does not excite much confidence in sustaining this coalition rule for any length of time. He may well surprise us by having strength presently not visible on the surface, at the moment he is very much a "puppet on a string".
In the meantime, Pir Pagaro with his 13 swing votes has got his pound of flesh by (1) keeping Arbab Rahim out of CM contention and (2) getting his man Syed Muzaffar Shah elected as Speaker while the "Muttahidas", who, as the second largest majority party in Sindh should have led the Sindh Government if the PPP failed to do so, are on course to get the Governorship for Ishrat ul Ibad. This leaves PPP out in the cold, for the moment.
The heavens would not have fallen if PPP had been allowed a democratic opportunity to form the Sindh Government, they got the most seats and the most votes in Sindh, it was theirs by electoral right. Not that their leader did not play a major part by effectively scuttling her own party's chances by her shenanigans! Getting Ali Mohammad Maher elected as the CM was the easy part, to keep all the coalition partners in line will test a magician's penchant for juggling. This is not what this country deserved after three years of excellent military rule, this is not what the military regime promised the people of Pakistan at the end of the rule. If political frustrations boil over, Nawabzada Nasrullah is back on song to do what he does best, toppling susceptible regimes.
The President may have fulfilled the letter of the compact made with the Pakistani public on Oct 12, 1999, the spirit of those vows has been violated by a display of rank pragmatism on the part of the President's men. Tariq Aziz and Maj Gen Ihtesham Zamir's political "management" pre-elections was understandable, one accepted this as the military regime's right to ensure that their excellent reforms enacted over the past 3 years were not frustrated, one called it pragmatic idealism. However, their political overdrive post-elections has gone over the fail-safe time. In third world countries where adult literacy is low and perception has a greater say than facts, it becomes the bounden duty of those in power to ensure that absolute power does not fall into dangerous or fickle hands. That is the basis of the doctrine of necessity, and for those in the democratic west who may not be comfortable with this philosophy, just look at the measures the bastion of the greatest democracy on Earth is taking.
The US is well within its rights to seek to protect not only the present but also the future of its citizens by instituting measures that would have the founding fathers turning over in their graves. If George Bush were not motivating a mandate from his people for his war against terrorism by his present belligerent rhetoric, it would be a dereliction of duty. For third world countries, like Pakistan, where the elected representatives of the country stand in Parliament to say a collective "Fateha" for a self-confessed murderer, for the President to voluntarily emasculate his authority in the present circumstances would be to invite civil disorder leading to anarchy. He has to preside fully over the "transition" to full democracy. So that the dictatorship of a vocal minority does not dominate "the great silent majority". Musharraf needs the authority (duly adjusted to cater for democratic norms) to maintain the semblance of sanity necessary for the citizens of Pakistan to live a civilized life. This authority could well be imposed through the barrel of the gun but for three years of military rule it rested more on the President's credibility, unfortunately his wise men have taken that bankable asset and dented it badly, it may not be in smithereens but the glass has cracked. The post-election moves of the President's wise men has been counter-productive to the image of the Musharraf regime.
This military regime certainly provided Pakistan with good governance for the most part. The citizens of Pakistan felt secure and safe, having much more freedom than in any of the military or democratic regimes before that. However what they have now is uncertainty and apprehension because of the blatant compromises made on principles, putting good governance on the back burner.
Unfortunately the logic of good governance in any third world country belies the sanctity of pure democracy, to have good governance the ruler must be tough and fair. That went with the personality and stature of Musharraf till very lately. Every ruler wants to be liked and loved, unfortunately the ruler who provides good governance in the country must be prepared to be hated by the elite. This is because he has to step on the toes of the elite to give succour to the masses. Since the elite commands the media in all the countries of the world, the ruler must be also prepared to be temporarily disliked by the public in choosing good governance over populist measures. As a generous good-hearted being, Musharraf only gets tough when his own authority is threatened. Make no mistake, the Musharrafs of the world are no pushovers, this man is a tough cookie, he must also act tough, a permanent accountability process is necessary to put the country firmly on the road to good governance. The rulers and the ruled must be indiscriminately taken to task for any misuse of their authority or their privileges. The President is a good man, in fact he is a wonderful human being. He is not vindictive and he has none of the arrogance we normally associate with our rulers, particularly the democratic ones. That he wants to be liked has been the undoing of his popularity, a Catch-22 that can only be corrected by his immediately taking tough and fair decisions, that includes allowing the real representatives of the people to rule the people who have elected them.

Ikram Sehgal
The Nation, December 21, 2002
http:/www.nation.com.pk2002/12/2l/op.htm