Pakistan’s current political status quo – resting on coerced friendships, forced allies and an uneasy alliance with the khakis – has had a good shelf life. It did not expire with Raymond Davis being handed over so casually to the US. It could have, given to the kind of street power and escalating television drama that erupted after the killing of Faheem and Faizan. Kudos to those who maneuvered the campaign to fever pitch, then led it to a great finale. ‘Diyat’ laws rule.
The political balance did not shake when the US Navy Seals carried out a covert operation in Abbottabad to hunt down Osama bin Laden. The fury and embarrassment was addressed in a joint parliamentary session and the issue resolved via a resolution. The PNS Mehran incident led to some damage – within and without – but the political equation remained intact. There was however, one serious casualty: Saleem Shahzad. This, too, was taken care of by setting up a commission to investigate the matter. A few days later, another tragedy – this time in Karachi – reared its ugly head threatening to take at least some out of their political comfort zone; the merciless killing of Sarfaraz Shah at the hands of Rangers’ personnel led many to lose their sleep, some to cry, and the chief justice to take suo moto action. The political set-up, however, remained unchanged.
But what can endure tragedies and security lapses, has succumbed to what we now know as “rigged” elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. An attempt at forced seat adjustment with the PPP’s most trusted ally has forced the MQM to file for divorce. With this annulment of marriage comes a political crisis for the existing coalition that is now more dependent on the support of the PML-Q. The PML-Q itself faces a new dilemma. It will now have to stay in central quarters, not where it wants to be the most: Punjab. The PPP is visibly shaken by the MQM’s harsh rhetoric and is only beginning to understand how demanding an only coalition partner can get. The PML-N has alleged that the AJK elections fell prey to the evil designs of the PPP and is not just stopping at rhetoric. The PML-N has decided to challenge the AJK elections in the Muzaffarabad High Court. The MQM too is seeking help from the courts to be able to contest the two seats whose elections were postponed by the government. The PPP describes it as a law and order situation, while the MQM terms it an attempt to hijack its mandate.
The AJK elections are a relatively minor election but have led to major changes in the political set-up. AJK is a free state, which means, it is neither an independent country, nor a constituent of the Pakistani federation. With this election, our political parties have dragged Kashmir into the mess that is Pakistani politics. Now, there is a call for re-polling in Mirpur, mud-slinging in Islamabad and petitions in Muzaffarabad and the Sindh High Court filed by the PML-N and the MQM respectively. If the issue is about the elections being rigged, yes, it may be true. There is some truth to the fact that the voter lists were grossly flawed, and one could always question why the Nadra offices were open on a Sunday. The scenes of violence and people actually walking away with ballot boxes speak volumes for the transparency that this election witnessed.
However, there is a bigger truth that needs to be seen. The AJK elections have defied our analyst approach – rigged elections or not, most of the 2.9 million eligible voters did exercise their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice. The pre-poll campaigning remained focused on two men representing two different parties with contrasting manifestos: Mian Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Sharif upped the ante against Zardari – the loot and plunder man – citing the dollars he has stashed away, the promises he has broken, the commissions he never formed and the issues of the state he never resolved. Gilani, on the other hand, reiterated that Kashmir is Pakistan’s jugular vein, spoke of future welfare plans to help the people of Kashmir, and reminded that it was the PPP that gave AJK its interim constitution and the Supreme Court in 1974.
Nawaz Sharif had his heart in the right place but his words rang hollow for people who think that the Benazir Income Support Programme is right on target to alleviate poverty. They couldn’t care less for anchors going wax lyrical on the government’s corruption or analysts dismissing the Zardari government on grounds of being pro-establishment. The people whose vote matters are easily wooed by Gilani’s promises.
Kashmir is unresolved territory. Most who came out to vote don’t expect to achieve autonomy, independence, or freedom from either side of the border. They are more concerned about their todays and tomorrows, about their livelihood, and any chances of improvement. However, I’m not saying that Sharif’s words fell on deaf ears. His anti-establishment stance rang true to many ears – the eight seats won by the PML-N are proof of this. Even more challenging was the fact that Kashmir is still predominantly controlled by the establishment. The PPP’s win is testimony to that fact. However, the fact that the PML-N lost out to rigging attempts means there are people in this dominated valley who have the will to stomach going against the tide.
Sharif’s words are great topics for a television discussion and provide an excellent debate for intellectuals. Sadly however, our people don’t fall prey to the intellect or guidance being offered by TV anchors. No countdown or deadlines mean anything to those whose votes mean everything to political parties. Campaigning on issues such as 14 hours of loadshedding a day, two days of gas outages, rising petrol prices, and longer lines for water make for a sure win with people in industrial cities such as Faisalabad and Gujranwala. But for the many in rural settings, who don’t know electricity or gas, know the party who installed that one isolated tap during the last election. They also recognise small favours, such as the building of that one odd road, or that one rare chance at being employed, even if it meant being someone’s chowkidar.
Aside from its many faults, the PPP has one saving grace: its clear stance against terrorism. It was Benazir Bhutto who spoke passionately of hoisting the flag once again over Swat and it is still her party that speaks openly against terrorism. For many, anti-terrorism is better than anti-establishment. Do they know the difference?
The political balance did not shake when the US Navy Seals carried out a covert operation in Abbottabad to hunt down Osama bin Laden. The fury and embarrassment was addressed in a joint parliamentary session and the issue resolved via a resolution. The PNS Mehran incident led to some damage – within and without – but the political equation remained intact. There was however, one serious casualty: Saleem Shahzad. This, too, was taken care of by setting up a commission to investigate the matter. A few days later, another tragedy – this time in Karachi – reared its ugly head threatening to take at least some out of their political comfort zone; the merciless killing of Sarfaraz Shah at the hands of Rangers’ personnel led many to lose their sleep, some to cry, and the chief justice to take suo moto action. The political set-up, however, remained unchanged.
But what can endure tragedies and security lapses, has succumbed to what we now know as “rigged” elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. An attempt at forced seat adjustment with the PPP’s most trusted ally has forced the MQM to file for divorce. With this annulment of marriage comes a political crisis for the existing coalition that is now more dependent on the support of the PML-Q. The PML-Q itself faces a new dilemma. It will now have to stay in central quarters, not where it wants to be the most: Punjab. The PPP is visibly shaken by the MQM’s harsh rhetoric and is only beginning to understand how demanding an only coalition partner can get. The PML-N has alleged that the AJK elections fell prey to the evil designs of the PPP and is not just stopping at rhetoric. The PML-N has decided to challenge the AJK elections in the Muzaffarabad High Court. The MQM too is seeking help from the courts to be able to contest the two seats whose elections were postponed by the government. The PPP describes it as a law and order situation, while the MQM terms it an attempt to hijack its mandate.
The AJK elections are a relatively minor election but have led to major changes in the political set-up. AJK is a free state, which means, it is neither an independent country, nor a constituent of the Pakistani federation. With this election, our political parties have dragged Kashmir into the mess that is Pakistani politics. Now, there is a call for re-polling in Mirpur, mud-slinging in Islamabad and petitions in Muzaffarabad and the Sindh High Court filed by the PML-N and the MQM respectively. If the issue is about the elections being rigged, yes, it may be true. There is some truth to the fact that the voter lists were grossly flawed, and one could always question why the Nadra offices were open on a Sunday. The scenes of violence and people actually walking away with ballot boxes speak volumes for the transparency that this election witnessed.
However, there is a bigger truth that needs to be seen. The AJK elections have defied our analyst approach – rigged elections or not, most of the 2.9 million eligible voters did exercise their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice. The pre-poll campaigning remained focused on two men representing two different parties with contrasting manifestos: Mian Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Sharif upped the ante against Zardari – the loot and plunder man – citing the dollars he has stashed away, the promises he has broken, the commissions he never formed and the issues of the state he never resolved. Gilani, on the other hand, reiterated that Kashmir is Pakistan’s jugular vein, spoke of future welfare plans to help the people of Kashmir, and reminded that it was the PPP that gave AJK its interim constitution and the Supreme Court in 1974.
Nawaz Sharif had his heart in the right place but his words rang hollow for people who think that the Benazir Income Support Programme is right on target to alleviate poverty. They couldn’t care less for anchors going wax lyrical on the government’s corruption or analysts dismissing the Zardari government on grounds of being pro-establishment. The people whose vote matters are easily wooed by Gilani’s promises.
Kashmir is unresolved territory. Most who came out to vote don’t expect to achieve autonomy, independence, or freedom from either side of the border. They are more concerned about their todays and tomorrows, about their livelihood, and any chances of improvement. However, I’m not saying that Sharif’s words fell on deaf ears. His anti-establishment stance rang true to many ears – the eight seats won by the PML-N are proof of this. Even more challenging was the fact that Kashmir is still predominantly controlled by the establishment. The PPP’s win is testimony to that fact. However, the fact that the PML-N lost out to rigging attempts means there are people in this dominated valley who have the will to stomach going against the tide.
Sharif’s words are great topics for a television discussion and provide an excellent debate for intellectuals. Sadly however, our people don’t fall prey to the intellect or guidance being offered by TV anchors. No countdown or deadlines mean anything to those whose votes mean everything to political parties. Campaigning on issues such as 14 hours of loadshedding a day, two days of gas outages, rising petrol prices, and longer lines for water make for a sure win with people in industrial cities such as Faisalabad and Gujranwala. But for the many in rural settings, who don’t know electricity or gas, know the party who installed that one isolated tap during the last election. They also recognise small favours, such as the building of that one odd road, or that one rare chance at being employed, even if it meant being someone’s chowkidar.
Aside from its many faults, the PPP has one saving grace: its clear stance against terrorism. It was Benazir Bhutto who spoke passionately of hoisting the flag once again over Swat and it is still her party that speaks openly against terrorism. For many, anti-terrorism is better than anti-establishment. Do they know the difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment