Pakistan's Elections: People’s coup

By Abdullah M. Adnan

ccun.org, February 25, 2008

 
“It’s peoples’ coup on Feb 18, 2008 against those who had staged military coup some eight years ago, on Oct 12, 1999.” This is how one can sum up the public verdict delivered on the Election Day in Pakistan.
 
The ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam) and its allies, except the ethnic, Karachi-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), were squarely routed on the d-day. Despite the humiliating defeat of “all the president’s men,” Pervez Musharraf insists on continuing himself as President. This may well turn into a bone of contention between him and those who have got a robust public mandate for changing the status-quo.
 
Perhaps, Musharraf knew that he faced the proverbial “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. He “fulfilled his promise of holding free and fair elections” because he could not postpone elections any longer. He held general elections only after having got himself into the Presidency. This was like “poisoning the well” for other power contenders. Yet when different poll surveys depicted his falling popularity ratings and the fall of his allies, they invited his rebuke.
 
It is pertinent to note that Musharraf had got himself elected from the outgoing assembly, an act which invited criticism from political Opposition, civil society, legal community, and public at large – i.e. from all except his allies. Then, he imposed emergency rule (martial law, in fact, because it was imposed by him as the Army Chief) on Nov 3, dismissed the Supreme Court bench hearing the case of his election to the office of the President, suspended the Constitution and promulgated his own Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). He was sworn in as President only by the new Chief Justice who had earlier taken oath under the PCO. Only then he had gathered courage to announce the general election schedule.
 
This amounted to pre-poll rigging, though the recently concluded polls have been termed “free, fair and transparent” to a large extent.
 
So, the present contest is between the one who used strong-arm tactics to remain in power and those who now lay claim to power after going thorough his well-orchestrated game plan.
 
The slain leader Benazir’s Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League have emerged as largest parliamentary groupings; together they form a simple majority in the National Assembly and can form coalition governments in the Centre as well as provinces with their respective like-minded regional and ethnic parties. Yet, it is easier said than done. This is because of the ‘split mandate’ they have got.
 
Peoples Party has swept in rural Sindh, and can form provincial government there with the MQM, which has won in urban Sindh, but it has done less well elsewhere including the largest Punjab province where Nawaz’s Muslim League has won with a big margin and is set to form government there. Nationalist Awami National Party (ANP) has emerged victorious in the War on Terror-affected Frontier province, in the wake of the split and poor performance of the religious alliance MMA (Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal). The Balochistan province is still represented by tribal chiefs and influentials; in fact, they have tightened their hold as a result of the internal bickering in the ranks of the religious party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), the only component of the MMA which stood in elections.
 
This shows that the PPP and PML-N not only have to sort out their differences on contentious issues such as the restoration of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry – to pre-Nov 3 position – and come to terms with the ‘split mandate’ in order to form mutually helpful and viable provincial governments, they also have to be even with Pervez Musharraf – the ‘incumbent’ President.
 
While the spirit of mutual accommodation might be lacking in the political culture of Pakistan, given the frequent interruptions by military dictators and cult-figure politics, the two big parties may be compelled to work out a strategy that is beneficial to all. Yet, it is the all-powerful office of the President that might spoil their show by calling shots from behind.
 
As is apparent from his utterances, Pervez Musharraf is not going to resign easily. He seems set to exploit the differences among his opponents on the issues of reviving the Constitution to pre-Oct 12, 1999 status and restoration of the judiciary to pre-Nov 3, 2007 position. He expects to solicit the West’s backing by positing himself as moderate head of the ‘frontline state’ against the War on Terror.
 
The U.S. concedes, in the words of Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, that “there’s sort of constitutional law and there’s politics,” and that “Pervez Musharraf retains the power to dissolve the next parliament if it restores the previous judiciary.” Mr. Boucher was just giving expression to Bush administration’s stance before a U.S. congressional panel.
 
This causes worry to many, including Congressman Peter Welch, as to why the United States was supporting a system that invalidates the entire electoral process by giving an individual the power to dissolve a body elected by the people. Others, including Congressman John F. Tierney, protest that despite evidence that Musharraf’s clinging to power represents a distraction from counterterrorism efforts, the administration continues to pursue policies “described by Pakistanis as Busharraf.”
 
If the U.S.-led West could cease to regard Musharraf as indispensable in the fight against terrorism, it would relieve itself of an unnecessary liability and help Pakistanis take the course of democracy – for which they have shown their love and which the West claims to champion.
 
Abdullah M. Adnan is an Islamabad-based researcher and political analyst. abdullahmadnan@hotmail.com