President Pervez Musharraf, in his maiden speech to the nation as civilian Head of State, has promised to lift emergency and withdraw PCO on December 16, i.e. 23 days before the general elections on January 8. Earlier, he redeemed another pledge by doffing off his uniform on November 15.
It is, perhaps, the first time in Pakistan’s chequered political history that an army chief, who became dictator and suspended the Constitution, has voluntary given up the post of his life-long passion and become a civilian. But, if one considers the events happening in quick succession after March last year in general and November 3 this year in particular, there may be more to this argument. However, whatever the case may be, President Musharraf’s recent measures have the potential to return Pakistan towards a more normalized situation.
In this context, one would also equally welcome President Musharraf’s assertion that general elections would be held on schedule, in a free, fair and transparent manner, allowing all contesting political parties a level-playing field, and that “no one would be allowed to create a hindrance” in Pakistan’s transition to democracy.
No doubt, free and fair elections are essential for democratic development. And the mass media and judiciary have a significant and vital role to play in the democratic process, especially if the elections are to be perceived as being held in a free, fair and transparent manner.
Merely holding the polls without lifting media curbs and reviving the judiciary as of November 2 will not make the election process or its results acceptable. Gagging the media or taming the judiciary will not only fail to achieve this goal, but will also have the added distinction of harming the integrity of elections, especially when there has hardly been any parliamentary election, with the exception of 1970 general elections, that has not been disputed by the observers because of considerable manipulation by the state machinery against one political party or the other. However, their reports have never discouraged the authorities from manipulating the process to get the results of their choice despite the fact that some past governments, including Bhutto’s government in 1977, had to pay dearly for manipulating the elections.
Though a new phenomenon in the contemporary world, the elections also provide important opportunities to force change. In 2000, for example, repressive regimes in Yugoslavia and Peru fell under the weight of domestic and international pressure after they attempted to manipulate elections. Not long ago, such forthright external pressure for fair elections and democratic change was unheard of.
Reverting to January 2008 elections, there are strong apprehensions that the playing field is not even for the contestants. It is more advantageous for the “king’s party” – PML-Q, who has done massive and extended groundwork and is well prepared to contest the polls, using the influence of councillors and district nazims. PML-Q had even started organizing rallies to muster public support about a year before the announcement of elections. The same can be said about its massive media blitz, diverting funds for education and poverty alleviation projects to publicize PML-Q government’s achievements.
Further, the emergency imposed by Pervez Musharraf on November 3, followed by retrogressive steps, like issuance of PCO, oath by judges under the PCO, retirement of 60 judges, curbs on media, have created an environment, which major stakeholders believe was not conducive for holding of free and fair elections. The nourishment of such a feeling by a majority in the country is not good for the integrity of elections.
In view of the fear of polls rigging, all major political parties, with the exception of the PML-Q, JUI (F) and ANP, remain seized with the problem whether they should boycott the upcoming polls or participate in them. Jamaat-i-Islami, Tehrik-i-Insaf and PkMAP have already made a categorical decision about boycott of the elections. A split in the opposition on this issue is really perturbing and does not augur well for the promotion and consolidation of democratic culture.
If PML-N, Jamaat-i-Islami, PkMAP and Tehrik-i-Insaf boycott the polls, it will brighten the electoral prospects of the PML-Q and deprive PPP of the windfall that could come because of the PML vote split, particularly in Punjab. Likewise, Jamaat-i-Islami’s abstention from the electoral process will adversely affect JUI-F because past experience tells that contesting elections independent of each other, these two parties never bagged so many seats in any polls as they did in 2002 general elections only because they joined hands and fought together from one platform. MMA split would, however, prove advantageous for PML-Q and the nationalist political parties in Balochistan.
Given the examples that exist from the past, it would be more advantageous for the political parties to participate in the electoral process, rather than stage a boycott. Full participation by groups representing all shades of opinion is, in fact, the best way to strengthen the democratic system and to avert any attempts to manipulate or tamper with the process. All stakeholders should, therefore, participate fully in the elections and send those representatives to the assemblies who can negotiate things skillfully and succeed in restoring the old order.
But, the political parties must be given firm assurance, backed by practical visible action, that the polls would be free, fair and transparent. Unless they have confidence in the political process, it would be hard for them to accept the results. For this, it is necessary that all pre-poll decisions that may appear to be favouring PML-Q must be withdrawn.
Unfortunately, tempted by the spoils of power, the country’s political elite has, in the past, succumbed too often to the establishment’s tactics, just the way the PML-Q, PPP-Patriots and MQM did from 2002 – 2007. It is time that the political elite learnt some lessons from their past experience. One hopes that they would keep in mind that Pakistan’s democratic transition from 1988 – 1999 faltered and stalled when elected governments failed to deliver, their credibility undermined by mal-administration, corruption and political vendettas. As the democratic transition stalled, it provided opportunity and pretext to the establishment to disrupt the process.
Further, the political elite has so far failed to work collectively in the Parliament to strengthen the democratic institutions and norms. Instead, elected governments and their political opponents joined hands with the establishment to gain or retain power.
The political elite can strengthen the democratic norms only if they reach a consensus within and outside the parliament to correct the political and constitutional distortions introduced by the establishment. However, a consolidation of the democratic transition would depend on the political elite’s respect for democratic governance.
The boycott of the polls by the political parties is bound to add to the difficulties of the new government because those political parties, who are not represented in the assemblies, would keep raising their voice for fresh elections to be conduced by a sovereign Election Commission under the supervision of a sovereign judiciary. Public agitations might ultimately force the authorities, as it did in 1977, to opt for snap elections. However, such an eventuality can be avoided if the elections are free and fair elections, both in letter and spirit.
