Pakistanis go to the polls, but real power will remain with the military, reports Iffat Malik from Islamabad On Thursday 10 October Pakistanis go to the polls to restore democratically elected civilian rule, after three years of military rule. While some are optimistic about this restoration, others point to the lessons of history and predict failure. Pakistan is no stranger to military rule, nor to military governments ceding power to civilian ones. In the past, this transition was performed to create the façade of the military giving power back to a civilian government. In the 1970s General Yahya held elections, but then refused to appoint the party with the most votes to government. That refusal led to the break- up of the country and the creation of Bangladesh. General Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan's most notorious dictator, carried out non-party-based elections in the mid-80s after first securing his own position through a national referendum. When the supposedly pliant prime minister he appointed, Muhammed Junejo, tried to make decisions independent of the president, he was promptly dismissed from office. The constitutional amendments and legal measures that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf put in place before October's elections for the National and Provincial Assemblies have an air of familiarity. Musharraf secured his position as president for the next five years through a referendum that was blatantly rigged. He further strengthened that position by giving himself the power to dismiss the government, and by setting up a supervisory National Security Council to oversee government functions. All three armed forces chiefs are represented on the Council. This marks the first time in Pakistan's history that the military has been formally incorporated into the decision-making process of a civilian government. The measures introduced by Musharraf have led many to conclude that the elections will just be a formality to appease the international community, while real power will remain with the military. Surprisingly this perception has not dented the enthusiasm of the political parties. Most parties protested against the legal framework erected by Musharraf. This includes a minimum graduate qualification for electoral candidates, and the barring of all those convicted or facing criminal charges. These conditions have led to many established politicians being excluded from the race. Former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, in state- imposed and self-imposed exile respectively, cannot run for office. Despite protesting the new restrictions, all the parties are participating in the electoral process. They seem to have accepted the inevitability of continued military rule, and are prepared to work around that. In the opinion of many, any elections and even limited transfer of power to civilians, is better than nothing at all. Politics in Pakistan has very little to do with ideology and political agendas; apart from the fundamental division into religious and "secular" there is very little to distinguish them in terms of policies. The two mainstream parties are the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and the Pakistan Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto (PPP). Taking the PML first, it is actually not one but a collection of mutually hostile parties. The PML(N) is the party of ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Not surprisingly, it is vehemently opposed to the military government. The PML(Q) was formed by a break-away faction of the PML after the 1999 military coup. It has been described as the "King's Party", a reference to its closeness to the military government. The PML(Q) was openly pushed by the government in local elections, and it is widely acknowledged that Musharraf would like to appoint the next prime minister from that party. The PML(Q)'s problem is that it has a weak leader, Mian Azhar, who lacks both charisma and national recognition. Competing ambitions with other more capable figures have prevented Azhar being replaced with someone more likely to win. The party also suffers because of its closeness to Musharraf. The PPP, despite two disastrous periods in office with Bhutto, characterised by massive corruption, has a strong following throughout the country and especially in Bhutto's native Sind province. Its problem is that virtually all of that following is dependent on the person of Benazir Bhutto. She is not prepared to return to Pakistan because of outstanding corruption charges against her. Without her, the party will see limited success. However, there is no other party which can get nation- wide support. Former cricket star Imran Khan's Tehreek-I- Insaaf has a popular stance to eradicate corruption and restore clean government. But as a young party, also dependent on the charisma of its leader, it will be lucky to win a seat in the National Assembly. Altaf Hussain's Muttahida Qaumi Movement is very powerful in urban Sind, but is invisible elsewhere. The religious parties have tried to maximise their chances of success by banding together in an electoral coalition, the Mutahida Majlis Amal (MMA). This is unlikely to be successful. Pakistani voters have repeatedly shown that they do not wish to bring religion into decision-making. The combination of continued military power and ineffectual political parties has produced large-scale electoral apathy. While the parties are doing their best to invigorate the campaign, the public is hardly showing interest. Voter turnout is predicted to be low, perhaps even lower than the 35.9 per cent turnout in the 1997 elections. Those that do vote, will likely do so on the basis of purely local concerns. Given that there is no single party with a clear advantage on the national level, the most likely result will be a hung parliament with lots of parties winning a handful of seats. That is precisely the result Musharraf would like to see, because it will enable him to choose who to invite into the upper level of the government. On the military front, Friday, six days before the general elections, Pakistan test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile. Hatf-IV, also known as Shaheen-I, is surface-to- surface missile with a maximum range of 500 miles. Islamabad claimed the test was routine, but the Indian government accused it of carrying out a "pre-election publicity stunt", however that did not stop the Indians from responding in kind. India test- fired its Akash missile within hours of the Pakistani test. The international community watched these antics with alarm. Irrespective of the domestic political motivation, no one is forgetting that thousands of Pakistani and Indian forces have been facing each other in a state of high alert since December, and that both countries possess nuclear weapons. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher made clear the Bush administration's disappointment and concern: "There is a charged atmosphere in the region and these tests can contribute to that atmosphere, and make it harder to prevent a costly and destabilising nuclear and missile arms race." The problem is that in election season, be it Pakistani or Indian, such foreign policy implications get lost in the rush to win domestic votes.
