IT IS easy to make too much of the emergence of the maulvis as an electoral force by conjuring up visions of Taliban-type edicts. It is equally easy to make too little of it by believing that the dynamics of a democratic or quasi-democratic system will lead to mollification in their views. It is a serious development that has changed the country’s political map and needs to be watched with great care and with a certain detachment.

For decades, the argument was that the religious parties were organized, could mobilize street power, and had a certain nuisance value as a pressure group, but that they did not have electoral strength and were always rejected by the people at polling time. This argument will no longer be valid; the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal is the third largest group in the National Assembly, with 45 seats, and will also probably have a strong presence in the Senate. So much for the scoffing riposte that we used in reply to allegations of fundamentalism in Pakistan. We have our own right wing to contend with now in both parliament and the provincial assemblies and, in the case of the Frontier, in government. We might, after all the combinations have been tried, have Qazi Husain Ahmad as prime minister.

There are several theories about why this has happened. There is the belief that the MMA was clobbered together by the military government when it saw that its own PML(Q) was not making the desired headway against the PPP and the PML(N). The PPP and the MQM have said that the military wanted a sizeable MMA strength in order to increase General Pervez Musharraf’s bargaining power with the United States. There have been accusations of ballot stuffing and rigging that helped the MMA. Some constitutency delimitations might have led to concentrations of the ethnic vote. There is no reason to doubt that all these factors too were at play in varying degrees. But perhaps the most important factor was the tendency on the part of the more moderate and liberal elements to take the religious right for granted and, post 9/11, their inability to correctly read the depth of feeling of the people of the Frontier and Balochistan about events in Afghanistan.

A lot of things were happening quietly which did not attract much attention. It was easy for us city-bound people in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi to say that the Islamization of Gen Ziaul Haq had driven people away from religion. But we failed to take more than token notice of the rise of such organizations as the TNSM in the Frontier or the zealous setting up of a network of religious schools in the Punjab, not all of them funded from abroad or affiliated with jihadi parties. Most people noticed that mosque congregations were getting bigger even in cities like Lahore and Karachi, and that more women, even without being forced to, were taking to the veil.

The voice of a Karachi-based preacher was heard on cassette throughout the country and even among Pakistanis abroad, with the so-called fashionable set being amongst the preacher’s more ardent admirers. The official patronage of militant organizations because of Kashmir kept stoking the fire, and the tolerance if not active support of Taliban rule, despite the Bamiyan Buddha atrocity, no doubt sent out its own signal. “Modern” leaders like Nawaz Sharif contemplated bringing in Shariat laws.

When the war on terror began in Afghanistan, the liberals in Pakistan were on the whole confused. They were against American intervention and its exercise of military power. But they were relieved that the Pakistani establishment had finally been forced to move against sectarian organizations and eventually, when it was no longer tenable for the Musharraf government to make a distinction between domestic violence and cross-border terrorism, against militant outfits.

The ANP in the Frontier, the nationalists in Balochistan, and the PPP, the PML(N) and the MQM in the rest of the country did not stand up to denounce the US bombing of Afghanistan. On the other hand, the religious parties clearly saw the popular sentiment in the border provinces and cashed in on it. What we are now seeing is the result, therefore, of a gradual process that had been slowly unwinding before our eyes but which we had failed to see or understand. Actually, it’s a wonder that in a state that is constitutionally an Islamic republic, the religious parties had not scored electoral and political successes much earlier.

Much ink will now be spent on discussing how we are going to grapple with the situation. If we can somehow create a durable democratic culture, then there is hope that many political angularities might not only be smoothed out but find their own balance. It is also necessary that we should realize that the perpetually antagonistic Indo-Pakistan relationship is helping to feed reaction and extremism on both sides of the border and particularly in Pakistan, retarding democratic progress.

All the major political parties, genuine or otherwise, which always love to lecture others on democracy and democratic culture, seem little interested in implementing freedom of expression and thought — virtues considered prerequisite of democracy — in their own ranks and files.

Most of these parties usually revolve around one are two persons who have the final say in all crucial matters. This phenomenon has turned them parties into a family club or an elites’ forum.

Despite experiencing defeat in the successive elections, these parties have failed to learn any lesson from their mistakes. Their entire political record is blended with an autocratic behaviour towards democracy in party ranks.

In the recent elections, these parties amassed a huge amount in the name of ticket allotment fee, but most of them didn’t deposit it in party’s accounts. They didn’t spend even a single penny on electioneering of their candidates. In other words, the candidates were forced to buy their tickets.

The Election Commission has advised the candidates to submit their election expenses with the commission, but it has never asked the parties to submit their accounts after the elections. No one knows where these party funds go. Neither party worker nor office-bearers can see party’s balance-sheet. If they ask for this, they are served with show-cause notices.

After the election results, none of the successful parties dared to convene meeting of their parliamentary boards for the election of parliamentary leaders.

Pakistan Muslim League (Q) chief Mian Azhar, who lost both seats, made an abrupt decision and named Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain as party leader in the parliament. It reflects the attitude of the PML(Q) towards democratic and parliamentary traditions.

The People’s Party Parliamentarians also behaves in similar manner when it comes to democratic values. In the PPP, no one can dare to hold his/her views which are different from that of party chief. The PPP has nominated Makhdoom Amin Fahim as parliamentary leader without seeking the opinion of its so-called parliamentary board and MNAs-elect.

After suffering a humiliating defeat in the province, Awami National Party chief Asfandyar Wali Khan and provincial chief Begum Nasim Wali Khan resigned immediately from the party slots, saying they don’t like to remain stuck with top posts after being rejected by the masses.

But, a day later, a three-member family delegation — Asfandyar Wali, Begum Nasim Wali and Azam Hoti — visited Akora Khattak and held a meeting with Ajmal Khattak. Despite having no official post, Mr Khan and Begum Wali vowed to unite all nationalists.

The ANP has nominated Bashir Ahmed Bilour as party parliamentary leader in the NWFP Assembly without bothering to consult its parliamentary board. It is right that Chaudhry Shujaat, Amin Fahim and Bashir Bilour deserve to be parliamentary leaders of the PML(Q), PPP and ANP, but they must come through a democratic process.

The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, which has emerged as a king-maker at the centre and the majority party in the NWFP and Balochistan, is silent on this issue. The MMA central body has decided to discuss the issue at its Islamabad meeting.