IT is said, “Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.” But we Pakistanis are great ones for believing the uncanniest of the uncanny – especially if it comes in print. And the best part is that the looniest the notion, the more likely we are to latch on to it.

I have long maintained that it is well nigh impossible to get a sensible item inserted into the average Pakistani head through the otic orifices.

A better option would be to use a chisel and hammer, open up the skull and try to put the sense in. On the other hand, whisper something utterly, completely daft to the winds miles from another human being, and the inanity will not only be known to all within seconds but will become gospel.

Back in the mid-1980s, when computers were still looked upon by many as demigods capable of deeds of wonder, I learned a few things about them in a small barber shop of Gujranwala. Said the elderly man that a local doctor had installed one of these wonder machines in his clinic and all he need do was give the patient a slip of paper to spit on.

This spit-smeared piece was then inserted into a slot on the machine and out came the diagnosis together with the name of the medicine to be ministered.

One day as the doctor turned on the computer, so the old fogey related, it showed nothing but zeroes. “Zero hi zero dikhai javay,” (It repeatedly showed zeroes) said the man two or three times. The good doctor knew something was amiss. So he hurried to his patient’s home and lo and behold! the family was in mourning: the man had passed away during the night. Even before they could send word to the doctor, the computer knew and its way of informing its master was to show only zeroes!

All present sent up a chorus of praise to the Lord for bestowing such a wondrous machine to mankind and how easy it was going to be for the medical profession from now on.

Not one present questioned the yarn. I too nodded my head (then full of hair) in agreement and got a nick behind the ear for mendacity.

Recently, and again in Gujranwala, it has been heard that the current spell of extensive load-shedding is not because we have no generating capacity to meet the demand. Of that, rest assured, there is plenty.

It is, so they believe, because Musharraf is sending all the electricity to, wait for it, USA! First he sold out the country and set to upon our home grown terrorists who are doing nothing worse than killing innocent Pakistanis. And now he is canning all the electricity and shipping it out to his masters in Washington. Some cheek!

Some years ago a Postal Department worker (also an active member of a religious party) told me how two American brothers had conned a poor bicycle repairman (a Muslim of course) in Cairo.

Abu Musa designed a powered, heavier-than-air flying machine, word of which these two evil infidel brothers had somehow caught.

They landed in Cairo faking they wanted to learn bicycle puncture repair from Abu Musa. There they bided their time, got their chance, stole the flying machine blueprint and fled home to America. And while poor Abu Musa was still scratching behind his ears to do the design all over again, the infidel thieves built and flew the machine.

From the depths of his soul, the pious narrator believed this tale to be nothing but the truth because he had read it in what he called an ‘Islami Digest’. This magazine was obviously meant to underline the greater glory of Islam – even if it had to rely on untruths – and how the evil West is out to rob Islam of this glory.

But the cake, nay, the cherry on the icing of the cake, was taken by a gentleman who worked for a government seed collecting agency and was a couple of years shy of his sixtieth birthday.

I relate this merely to establish that he was no illiterate yokel from the Punjabi boondocks. This was shortly after the terrible earthquake of Oct 2005. Having cast a wary eye around his sitting room where the only other bodies were our respective wives, he very conspiratorially with head cocked to one side asked, “So, what do you think of the earthquake business?”

Having only a few days earlier returned from the unfortunate stricken land, I related what I had seen and how traumatic the whole experience had been for me. That was all right, said the man. But what did I think of the bin Laden affair and if they did actually get him? I couldn’t make the connection and must have looked at him stupidly because he very condescendingly observed that I seemed not to read the newspaper.

He then proceeded to educate me. The US of A had discovered that Osama bin Laden was holed up somewhere in Kashmir. So long they had been trying to run him to ground and now they had him in the sights of just the bomb that could simply not go wrong.

There was, however, a downside to this super-secret weapon: it could get old Osama only by causing destruction of immense magnitude. And that was unacceptable to India which also holds part of Kashmir. India being an ignorant country and having no clue concerning the kinds of weapons almighty USA could manufacture and fearing their part of Kashmir would also suffer, would have nothing of this business. Not to worry, however, said the Americans to the Indians.

They had a bomb whose path of destruction could easily be manipulated. And Pakistan being a sold country, America would see that the devastation spread only in that direction. India being our sworn enemy agreed; the Americans dropped the magical bomb and blasted bin Laden together with his rotten kidneys out of existence. And as they had the levers and buttons to guide the line of ruin, they created the sixty kilometre-wide swathe of devastation spreading only through Pakistan.

I thought this was some kind of warped joke about the suffering of hundreds of thousands of unfortunate people. But it wasn’t; it turned out that this is what the man had read in a Lahore-based Urdu language newspaper that I would be ashamed to be seen with. Some know-it-all columnist had produced this rubbish and, if this man who was nearing retirement from government service in Grade 20 could believe it, pity the thousands upon thousands of plebeians who read only and only Urdu papers.

I responded somewhat rudely to this imbecility and both husband and wife turned upon me for being sceptical about something that, to their puny minds, was true because it had appeared in print.

They had never heard about believing only half of what they saw.

THE poor, dumb, illiterate voters have done it again. They have maintained their tradition of cleaning the politicians’ stables every nine or ten years and securing for their elected representatives opportunities to establish a system of governance that is democratic, sensitive to the people’s sorrows and their aspirations, and responsible to them.

What the masses did on one of the most radiant Mondays in Pakistan’s political history was not easy. The attempt by the arrogant members of the executive to influence their choice and pre-determine the electoral outcome may have been largely foiled in the final round, it need not be forgotten.

Everyone knows about the cheques and bags of flour that were being distributed in Lahore on the eve of the election or the canvassing for the King’s party done by the mightiest in the land by predicting its triumph. The people’s success in overcoming these factors makes their effort all the more impressive. They deserve credit for Monday’s vindication of the majesty of the ballot more than anyone else. They made the final lap of the race somewhat credible, the earlier laps were not.

The media is a close second on the roll of honour, for they stuck to their job despite provocations and not only made the hurdles placed in their way ineffective, they also made the curbs placed on them look ridiculous. The voters’ achievement can be summed up in a few words. They left no room for doubting their comprehensive repudiation of the regime and the way they have been governed for many years.

By calling off the bluff of trouble-makers they reaffirmed the fact that gatherings that demonstrate freedom from fear of violence are not likely to be interfered with. They kept the rate of turnout abreast of the requirement and at places it exceeded 50 per cent.

The voting pattern had quite a few notable features. In three provinces the establishment party was routed and it survived only in Balochistan because the potential winners there, the nationalists became more serious about the poll boycott than the authors of the idea. While the political parties invited criticism for their lack of planning and preparation the voters did not display any such shortcoming. They respected the multi-ethnic character of the provincial entities and avoided voting exclusively along ethnic lines. And they have obliged the various pretenders to the seat of power to learn the art of governance by coalition which must in all circumstances be based on the principle of inter-party consensus.

That Pakistan’s crises have been aggravated to such an extent that they cannot be adequately addressed by any single party is quite widely understood. Even a government of national consensus will realise the need for patient application to the task of creating a reasonably efficient order. The split-vote in almost all parts of the country means that there is no alternative to a sincere search for national consensus and reconciliation.

Let nobody presume that democracy has been restored, only the journey towards this goal has began. No election guarantees change and fulfilment of people’s expectations. It may be suicidal to take the establishment for granted. Its capacity to protect itself by exploiting differences between the major political actors must not be discounted. The danger that democratic politics could be undermined by a replay of the centre-province confrontation such as was witnessed after the 1988 election has already been noted in public debate and it must not be ignored. Whatever the nature and composition of new governments at the centre and in the federating units, it will obviously be necessary to keep personal ambitions of the front runners in check.

Those capable of staying out of power may last in public favour longer then those rushing to assume responsibility for what must for quite some time be unpopular decisions.

In order to be able to fully respect the electorate’s verdict in favour of change the new governments will need to be clear about their priorities. Essentially this applies to the PPP and the PML-N. Fortunately both of them reaffirmed their commitment to the Charter of Democracy in their election manifestos. Their ability to deliver on the people’s expectation will depend on the degree of their faithfulness to the charter.

The new governments will start off well by recognising that democratic governance will not be ushered in with their oath taking. Their most formidable task will be to lay the foundations of democratic institutions, beginning with resurrection of the parliamentary system, which consists mainly of rule by a cabinet totally responsible to and guided by parliament. A speedy revival of parliament as the locus of state authority will be necessary for evolving the system of responsible governance. Pakistan has suffered a great deal over the past decades because of its rulers’ tendency to avoid interaction with the people during inter-election years.

Mature politicians do not always talk down to their people; they listen to them and are not shy of learning from them. It is time to free political parties of the stigma that their sole purpose is to manage periodic elections.

Now is the time for democratic political parties, to establish mechanisms for a two-way flow of ideas between party leaders and the cadres so that the choice of candidates for elective offices can be made solely on the basis of one’s talent, skill and record of public service. The only defence democratic forces can build against their authoritarian rivals lies in broadening the base of governance, the greater the number of the people in power the stronger and more benevolent the democratic system will be.

Of course, there will be pressure on the new rulers to resolve the issues that have fuelled agitation and discontent over the past many months. These are: restoration of the judiciary and its status as an organ of the state by no means inferior to either of the two other state pillars; resolution of the causes of discord over the presidency and a redesigning of its constitutional role; the need to build up a federation of duly autonomous partners; the urgency of devising effective means to overcome militancy and extremism; and the pressing demand to guarantee the disadvantaged hordes freedom from want through gainful employment, social security and advancement of women’s and children’s rights.

Fortunately the electorate has created possibilities for resolving all of these matters. None of these issues is new, and the causes of failure in the past to deal with them should be kept in mind. Quite often the democratic forces make the going difficult by poor manoeuvrings against their adversaries. Efforts to address the critical priorities must begin straightaway because delay in facing a crisis is the surest way to perpetuate it and make it progressively more intractable.

But the temptation to find instant solutions to complex issues through hasty and ill-planned initiatives can be as damaging as inaction. The new leaders will improve the chances of their success if they can learn to take the people into confidence and to take them along. Broadest possible public support to their enterprise alone can assure the new leaders of the minimum necessary comfort on what is manifestly a bed of thorns. Only the fittest to govern will survive.

IF democracy is understood to be the bridge between society and state, the 2008 election has a lot to answer for.

As the results roll in, one central discussion is whether these elections are turning out to be a referendum against the previous government and President Musharraf? Or were the people actively exercising a political will to vote in their preferred representatives and ideology instead?

There is a fundamental difference between these two choices because one is about resistance and opposition while the other suggests an exercise of active citizenship. In either case though, it would read as a win-win scenario under ordinary circumstances. The fear this time, however, is that the electorate may have to reconcile to a third option — a praetorian government under a different acronym.

The window of opportunity to redefine democratic norms was firmly shut by the larger political parties when they chose to participate under General Musharraf’s compromised electoral grounds. One cannot suggest the parties ‘contested’ these elections since the leaders of the two main parties have kept their option open on the question of accommodating each other, the previous ruling party and President Musharraf, if need be.

Indeed, if the recent record of the main opposition PPP is anything to go on, these elections may not have anything to do with voting out the past five years and all about legitimising the Emergency decrees in some degree and manner. Post-election focus then needs to be on converting electoral success into democratic dispensation. These necessarily must go beyond the power arrangement issues and address rights-based ones – and quickly.

If democracy is understood to be a representative rule of rights and justice based on principles of equality, then the course of the new government needs radical rethinking immediately. Several commentators have stressed on the instrumental demands of civil society, which include professional groups of lawyers and journalists, towards restoring the pre Nov 3 judiciary, as well as lifting curbs and bans on the media.

The fact that a debate on judicial and media activism was initiated within these two communities after the imposition of the emergency, suggests that democratic rights are always up for debate as and when the state wishes to raise them. Instead, in a true democracy the issues of rights, responsibility and competency would fall outside the realm of the state and instead, for organised civic groups and parliament to debate and contend amongst themselves.

So if the result of this election is interpreted as one against an incumbent regime then it must equally be seen to be a meaningful tool to reclaim institutional and individual liberties precisely because these were abrogated by the previous government. At the moment the issue of the restoration of the judiciary and a qualitative not quantitative free media, exemplify people’s democratic concerns.

There is also the question of the role President Musharraf will play in the immediate future of Pakistan’s politics. In many ways, he is the litmus test in this new experiment of ‘reconciliatory government’. Just as defendants suggest his removal is not the panacea to all our problems, there are those who suggest that the judiciary and media have not played a democratic role or indeed, have more often been structural impediments rather than enablers of democratic rights.

This is where the debate must now sharpen. If the electoral process is taken to be evidence that the people wish to see the symbolic and literal removal of the previous government, its policies and its president, then the newly elected representatives must equally see it as an affirmation of judicial activism and its demands. After all, it was their sustained activism that created enabling grounds for the parties to later climb on and ride the crest of resistance.

Further, to gain democratic credibility the new government will have to follow two simultaneous impulses. Apart from delivering people’s explicit demands above, it will also need to urgently engage with broader issues of civic and human rights. This is imperative because as much as a defeat of authoritarianism, this vote must be interpreted as a people’s expression for restoration of their rights.

The only way that the newly formed government can prove its worth is by following the call of civil society and supporting the struggle of the lawyers and judges as well as the accumulated and pending issues of disappearances, displacements, human rights and women’s rights abuses and mal-development.

Unlike the practice of military or indeed, previous civilian governments, this time around exercises of exposing corruption or indulging in personal vilification cannot be the raison d’etre to convince people that the elections were meaningful. The causes identified by civil society must be addressed and Parliament must sign this social contract with the people even before they take their seats in the Assembly.

Under a watchful, wisened and activated citizenry, there is a sense of awareness amongst groups, lawyers, the media and activists that the struggle for democracy has just begun, not ended on election night. The representatives would be well advised to understand that present politics are shaped by conceptions of the past. They can either shed themselves willingly of that and continue the momentum begun from Mar 9, or lose it for personal political gain and along with it, the chance to earn any semblance of democratic credibility.

afiyazia@yahoo.com