Pakistan elections have buried some shibboleths

  Three cheers for democracy. Pakistan has shown the way, and spectacularly.
   For all the anguished hand-wringing in the western governments and media over the elections in Pakistan anyone would think that the nation had plunged into an unfathomable abyss.
   Western policy in South-West Asia may not be enjoying a high point. But the moment a consensus arose about dispatching Benazir Bhutto to take up the cudgels of democracy there were always going to be serious concerns about the way the story would unfold. The result for Benazir was all too tragic and, perhaps, predictable; but the result for Pakistan as a whole has been much better than anyone could have expected in the circumstances. Democracy has made a real breakthrough and the fears and propaganda about the strength, depth and influence of extremist Islamists have proved false. Even in the so-called no-go areas in the remote north-west, where so much of the struggle against al-Qaeda has been conducted, moderation ruled.
   The six-party Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), which won more then 50 seats in the last parliament, has been reduced to a fifth of that number. The loss of its seats to parties representing local interests may not augur particularly well for national unity. But the important thing is that these local focuses of grievance now have an outlet through the national seat of government to voice their complaints. In this category the Awami National Party (ANP) and Balochistan National Party (Awami) can truly take pride in their performance. Pakistan’s firm commitment to secular and moderate Islam has also been confirmed by the powerful showing of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League–Nawaz  (PML-N) at the national level. 
   It is now clear that the strong showing of the Islamist parties in the 2002 elections, the first time in the country’s history of five and a half decades, was an aberration. The reasons are not difficult to fathom in the aftermath of the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001 and the defeat of the Taliban regime in Kabul. The electors in Pakistan are now saying emphatically that history has moved on and that they have moved on with it.
   Three questions now arise: Is the government of Pakistan ready to move on, in concert with its people? Second: is the West going to ensure that the interests of the people of Pakistan are taken care of, having helped shape the contest in the first place? And third: what is going to be the response of the jihadists on Pakistani soil to the new reality?
   The jihadists, as might be expected, seem to have resumed business as usual. After a largely peaceful election, a suicide bomber claimed the life of the Army’s surgeon-general, Lieutenant-General Mushtaq Ahmed Baig. He is the most senior military officer to have been killed since Pakistan joined the United States’ so-called war on terror in 2001. Though there was no immediate claim of responsibility there seemed little doubt that al-Qaeda associates were behind the assassination. This is as close as they have come to Pervez Musharraf, the former Army Commander-in-Chief and currently civilian President. This must also be seen as an indication that they will not rest until Musharraf is removed from the elite, one way or another.
   This is also the aim of the PPP and PML-N, the two parties that will have the lion’s share of power in the new parliament. But the realities of politics being what they are, it is likely that at least in the initial stages Asif Zardari, the leader of the PPP and widower of Benazir Bhutto, will form some kind of working relationship with Musharraf. But Nawaz Sharif has made it clear that he wants the President to step down.
   The stance of Benazir Bhutto’s Anglo-American supporters is so far unclear. At this point anyone who wishes the Pakistan people well would hope that they would stand back and let events take their course. That, surely, is the best way to ensure that democracy has a chance of becoming entrenched in Pakistan in the long term. Pakistan certainly remains a key strategic state but the rejection of radical Islam in the polls shows that the people should be given a chance to reject the Islamists in their midst. This best guarantees the outcome that the West hopes to achieve.
   At the same time, a government formed without western influence is unlikely to happen in the real world. It is reported that Zardari has already made more than one visit to the United States Embassy.
   For the West, having prodded Musharraf to doff his Army uniform and hold the elections in the first place, it would be inconsistent if it does not now follow through and have him stand down, to be replaced by a more legitimate figure. But Musharraf has made it clear that he intends to see out his full term, till 2012.
   Before the election, Musharraf was seen by many as a guarantor against the encroachment of the radicals in Pakistan society. But the election has proved that more likely, it is the exploitation of the Islamic issue by the Army and the political parties that has given the radicals their currency. Let the ruling dispensation in Pakistan stop using them as tools of governance and policy either to create strategic depth in Afghanistan or as a means of pressuring India through Kashmir. Matters might then improve.
   The Army no doubt feels vulnerable, with its former figurehead a much weakened talisman. It must now contend with political parties with strong reservations about its interventionist role in the country’s politics. But the health of Pakistan polity demands that the Army begins the process of coming under civilian control and wind down its policy of using Islamist groups for political purposes.
   In short, Pakistan needs to be given a chance to reorder its priorities. As becomes a ‘normal’ country, it now needs to focus on building up education, civil society and institutions.

top