Mankind will never see an end of trouble until...lovers of wisdom come to hold political power, or the holders of power...become lovers of wisdom. Plato, The Republic. After a great degree of uncertainty and foreign pressure to host 'free, fair and peaceful elections,' on February 18, President Pervez Musharraf's administration managed to host elections that lived up to expectations - a relatively peaceful day for voters throughout Pakistan.
Shortly after midnight, results started seeping-in and, unlike the elections in 2002, no one party had a landslide victory - the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) got 88 seats in the parliament, while Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) came second in the race with 22 fewer seats.
As the political scenario started to become clear with the dawn of February 19, political pundits predicted that talks between Asif Zardari, the co-chairman of PPP, and Nawaz Sharif, the Leader of PML-N, would make headlines the following day - and these talks would, perhaps, lead to a grand alliance.
But, what made news, on February 20, was Zardari's rendezvous with the Senators John Kerry, Joseph Biden, Chuck Hagel and the US Ambassador Anne Patterson, which led many Pakistanis to believe that Washington has become a beacon for political negotiations between the two giants. This encounter highlights the importance of Pakistan's election 2008 in the international political arena.
The White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, confirmed that President Bush spoke to President Musharraf, after the poor performance of PML(Q) in the parliamentary elections, but she did not give any details of what they talked about.
However, it is evident from the White House and the State Department's dialectic that the Bush administration is not yet keen to let go of Musharraf. The pro-Musharraf sentiment in the White House was reaffirmed by the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, Richard A. Boucher: "We look forward to working with whoever emerges as prime minister; and we look forward to working with President Musharraf in his new role."
Besides United States, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also emphasised the importance of free and fair elections in Pakistan. And, both Bush and Brown argued for the elections because they wanted Pakistan to steer towards Democracy - which is very nice of them - but does one, therefore, assume that the regime prior to the elections (also their strong ally) was undemocratic. Or, are they looking for a stronger ally, who is able to jot-down each and every word of the dictation and implement it to the fullest?
Just recently, weeks before the elections, when Gordon Brown visited New Delhi, he made a comment about Pakistan, which makes one wonder if he is really keen to see democracy thrive in Pakistan or if he is looking forward to a regime that can act as a pawn in the US led war-on-terror.
The British government was passive-aggressive in their alliance with US in the beginning, but the 7/7 bombings in London have pushed UK closer to the US position on war-on-terror. "We are always concerned about issues that relate to terrorism and security...We are trying to bolster that relationship so that al Qaeda does not get a further foothold in Pakistan."
President Musharraf seems to be an 'indispensable' ally in annihilating al Qaida and the like, even after PML-Q's defeat in the parliamentary election. "Well, the President (Bush) does support President Musharraf for all the work that he has done to help us in counter terrorism," said Perino in a daily briefing.
If Musharraf is an integral part of war-on-terror, why then did Bush and Brown push the administration to hold elections in Pakistan? One widely agreed point of view is that although President Musharraf was an 'agent of change,' the West would still prefer someone who does entertain the possibility of US troops landing in Pakistani soil to find al Qaeda operatives in the Northern region of Pakistan.
The departed Benazir Bhutto, vowed to fully support the US policies on war-on-terror. Zardari's meeting with the Ambassador, shortly after his victory, shows that he will follow Benazir Butto's line of thought on foreign policy.
Elections were, also, necessary because "observers both inside and outside Pakistan had despaired about whether the army would ever allow a general election in the country," said, Gowher Rizvi, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
Although, the White House spokeswoman, Perino, said that "it is up to the people of Pakistan to see what their new government would look like," but Rizvi opines that Bhutto's return to Pakistan after a self-imposed exile was "engineered by the US and UK governments with a view to cloak President Musharraf's efforts with a democratic façade."
Rizvi has a point. In the 2002 elections, the Islamist parties had a landslide victory in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). They bagged nine-seats, which is a shame when compared to 67 seats to the religious parties in the 2002 elections. If history had repeated itself, the American dream to carry out a military operation in the search of al Qaeda operatives in NWFP would have shattered before seeing the light of the day.
Who else in the Pakistani political arena can prove to be an ally better than Musharraf? Nawaz Sharif is someone who "settles the score," by testing nuclear bombs, against the wishes of the then President Clinton, so how could US fully trust the PML-Q with their beloved: war-on-terror. Who is left? Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) - whose strength is far too limited.
The point Rizvi is trying to underline is that it is important for the US to install a premier, in Pakistan, who agrees to offer support of American fight against the so-called jihadists in the borders of Afghanistan-Pakistan.
"For the past eight years neither the US nor the UK spoke against the military rule, offered no help to the democratic forces in Pakistan - but on the contrary offered political, economic and diplomatic support to Musharraf," said Rizvi, who is also the Director of Ash Institute of Governance.
The prima facie expectations of the US and the UK from the 2008 elections were to ensure that Islamist parties are defeated and a liberal government, as per their definition, takes the driving seat in Pakistan. Their interest in these elections is premised upon their security concerns.
India has similar concerns with regard to Pakistan and they are keen to see what comes out of it. "I think many Indians are very curious bout the future of President Musharraf and critical of America's role in Pakistan's tortured history," said Barkha Dutt, an accomplished Indian journalist.
As a next-door neighbour, India, also, had high stakes in Pakistan's election. On the day Pakistan was holding its 'free, fair and peaceful' elections, Indian Premier Manmohan Singh's special envoy, Shyam Saran, expressed his concerns that Pakistan's nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists.
"The mounting concern over the likelihood that, in a situation of chaos, Pakistan's nuclear assets may fall into the hands of jihadi elements, fired by the ideology of extremism and mindless violence, underscores how real this danger has become." He added: "While nation states may be deterred by nuclear weapons, terrorists and jihadi groups cannot."
With all due respect to Saran, he makes nuclear weapons sound like a toy which may fall into the hands of someone who has no concept of how dangerous they are or what their misuse would mean to the global peace. His concerns are arguably exaggerated and a cheap stunt to gain political leverage over Pakistan.
There may be a feeling that India would like Pakistan to remain ever unstable, but a resolve is only possible when both countries come to a compromise. "It may be a well worn cliché, but the fact is that a moderate, stable, neighbour with institutionalised democracy is much more in India's interests, than volatility under our nose," said Dutt, in an interview with the author of this piece.
India is also concerned about how Pakistan will deal with the Kashmir conflict. As per Rizvi's candid analysis, the new regime will not have the mandate or the resilience to formulate a constructive policy to resolve Pakistan's claim to Kashmir. And, his argument is based on the premise that no civilian government has ever had the freedom to negotiate on Kashmir without the help of the military.
"The military on the other hand is the major beneficiary of the conflict with India, and indeed the dispute over Kashmir in many ways is the justification and raison d'etre for the existence of large and extravagant armed forces in Pakistan," said Rizvi.
Nonetheless, Dutt is positive in her views about the future of talks between the two governments on Kashmir conflict. "I think, finally, there is enough continuity to the peace process, that it will continue, no matter who comes next," said NDTV's Dutt.
Needless to say, the election was a momentous occasion that grabbed the attention of people from all round the world, from all walks of life - primarily due to Pakistan's strategic positioning in global politics.
Irrespective of who comes to power, in whatever guise, there is no getting away from the fact that Pakistan will remain a key player in global issues such as the so called war-on-terror, Taliban's presence in Afghanistan, and insurgency in Kashmir. Every Pakistani is watching the maneuvers in the political sphere with bated breath; it is their innate desire that "lovers of wisdom" takes the reign of the country and governs it towards the right direction.
Comments
Comments are closed.