Prof. Kalim Bahadur: Internal Dynamics

     Prof. Kalim Bahadur’s opening remark was that predicting the outcome of Pakistan elections was a ‘speculative process’ as one can never be sure as to which way political fortunes may swing. This uncertainty is precisely what Gen. Musharraf wanted by undertaking his pre-poll constitutional amendments, to enable him to hold onto power in case developments were not in his favour. Despite its shortcomings, these elections were of significance as this is the first time a military regime in Pakistan has conducted an election and succeeded in getting the result it wanted. This was not the case with the elections held in 1970 by Yahya Khan and in 1984 by Zia-ul-Haq. 

     To insulate himself from any mishaps General Musharraf indulged in what has been termed ‘pre-poll rigging’. It includes measures like i) the revival of the 8th Amendment through the Legal Framework Order (LFO), which enables him to dismiss a democratically elected regime and ii) holding of the Referendum, which gives the General another term of five years in power. Apart from these two overt measures, the General was also able to bolster the parties of his choice, like Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid-e-Azam). A splinter group, PML(Q) enjoys the support of the rentier classes of Punjab. In this way, the military ensured the ascendancy of a regime that is friendly and can be engaged as a junior partner. 

     According to Prof. Bahadur, the most impacting development of these elections was the emergence of the MMA (Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal) as a significant party. A conglomeration of 6 fundamentalist parties, MMA was an achievement in itself as this was the first time since 1970 that major religious parties had buried their differences and contested as a United Front. This is a unique feat as there are sharp differences between the Shia and the Sunni Muslims. MMA succeeded in accommodating both the sects.

     Coming to the composition of the MMA, three out of its six coalition partners have a strong popular base. However, there are two other reasons for its emergence: 1) the anti-American sentiment that has engulfed most of Pakistan. This helped MMA to consolidate its vote bank among the pro-Islamists. 2) The absence of three prominent leaders (PPP’s Benazir Bhutto, PML(N)’s Nawaz Sharif and MQM’s Altaf Hussain) from the elections. This resulted in a reduction of the liberal votes.

     The three prominent parties that emerged from these elections were the PML(Q), which secured 77 seats, PPP got 63 seats and MMA secured 55 seats (45 on its own + 10 seats FATA or Federally Administered Tribal Area). MMA won 11 percent of the votes in the National Assembly and 13 percent in the Provincial Assembly. This is a substantial improvement from its 1970 position, when it failed to secure more than 5 percent votes.

     MMA’s good showing is a result of the following:

• Weakness of democratic temper in Pakistan;

•  Internal developments and dynamics;

•  Lack of Unity and ideological vision.

      According to Prof. Bahadur, MMA’s impressive performance is not a result of an ideological tilt in Pakistan as most people (about 66 percent) voted for only one MMA candidate (either for the National Assembly or Provincial Assembly). This is symptomatic of a lack of ideological unity, a welcome sign for India. However, the rise of the MMA will have negative fallout within Pakistan. It will curtail women’s freedom by attempting to push Shariat laws like ban on co-education, observance of purdah, all of which reminds one of the Taliban regime. MMA in power is likely to result in the widening and deepening of sectarian tensions.

     The important results of the elections are:

• There has been no increase in the popularity of fundamentalist parties;

•  Benazir’s absence did not make any difference to the PPP’s electoral fortunes;

•  MMA in power is likely to make negotiations on Kashmir more difficult;

•  Finally, and most important of all, the military will continue to exercise an overall Veto power in any decision making process in Pakistan. Democratic regimes will have to adjust to the military establishment and learn to share power. 

Lt. Gen. A. M. Vohra: Position of President Musharraf

     According to Gen. Vohra, the position of Musharraf depends entirely on the army. He is of the opinion that backing Musharraf is tantamount to backing an institution rather than an individual. He enumerated the three important pre-election measures taken by Musharraf: 1) Holding a Referendum 2) Amending the 1973 Constitution and 3) Forming a National Security Council with five members from the Defence Forces. This was a far-sighted move since the elections failed to provide a clear-cut majority to any single party. The Musharraf-supported PML(Q) has emerged as the single largest party with 77 seats, apart from 22-odd supporters, bringing its strength close to 100. The various elected parties are talking of forming a ‘consensus government’. 

     The crucial issue at this juncture is the direction in which Pak-US relations are heading. Will MMA’s king maker role change the course of Pakistan’s foreign policy? As per the statements made by the Pakistan Information Minister, Nissar Ahmed and MMA leader, Shah Ahmed Noorani, there will be no change in Pak-US relations. While Nissar Ahmed reiterated Pakistan’s support and membership in the US-led coalition against terrorism, Shah Ahmed Noorani went a step further and called for closer relations with the US, but not at the cost of sovereignty. Noorani condemned the stationing of US troops in Pakistan, and the silence of the US on the genocide being carried out in Palestine and Kashmir, while targeting Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite an anti-American agenda, MMA will not be able to execute their manifesto because of the limitations of coalition politics.

     Gen. Vohra was of the opinion that MMA in power will pose a greater threat to Pakistan’s internal stability and cohesion rather than in external affairs. He dismissed any change in Pakistan’s foreign relations. In the end, he highlighted the cosy relationship that MMA shares with the Army. In fact, the Army had executed the Taliban project through the MMA. According to him, Pakistan has been soft towards religious parties. The end result is that the maulanas are worried about the military leadership and the military leadership are afraid of the maulanas. Despite the indifferences, the two will come together as they both have a common goal – power. 

Salman Haider: Implications for India and the United States

     Ambassador Haider started his talk by stating that the Pakistan elections have not yielded any clear results, leading to problems in government formation. According to him, once these problems are sorted out, a clearer picture of foreign policy will emerge. However, Amb. Haider did not foresee any change in foreign policy. He expected internal jockeying for power at the cost of diminishing the credibility of the process. Post poll rigging or maneuvering, according to the speaker, will have an adverse effect on external perceptions. General Musharraf will have to demonstrate a greater move towards democracy to maintain close ties with Washington.

     Mr. Haider drew parallels between India and Pakistan on two counts. 

1. The allegation of pre-poll rigging – he said it was ironical to note that both India (Kashmir elections) and Pakistan have been accused of indulging in pre-poll rigging. This displays a convergence between the democratic practices in India and Pakistan.

2. The rise of a fundamentalist wave – both India and Pakistan are witnessing a phenomenal rise of fundamentalist parties in power. The BJP in India and MMA in Pakistan are manifestations of a surge of fundamentalism, which is bound to impinge on the internal and external affairs of the two countries.

     MMA’s rise has already set a Taliban-like regime in motion. An example of this is the ban on co-education. A power wielding MMA is likely to revive the fortunes of Afghans in Pakistan. Some 4-5 percent of the total 11 percent votes that MMA secured come from them. MMA in power will also have a negative impact on the Kashmir issue. The Kashmir issue in Pakistan will receive greater salience. There will be less scope for compromises or flexibility of any kind over the Kashmir issue, at least in the early stages. On the other hand, General Musharraf’s task gets more complicated as he would have a less free hand. He will have to maintain a semblance of democracy for the sake of ensuring legitimacy for himself. After much effort the General has won back his credentials by resurrecting democracy in Pakistan. Amb. Haider was skeptical of the staying power of the mullahs. He doubted their influence and ability to wreak havoc and control the political process by raking religious sentiments. The speaker also wondered whether anti-Americanism is mere rhetoric or a genuine underlying sentiment.

     Coming to the responses from various countries, US response to the entire democratic exercise was encouraging. The US was ‘satisfied’ because ‘it chose to remain satisfied’. As for India, there was no effect whatsoever of the elections. India did not figure in Pak election agenda as an overt factor.  This perhaps explains its indifference. Amb. Haider concluded his talk with the observation that there would be a slowing down of positive trends and an acceleration of negative trends, resulting from these elections.

Discussion

 

Failure of Democracy in Pakistan

Prof. Kalim Bahadur gave four reasons for the persistent failure of democracy in Pakistan:

• Weak democratic institutions

•  Most of the leaders of independent Pakistan were migrants who lacked any home constituency, hence they did not want democracy to succeed.

•  The feudal leaders of Punjab did not support the idea of Pakistan being a majority community in the region; they were not facing any insecurity.

•  The victory of the religious parties (MMA) is only relative. An increase in their percentage of votes is a result of many complex reasons, and not due to anti-American sentiments. 

Madarasa and Education Policy 

• Madarasas are not institutionalised in Pakistan. They follow their own rules and curriculum.

•  During the Cold War, the Pakistani and the US establishments encouraged these religious schools to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan.

•  The government in Pakistan is well aware of the fact that the religious parties get money for running madarasas from the drugs and arms trade.

•  If Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal comes to power, it will not accept any executive control over the madarasas.

•  A point that madarasas in India are not very different from that in Pakistan was raised. The ordinance on educational qualification for contesting elections had annoyed the hardliners 

Lessons For India

• There is no immediate impact of these elections on India. But MMA’s coming to power can have a serious impact on India due to their close connections with terrorist organisations indulge in anti India activities. 

•  India should accept that Pakistan will not change on its own or through US pressures. We should formulate a strategy based on accepting Pakistan as it exists, and deal with it directly and not through third countries.

•  For an effective foreign policy, India should give up its ‘preferential class consciousness’ in foreign policy making with the West, Pakistan and the rest of the world forming a descending order of priorities. The indifference to the terrorist attack in Indonesia by Indian policy makers is a sign of this consciousness.

•  What will be the impact of these elections on India’s concerns on cross border terrorism, especially after the withdrawal of Indian troops from the border is the real question. India should think about the military option in the case of an emergency.

•  India should closely observe whether these elections in Pakistan lead to increasing religious orthodoxy and what would be India’s policy towards a government of fundamentalist parties in Pakistan. 

•  India should engage Pakistan through Track II diplomacy and economic bilateral diplomacy, such as the oil pipeline. 

Pak-US Relations 

• These elections were enough for the military regime to keep America happy.

•  America is aware that Musharraf is not acceptable to the religious parties, but it believes that these parties can be managed.

•  In its short and medium term interests, the US will continue with its friendly policy towards Pakistan.

Military and ISI 

• The real power resides with the corp commanders and not with the ISI. ISI is merely a wing of the army and does not have the independence to go against the military government. That ISI is not under the control of General Musharraf is US propaganda. 

•  The army has full control over the religious parties as well. In case of resistance by these parties to Pakistan’s foreign policy, the army can create a split between them. 

Judiciary

• Judiciary is the weakest organ of the Pakistani government. Since 1957, the judiciary has supported the military regimes through its ‘doctrine of necessity’ principle.

•  Judiciary does not have real power, as during every regime change the judges have to take an oath of affirmation to the new Provisional Constitution. Their decisions are manipulated by the military regime.