The Pakistani earthquake was described as retribution for the rulers' misdeeds and particularly for the "massive rigging of local government elections in the holy month of Ramadan", reports Iffat Idris from Islamabad Earthquakes are a natural disaster, beyond anyone's control. But that has not stopped the blame game in Pakistan. As the death toll from the tragedy mounts -- 20,000 by Monday and expected to grow as remote areas are reached -- many have been pointing accusing fingers at the government. The main criticism has been of the authorities' slow response. Even in the capital Islamabad, it was many hours before an organised rescue effort got underway at the collapsed 10-storey Margalla Towers. Questions have also been raised about the failure to enforce building regulations: the Towers had two illegal extra floors. Getting relief to the northern areas (NWFP and Pakistan-administered Kashmir) -- far worse affected -- took even longer. The government defended itself by saying that even developed countries could not have been prepared for a disaster of such magnitude. It added that most roads leading north have been blocked by landslides, making air drops the only means to get relief to those stricken there. Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and other ministers have been very visible visiting affected sites, trying to show activism in the official relief effort. The government appealed to Pakistanis (at home and abroad) and to the international community for help. They called for national unity in what President Musharraf described as "the worst calamity in the country's history". Ordinary Pakistanis have responded generously. Political parties have also set up relief funds and organised assistance for the victims. Jama'at-i-Islami was one of the first and most organised in getting its relief work underway. JI leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed also criticised the international community. Describing United States and British assistance as "peanut aid", he urged the government to reject it. Many opposition leaders blamed the government not just for its "lethargic" response to the disaster, but for actually causing it through its bad policies. Jailed PML-N President Javed Hashmi said the quake "was a divine warning to the rulers to stop their corrupt practices and mend their ways lest much bigger retribution would be sent to them". Religious leaders went even further. Qazi Hussain Ahmed said natural calamities "are a warning and test for humanity, and a call from Allah to review our deeds as a nation and individuals". Various religious scholars said it was "Allah Almighty's practice to send warnings in this shape to disobedient nations and rulers defying Him so that they could take the lead and mend their ways". Ludicrous as these explanations might seem, their impact should not be dismissed. Pakistanis are a deeply religious people, and at times of disaster such as this, even the less devout among them turn to God. Some will find logic in the explanation offered by the religious and political leaders. Will the quake impact the long-term position of the Musharraf government? Unlikely. The ruling PML-Q emerged dominant in the latest local government elections. Similar tactics will likely yield similar results in national and provincial elections, due in 2007. The other factor working in the government's favour is that Pakistanis, sadly, are all too used to their rulers letting them down. Devolution of power to the grassroots was one of the major reforms introduced by the military government of Musharraf. While Musharraf's regime boasts that local governments are a sign of strengthening democracy in Pakistan, critics claim the opposite. They accuse the military of favouring local elections as a non- threatening way of restoring "democracy" -- more convenient than promoting democratic politics at the provincial and national levels, and one that allows the military to retain actual power. The local government system in Pakistan is three-tiered: union (the lowest), tehsil and district (the highest). Union councillors and mayors are elected directly by the general public. The powerful tehsil and district mayors are elected indirectly by a constituency comprising all the union councillors. A significant feature of the system is that 33 per cent of seats are reserved for women -- an unprecedented increase in women's political representation in Pakistan. The first local governments were sworn into office on 14 August 2001. Four years on, another round of election was held in August. These were conducted in two stages: in stage one, the general public vote for union councillors and mayors; in stage two union councillors voted for tehsil and district mayors. Stage one was held on 18 and 25 August -- in half the country at a time. Stage two was held on 6 October -- days before the devastating earthquake. A big difference between 2001 and 2005 was in the degree of participation. Several major political parties -- the MQM in Sindh, and the Islamist MMA in NWFP -- boycotted the 2001 polls. This time round, all parties took part. The Election Commission of Pakistan issued a Code of Conduct designed to ensure free and fair elections. One of the stipulations in the code was that government officials and ministers would not be allowed to use official facilities to campaign, and that they would not be allowed to enter polling stations. In practice, this ban was openly violated: government cars, staff and resources were blatantly used by ministers to support their candidates. There were also widespread reports of pre-polling and polling-day irregularities. In stage one many opposition candidates were not allowed to file their nomination papers or were rejected on spurious grounds; other candidates were pressured or bribed not to stand; voters likely to vote for the opposition found their names removed from registration lists; some candidates handed out cash and even mobile phones to persuade voters to back them; and there were many reports of violence, with several candidates being shot by rivals before polling day. Polling in stage one was also marred by significant electoral violence. Several districts were declared "sensitive" and the police and army were deployed there in large numbers. But this did not prevent polling day violence. On 18 August, when voting took place in 53 districts across the country, around two dozen people were killed. On 25 August, when the remaining 54 districts voted, the death toll was even higher: 29 according to the police, more according to civil society groups. The Election Commission responded by announcing that the results would be declared null and void in all constituencies where women were banned from voting, and elections would be re-held there. Overall, Election Commission proved unable to curb widespread violations of its Code of Conduct. The Election Commission put the turnout in stage one of the polls at around 50 per cent. Independent analysts said this was impossible to verify because there was no computerised voting or collation of data. Stage two polling was considerably different in character from stage one. As explained, the electorate for district and tehsil nazims comprise all union councillors in the area -- not the general public. The size of each electoral constituency therefore ranged between a few to several hundred councillors. Stage two campaigning saw massive coercion and persuasion tactics being applied to persuade union councillors to vote for particular candidates. The tactics deployed by ruling party candidates were especially blatant. To cite just one example, several hundred councillors from across Punjab province were brought to hotels and rest-houses in the beautiful hill station of Murree. They were holed up there "for recreational purposes" until just one day before voting. The final results came as no surprise: domination by the ruling PML-Q. But do these second local government elections mark a further move towards democracy in Pakistan? While the government would answer with a resounding yes, human rights groups, opposition parties and analysts beg to differ. The struggle for genuine democracy in Pakistan clearly has a long way to go.
