The rocky road ahead

ANY instant, morning-after comment on the complex pattern emerging from unofficial results of Thursday’s general election runs the risk of being overtaken by the final picture. But some broad trends are nevertheless fairly clear, the most notable being the stunning success of the religious parties’ grouping, the MMA, in the Frontier and Balochistan, the resurgence of the PPP in the Punjab, and the relegation of the PML(N) to third place. The MQM has been rocked in its stronghold of Karachi, where the religious parties have recovered some of the ground lost to the MQM after the latter’s formation. Throughout the country, several of the traditional winners lost, but many won. The polls went off, mercifully, without any large-scale violence or disturbances. There were complaints of multiple registration of voters, incorrect electoral rolls, polling station confusion, and problems with identity cards, but not on a scale that would suggest a distortion of the overall result. Pre-poll management paid off in many instances; in others, it may have created a problem for the managers. The turnout may eventually prove to be higher than the 1997 figure, largely because of the fairly brisk voting in the rural areas of Punjab and Sindh where the strategy of influencing local leaders and making many of them switch over to the PML(Q) apparently produced the “desired” results.

But it is the MMA’s electoral emergence as a major player, breaking the two-party pattern that had prevailed so far, that is going to be the focus of attention. This is the first time that the religious parties will have such a formidable presence in parliament, although the Frontier and Balochistan will remain their bastions. The MMA had campaigned on a revivalist and anti-American platform. It has won most heavily in the Pakhtoon areas bordering Afghanistan. Its victory is thus due to a combination of ethnic, religious and nationalistic factors and no less to the policies of the United States, which is accused of being pitted against Islam and Muslim countries. Domestically, the divide may deepen between moderates and hardliners, and the religious parties may finally find themselves in a position where they can seek to further reduce the already narrow space available for cultural and social expression. Abroad, the MMA’s policies will be watched with deep anxiety and concern by Pakistan’s neighbours and the West: President Pervez Musharraf will himself be worried about whether this new turn of events improves or diminishes his importance in western eyes. But the MMA is not an ideologically homogenous alliance. There are sharp divisions among the various components on basic tenets and forms. The dynamics of a democratic process, which depends on compromise and restraints, also have their own moderating effect on entrenched attitudes. There was a belief that, in its preoccupation with keeping both the PPP and the PML(N) from getting too close to forming a government, the administration had not only engineered the formation of the PML(Q) and supported it, but also may have thought that it would not be such a bad idea to help the MMA cut into the vote banks of the major parties. Now the establishment may be faced with the results of overkill and the federation with the challenge of a less than integrated pattern of policy-making and governance. A vacuum was created that has now been filled by the ultra-right.

Where do we go from here? A hung parliament is always a messy affair, but not necessarily a disaster. Many democracies have coped with the phenomenon and have not allowed it to block progress. The problem in our case is that the government is itself a player and the president wants to keep the legislature from upsetting his major programmes and on a tight leash. However, if the anti-establishment vote is combined, it will add up to a clear majority in favour of an undiluted return to civilian rule accountable to the people. How the contradiction is to be resolved will test the mettle of both the political and military leaderships. The democratic way will be to let the new assembly find its own moorings based on the election results. This will be the only sensible course to adopt and strictly follow; any further attempts to tinker with the system will land us in even greater trouble than we are already in because of the election outcome. Unofficial results till this writing showed that the PML(Q) and the PPP were running almost neck and neck in the race to be the single largest party in the National Assembly, but both will need the backing of other parties to form a viable government and both will be confronted with the problem of how to deal with the MMA with over four dozen members. There will be equally ticklish permutations and combinations to be worked out in the Punjab and Sindh provincial assemblies. If our political system had not been repeatedly pulverized, we might have been in a more confident position to tackle the crisis before us.

Talks: the only way forward

THE results of the recently concluded state polls in Jammu and Kashmir represent a serious setback for New Delhi. Marred by violence and widespread accusations of rigging and voter intimidation, the elections brought to the fore the newly formed People’s Democratic Party (PDP) which looks set to govern with the help of Congress and independents. The ruling National Conference and the BJP, meanwhile, were virtually ousted from the political arena. Significantly, National Conference president Omar Abdullah failed to win his seat despite being a federal minister and son of the incumbent chief minister, Farooq Abdullah. His defeat marks an abrupt end to the hitherto unbroken reign in Kashmir of the Abdullah dynasty, which has played such a divisive role in the politics of the state. Unlike the hawkish National Conference and the BJP, the Congress and the PDP have urged peace talks with Pakistan to defuse the crisis. While New Delhi recently offered to talk to Kashmiri leaders about granting greater autonomy to the state, the umbrella All Parties Hurriyat Conference believes that the autonomy proposal is a mere ruse to prolong Indian occupation. The APHC has urged New Delhi to include Pakistan in any future talks about the future of Kashmir. India’s refusal to hold a dialogue with Pakistan has brought the two countries to the brink of a potentially catastrophic war.

Following the attack on the Indian parliament last December, India dispatched some half a million troops to the border and took a series of punitive steps to punish Pakistan for what it termed were acts of “cross-border terrorism.” Despite international pressure and measures by Pakistan to curb the militants, New Delhi has refused to reopen a dialogue and harped on the single theme of terrorism. On his recent European tour, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee received a rebuff from the European Union for this hardline stance. The Europeans urged India to act with greater restraint and move to mend fences with Pakistan. There were also clear differences of opinion over Kashmir between the two sides. It is difficult to see what India stands to gain by refusing to talk. The people of both countries would gain immeasurably if the Kashmir dispute, which has caused so much suffering and led to the loss of thousands of lives, is amicably resolved through dialogue.