SUMMARY: Wilson Center Election Analysis Event 2/25

Yesterday, I attended a fascinating event at the Woodrow Wilson Center where Eric Bjornlund of Democracy International spoke of his observations while monitoring the Pakistani elections last Monday. Also on the panel were Hassan Abbas, a research fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former Pakistani government official, Hasan-Askari Rizvi, the Pakistan scholar at Johns Hopkins' SAIS, and Marvin Weinbaum, the scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute. Bjornlund reported on DI's methodology while in Pakistan in order to ensure the elections were "free and fair" - this included parallel vote tabulations, 272 samples for the 272 elections, and 75 meetings with political parties prior to the elections. The organization deployed two-person teams around the country (there were 38 DI people altogether), they met with local observers, officials and parties, and then shared their observations. Ultimately - DI found that the elections were relatively peaceful, there was no evidence of systematic manipulation, and the people exercised their will. However, the pre-election period was not as rosy, as we all know, since violence and riots wracked the country before election day. Bjornlund also noted the criticisms of the Election Commission prior to the elections - in the commission's effort to redo the voter registration list, a large number - about 15 million - were left off the list. As a result, they tried to augment the list with the voters from 2002, a list that was widely discredited.

The other panel members concentrated their comments mainly on the question - What happens next? Abbas focused on the victory of the ANP in the NWFP. In 2002, he noted, the elections were rigged in favor of the MMA, the religious coalition, an incident we are now aware of due to a confession from a former Pakistani intelligence (ISI) chief who admitted Musharraf told him to manipulate the polls. This time around, five years later, the MMA failed to show any concrete or tangible changes in the province, and were voted out of power in favor of the ANP, a party that stands for Pashtun nationalism. Abbas was optimistic about the future of the new coalition in the Parliament - since both Nawaz and Asif Zardari have been outside the country for 7-8 years and have "learned quite a bit." Moreover, this new coalition will have no impact on the U.S. led war on terror - since the Pakistani army decides that strategy, not the government.

Rizvi also discussed the future of the U.S.-led war on terror with this new government. According to him, Musharraf's continuation in power will create problems for counterterrorism. Therefore, the only viable solution would be for the president to resign voluntarily. The U.S., Rizvi noted, will face more problems Musharraf stays in power than if he steps down. He asserted that this new government should dialogue with the Islamist extremists (i.e., Beitullah Mehsud, see yesterday's post), and thereby isolate those militants unwilling to cooperate the government. Weinbaum further addressed the U.S. presence in the region, and noted the U.S. government has so far failed to appreciate the transition in process in Pakistan. Musharraf, he added, is increasingly irrelevant as this new government becomes solidified. Weinbaum asserted, "The irony is that every time we try to help Musharraf, we make it worse for him."

The event, all together, was an insightful talk on what should happen next in Pakistan. It seemed based on the questions following the panel talk that people are truly interested in where we should go from here - should a relatively moderate coalition government negotiate with extremist elements in the country? Can forces like Tehreek-e-Taliban be tamed? Moreover, what role does and should the United States play in this process? It is obvious that the U.S. has and will always have a strategic interest in the country - therefore, how can we further this interest and at the same time address the anti-American sentiment raging in the country? A great article in today's LA Times, entitled, "Islamists' Loss in Pakistan isn't a U.S. Win," reported that despite secular party wins in the parliamentary elections, Pakistanis are still unlikely to rally behind the U.S.-led war on terror. The news agency added, "To many Pakistanis, the armed confrontation with Islamic radicals remains 'America's war,' one whose cost in blood has been borne by Pakistani troops with little perceived benefit to this country." As a result, the new parties in power are pushing for a political solution to the problem, rather than the oft-used military solution.

The panel discussion, much like a Magic 8 ball, provided an "Outlook Good" depiction of the country's future - do you agree or is that far too simplistic?

And the Talk of Coalitions Continue...

On Saturday, the Daily Times reported that elected members of Pakistan People's Party (PPP) endorsed Makhdoom Amin Fahim, the party's vice chairman, for their candidate as Prime Minister. The news agency cited a PPP official statement, which said, "In a meeting at the Zardari House in Islamabad, they also vowed an end to the presidential powers to dismiss assemblies." Moreover, the party decided to address Musharraf's decision to remove the judges, an incident that caused much controversy in November, through a resolution in the National Assembly. According to the Daily Times, "The resolution, they [PPP MNAs] said, would give complete financial and administrative independence to the judiciary."

Developments related to party alliances and subsequent coalitions have dominated news coverage of Pakistan since Monday's elections. Reuters cited an opinion poll today that "showed an alliance between the two biggest groups opposed to President Pervez Musharraf was the preferred choice of Pakistan's voters." According to the Gallup poll, an alliance between the PPP and the PML-N was the preferred choice of those surveyed, since " fortypercent of PPP voters said the PML-N was their second choice and 45 percent vice versa."

While a PPP/PML-N alliance may be the primary coalition in the government, it is not the only one. None of the country's parties won a majority of the National Assembly, "and negotiations are continuing between rivals keen to forge a coalition big enough to hold power in the 342-seat parliament." PPP has reportedly also been in coalition talks with the MQM, and, most notably, with the Awami National Party (ANP), the secular political party that essentially replaced the religious coalition, the MMA, in NWFP. On Saturday, Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reported that the top leaders of both the PPP and ANP agreed to form a coalition government in that province, since the two parties had gained a majority.

In my coverage of the results of the elections, I have so far neglected to highlight the significance of the MMA defeat in the NWFP. The religious coalition originally held 46 of provincial parliamentary seats, but only won nine on Monday - partly because of the religious parties' boycott of the elections (with the exception of the JUI), and partly due to the voice of the people, unhappy with the poor governance demonstrated by the MMA. According to a significant piece in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, "It is an important development in the province nearest Pakistan's tribal areas, known to host Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the new focus of US anti-terror policy. The ANP is expected to marshal all the province's resources – police, politics, and the law – against extremism, whereas the mullahs had refused even to condemn suicide attacks."

The Monitor interviewed some NWFP residents, who voted for the ANP not as a veto of religious politics, but as a desire for a government that is both fair and ethical. The Monitor commented on the significance of the province as a whole, noting, "As a province, it cannot set military policy – that is the job of the National Assembly and the Army. Nor does it play a direct role in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where militant warlords rule much of the territory; FATA policy is determined in Islamabad. Yet the NWFP is the first bulwark against the spread of terrorism into the heart of Pakistan, and under the mullahs' watch little was done to check it." A member of the ANP's central executive committee, Lateef Afridi, reasoned, "Everyday you hear about a music store being bombed or such-and-such a place being attacked by the Taliban...That created a panic in the minds of the people." Moreover, noted the Monitor piece, "The notion of negotiation [referring to negotiating peaceful solutions to the proposed military options in fighting the Taliban] is ingrained in the Pashtun mind – a legacy of the jirgas, or councils, that have ruled Pashtun tribes for centuries – and it has great popular support here. The MMA's mullahs ran afoul of public opinion by abandoning such principles, residents say."

Ultimately, the victory of the ANP and the subsequent PPP-ANP coalition in the NWFP is a marked change from a religious coalition that advocated Islamic law and poorly governed the province. What is more significant is that their success represents the success of the political process. In Pakistan, we have never allowed an election cycle to play itself out - on the national level the process has always been disrupted by coups, takeovers, and the like. In Monday's election, the people of the NWFP, who themselves voted in the Islamic coalition, voted the MMA out of power. Democracy is not just one cycle of elections - it is the accountability of the victors after said elections. The success of the ANP within this context is therefore more noteworthy.

Opposition Agrees on Coalition Deal/ NEW POLL: What Should Musharraf Do?

On Thursday, news sources reported that the Pakistan People's Party, PPP, (technically the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians), and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the two main victors of Monday's election, agreed to form coalition governments. According to the NY Times, "The speedy accord, just three days after the overwhelming defeat of Mr. Musharraf’s party [PML-Q], was another setback for the embattled Pakistani president as well as his backers in Washington." The Daily Times quoted Nawaz Sharif, who told reporters during a news conference today, We have agreed on a common agenda. We will work together to form the government in the center and in the provinces...We will ensure that you [PPP] complete a full five years’ term." Reuters cited statements by Asif Zardari, the co-chairman of the PPP and the widower of former PM Benazir Bhutto, who further asserted, "We intend to stay together (to establish a government)."

The establishment of the coalition left Musharraf's role perhaps even more ambiguous. So far, Washington has urged the newly elected government to work with the Pakistani president, who emphasized yesterday that he would not step down from his post, despite calls for his resignation. According to Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, "The United States on Thursday was sending conflicting signals on its position on the current political situation in Pakistan, with the White House saying that it’s up to the Pakistani people to decide President Pervez Musharraf’s political future and the State Department insisting that Washington hopes to continue to work with the embattled leader."

An op-ed in today's Washington Post by Robert Novak further discussed this discrepancy. Although State Department spokesman Tom Casey publicly argued that Musharraf is still the president and expressed hope that "whoever winds up in charge of the new government would be able to work with him," privately, U.S. diplomats "pushed hard against any effort to dislodge the retired army general who had just suffered a public rejection." Ultimately, Novak commented, "No Pakistani expects help from Musharraf, who has been repudiated by the public and is not backed by the army now that he has removed his uniform. Only the State Department still takes him seriously."

Would these coalition governments be as close of a U.S. ally as Musharraf? How vigorously would they support the U.S.-led war on terror, particuarly in relation to Afghanistan, and the subsequent conflict that has spilled over our own border? According to a Boston Globe op-ed today by Graham Allison, "The answer to each of these questions is as unambiguous as it is uncomfortable. A Pakistani government whose actions align with its citizens' views on these issues would be at loggerheads with the United States." However much Pakistanis dislike Musharraf, they are perhaps more hostile to the U.S. According to Allison, "When asked to name the 'single greatest threat' to their country, 64 percent of Pakistanis named the United States. Historic archrival India, with whom Pakistan has fought five bloody wars, was second, well behind America."

Ultimately, where does this all leave Musharraf? If the democratic government listens to the constituents who voted them into power, the Pakistani president is left out in the cold. However, if they heed to U.S. pressures and strategic reasoning, his role in the political process is still malleable. The question is, what do you think? This week's poll, just three days after the much-anticipated elections, seeks to gauge your reasoning on this very pertinent question - What should Musharraf do? Resign, cut a deal with the new coalition government, or (God forbid) overthrow the Parliament and call for new elections. Is there another option? [Image from Reuters]

Note: Last week's poll results reflected the national elections - PPP won, PML-N came in a close second, and PML-Q trailed with 20% of the vote.

Elections Over: Time for a New Political Landscape in Pakistan

The results from Monday's election are official - not only did the opposition win, but elections were relatively free and fair, there was little reported violence, the Karachi Stock Exchange finished at significantly higher levels, and President Pervez Musharraf and the political party that backed him, the PML-Q, accepted defeat. These developments alone should be recognized as progress, especially in regard to prior fears of poll rigging and security concerns. Today, the Washington Post piece, entitled, "Pakistan Remakes its Political Landscape," reported, "By Tuesday evening, with most of the vote counted, the two major opposition parties had won 154 of the 272 elected seats in the National Assembly, compared with 38 for the PML-Q. In all, the assembly has 342 seats."

Even more notable was the voter turnout. According to Pakistan's Daily Times today, "The most remarkable showing was in Rawalpindi, repeatedly targeted by the terrorists in the past year. Voters came out much above the national average of 40 percent to vote for the PML-N, paralleling the reactive vote for late Ms Benazir Bhutto in rural Sindh." The Times added, "Unsurprisingly, the decline of the MMA in the NWFP has allowed the secular ANP to make a remarkable comeback, opening up new possibilities of repairing the cultural fabric of the province presently threatened by suicide-bombers." Prominent lawyer and PPP member, Aitzaz Ahsan further underscored the significance of the results, and told the Washington Post, "General Musharraf represents the rule of man over law, and the resounding verdict of the people is that they yearn to be ruled by laws, not men."

I tend to be a realist, especially when it comes to Pakistan, and while I recognize the great achievements this week, I also acknowledge that the elections left the political landscape far from clear. As the Post noted, neither the PPP or the PML-N gained a clear majority and neither has put forth a concrete PM candidate, "thus opening the door to complicated coalitions and deals." And lest we forget the political failings of both parties while in power in the 1990s. The NY Times reported, "American officials were particularly skeptical of Mr. Zardari, who has faced corruption charges in Pakistan and abroad and has come to his current position of leadership only through his wife’s death." Former PM and PML-N head Nawaz Sharif also faced corruption charges during his two terms in power. Although both leaders agree essentially on opposing terrorism and cooperating with the U.S., the two parties have been long-time political rivals. Therefore, their recent talks of a Coalition government is both significant and remains contingent on whether they can put their historical differences aside for "a greater good." So far, they have announced that they will take a new approach to fighting Islamist militants, "pursuing more dialogue than military confrontation," reported the NY Times. They also pledged to undo the crackdown on the media and restore independence to the judiciary.

And what about the fate of Musharraf? The AFP reported Wednesday that the President has rejected demands to quit, calling instead for a "harmonious coalition." The news agency added, "Musharraf was making his first official comments since Monday's crucial parliamentary vote, which left him fighting for his political life after his allies suffered a heavy defeat." Despite his call for this "harmonious" alliance, both Sharif and Zardari have called for his resignation.

The bottom line? The elections were only the first step - whether or not these parties can successfully address Pakistan's multitude of problems remains to be seen. [Image from the NY Times]

Polls Close, Counting Begins

According to news sources, President Pervez Musharraf's "allies" faced a "crushing defeat" in today's parliamentary elections. According to CNN, "In the first three counts to finish, the provincial assembly seat in Balochistan went to the Pakistan People's Party -- the party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto -- while two independent candidates won seats from the northern tribal areas, said Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Muhammad Farooq." The NY Times reported, "Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers." The AFP similarly reported, "High-profile victims who lost their seats included party president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and almost all of Musharraf's former cabinet, including close presidential ally Sheikh Rashid." Although official results are expected Tuesday, early returns indicated that the vote "would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a Parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him." The Times assessed, "The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration...American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote."

Pakistan's Daily Times reported that the PPP (technically the PPPP for electoral purposes) is leading in the National Assembly and in Sindh province, the PML-N is leading in Punjab, and the ANP (the Awami National Party) is reportedly leading in NWFP, with the PPPP a close second. According to Pakistan First, a site that is providing up-to-date election results (via Parliament Watch), the PPP won 34 seats in the National Assembly, the PML-Q won 21, and the PML-N won 52 seats. The NY Times cited unofficial results from Aaj television that forecast that the Pakistan Peoples Party would win 110 seats in the 272-seat National Assembly, with Mr. Sharif’s party taking 100 seats.

According to the Washington Post today, "The mood across Pakistan was one of apprehension as voters headed to the polls Monday morning. Local media here reported dozens of bomb attacks and violent clashes across the country." CNN, however, provided a different account, reporting that "relatively little violence" occurred today and there were "no overt signs of tampering." [Image from NY Times]

ELECTIONS 2008!

The elections are upon us, and I'd like to say good luck to all who are going out to the election stations to vote. Please be careful - given the current security situation, extremist groups have been targeting polling centers in an effort to destabilize the country and intimidate voters.

I'd also like to take a moment to promote a really great organization that is providing updated news on the elections, Future Leaders of Pakistan (FLP) that started Parliament Watch, a site that allows users to discuss issues, rate candidates, and provides continuously updated election news. Check it out! - www.pw.org.pk

Car Bomb Kills 27 Ahead of Pakistan Vote

A car bomb killed 27 people and wounded 93 on Saturday when it exploded in front of a (Pakistan People's Party) PPP election office in Parachinar, in northern Pakistan. The blast, reported the AFP, increased security fears on the last day of campaigning, just two days before the elections. According to CNN, "The office was used by PPP parliamentary candidate Riaz Hussein, according to party spokesman Nazir Dhoki. The explosion occurred late in the afternoon." Some of the dead were workers for the political party, and the Associated Press cited Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz who said "the suicide bomber drove into a crowd as they were preparing to eat." Although he did not speculate on who might have perpetrated the attack, the AP noted, "Monday's elections are taking place against a backdrop of rising Islamic militancy throughout Pakistan, and many candidates have been discouraged from holding large rallies. Security fears are highest in lawless tribal areas along the Afghan border."

An article in today's Dawn reported that the federal government has warned the provincial police chiefs to "step up security" following intelligence reports that suicide bombers may strike "in the next 72 hours" to sabotage the Feb. 18th elections. Dawn added, "Sources said that high-level talks were being held to review plans for the protection of sensitive installations and important political figures." Also interesting is that the government has indicated threats of attacks on some Arab diplomatic missions in the country, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq.

Despite today's bombing and security-related developments, much press coverage surrounding Monday's election have been devoted to the issue of "poll rigging." According to the aforementioned AFP piece, "Opposition groups have accused Musharraf's administration of rigging the polls to head off possible impeachment if a hostile parliament is voted in."

In response to this widespread concern that the polls will be manipulated, "Tens of thousands of Pakistani civilians have signed up as election monitors," reported the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The news agency added, Pakistan can ill afford the kind of problems that have sparked unrest following past contests. "Voters will be choosing members of Parliament. The party that winds up on top will nominate the next prime minister, who will share power with embattled President Pervez Musharraf. Voters will also select governments in the nation's tribal regions and four provinces, two of which have been run by a coalition of conservative Islamist parties [referring to NWFP and Balochistan." If Monday's elections are seen as credible, that could defuse national tensions and unrest and perhaps "nudge Pakistan's fractious political parties to form a more unified government," the WSJ assessed. The article cited some significant statistics based on the IRI poll released this past week - namely, if the main party that backs Musharraf, the PML-Q, wins the elections, 79% of Pakistani polled would feel the elections had been rigged. One can only imagine the riots that could follow if such a result occurred.

The President is obviously fully aware of these allegations and concerns and has pledged free and fair elections. According to the Daily Times editorial today, Musharraf told political parties, "The winner should not be arrogant and the loser should accept his defeat with grace." The Daily Times called the worries associated with the polls and the President's subsequent responses, "a complex psychology of action and reaction between those who are holding the election and those who are participating in them." The editors added, "The rigging fear is a genuine fear, not nursed by the political parties alone. The media and neutral observers in Pakistan have raised very convincing objections to the way the Election Commission has handled the electoral list. In fact a case against these apparent irregularities is in the Supreme Court, investing the whole issue with legal significance."

As someone who watches the current U.S. presidential race and the upcoming Pakistani elections with equal fascination, the differences in the political atmosphere stand in stark contrast to one another. Whereas U.S. voters' biggest complaint seems to revolve around super-delegates, Pakistanis are worried about rigged polls, security surrounding election stations, and whether a perceived rigged election would bring further unrest to a country already laden with overflowing tensions. I am not saying this is not expected of a developing nation recovering from years of conflict, corruption and ping-ponged authoritarian rule - I am merely highlighting the scale of our problems. Although the number of political parties participating in this election have dropped dramatically, there seems to be so much more international attention, so much more at stake, and so much more that could happen if the results are not to our liking.

Before I end today, I'd like to highlight another great piece by Khaled Ahmed in Pakistan's Friday Times. He wrote, "The new government will be a 'negotiating' government. It will negotiate with Al Qaeda and Taliban Tehreek in the Tribal Areas about the nature of the state...It will negotiate with the elements behind the insurrection in Balochistan on what the federal government will retain out of the powers mentioned in the Constitution...It will similarly have to negotiate with the sub-nationalisms gathering strength in the NWFP and Sindh..." In his opinion, new elections will be demanded soon enough after this new government "is shell-shocked by the challenges of governance it faces and loses its head." - Thoughts?

NEW POLL: Who Would You Vote for in the Feb. 18th Elections?

Last week's poll that asked, "Who should lead the PPP," produced significant results - even I was surprised, and I try to take as neutral a position as possible. Despite the fact that Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former PM Benazir Bhutto, is still followed by his former reputation as "Mr. 10%" and is widely seen as a divisive figure for the party, the majority of voters - 33% - chose him. 27% of CHUP readers felt Aitzaz Ahsan, the prominent lawyer, should lead the party, while 22% chose 'other.' Also notable - 10% chose Fatima Bhutto, the estranged niece of Benazir, while only 4% felt Amin Fahim, the PPP Vice-Chairman and the alleged PM candidate, would be the right choice. I am a little puzzled by Zardari's win - perhaps readers found recent developments compelling - most notably, the recent announcement by him and Nawaz Sharif that their parties would form a coalition government.

This week's poll, not surprisingly, revolves around the much-anticipated Pakistani elections, just four days away. Given the current political atmosphere in the country, I thought it only timely that this week's poll asked, "Pakistani or not, who would YOU vote for in the upcoming Feb. 18th elections?" However, who are the participating political parties? I felt that readers could only make an informed decision if they know more about the main parties contesting the elections, although several notable ones are boycotting this year's polls. In fact, the number of political parties participating in the general elections has dropped drastically, with only 45 fielding candidates in 2008 compared to 77 in 2002. According to the Daily Times, this is the lowerst number to contest since 1998. Therefore, here are brief points I've compiled (some good sources: http://elections.com.pk/index.php or http://www.geo.tv/election2008/, as well as today's Daily Times piece) on the main parties participating (or notably not participating in next week's elections):

Pakistan People's Party (PPP): A mainstream secular political party of the recently assassinated former PM Benazir Bhutto. The party was found in 1967, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Pakistani President and Beanzir's father, became the PPP's first chairman. The PPP's creed is: "Islam is our faith; democracy is our politics; socialism is our economy; all power to the people." It is a relatively liberal political party. Although its center is in Pakistan's southern province of Sindh, the PPP also enjoys considerable support in Punjab. The party is currently co-chaired by Benazir's son, Bilawal Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari. The expected PM candidate is Amin Fahim, and notable party figure Aitzaz Ahsan is boycotting the elections. The Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) is a party formed in 2002 by the PPP for the purpose of complying with electoral rules governing Pakistani parties.

Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N): Originally the Pakistan Muslim League, the PML-N was established in 1993. It is a mainstream political party headed by former PM Nawaz Sharif, although the party president is his brother, Shahbaz Sharif. Javed Hashimi is also a notable party leader. The PML's power base has traditionally been in Punjab, although since the party has splintered PML-N's center is reportedly in Lahore. Although some leaders were sent into exile or were put in jail, the party won 9.4% of the popular vote in the 2002 elections, as well as 14 out of 272 members.

Pakistan Muslim League- Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q): The PML-Q was originally a faction that broke away from the PML-N in 2001. It was reportedly established "in defiance" of Nawaz Sharif and his family's monopoly over the party. The PML-Q is considered the biggest supporter of the Musharraf regime, and is likewise backed by the current government. As a result of growing anti-Musharraf sentiment, the party has lost a lot of its popular support. Its power center is reportedly in the Gujarat region of Pakistan. The current party president is Chaudhry Shaujaat Hussain., and it is widely considered a centrist-conservative party.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI): Meaning, Pakistan Movement for Justice, PTI's slogan is, "Justice, Humanity, and Self-Esteem." The party is headed by former cricketer Imran Khan, who has put forward a three-point solution to Pakistan's issues: (1) an independent election commission, (2) an independent judiciary, and (3) an independent accountability bureau. PTI reportedly enjoys the support of Pakistan's middle class and is popular among the youth. Despite this growing popularity, however, the PTI is boycotting the 2008 elections.

Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA): The MMA is a coalition of Islamist political parties in Pakistan, united against the current Musharraf government. It is the ruling party of the NWFP (Northwest Frontier Province) and reportedly enjoys support in Balochistan, and includes both the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and Jamaat-e-Islami (the largest party in the coalition). The MMA is fiercely anti-American, anti-Musharraf, and seeks to enforce Shari'a law in the country. There has been reported tensions between the JI and the JUI, and, although the JI (and much of the MMA) is boycotting the 2008 polls, the JUI (specifically the JUI-F) is running in the elections.

Awami National Party (ANP): The ANP is a leftist secular party that is largely supported by the country's Pashtuns (Pathans), mainly in the NWFP, Punjab, and Balochistan. The party's current president is Asfandyar Wali Khan.

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM): Founded and currently led by Altaf Hussein, the MQM is the only political party that grew out of a student organization representing the Urdu-speaking people of the University of Karachi (essentially the Muhajir people, who migrated to Pakistan after independence). The student movement eventually evolved into an influential political party in Sindh province. According to the aforementioned election website, "MQM is infamous for its frequent involvement in terrorist activities although its leaders routinely deny such accusations."

Again, if anyone has anything to add, please let me know - I don't claim to be an expert on Pakistani political parties, but I thought a guide would be useful nonetheless. A great resource for monitoring the elections and for the actual CANDIDATES is: http://www.pw.org.pk.

Pakistan Army Chief Orders Military Out of Civilian Government Agencies; Update on Pakistan Ambassador

According to news sources yesterday and today, the new Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani is withdrawing hundreds of army officers from civilian positions in the government "in a move widely seen as reducing the military's role in politics," noted the AFP. The NY Times reported that this action essentially "reverses an important policy of his predecessor, President Pervez Musharraf." The news agency added that this order by Kayani "was his boldest step to disentangle the military from the civilian sphere of the government since he assumed the post after Mr. Musharraf stepped down as military chief in November." Although army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said he made the decision last week, Kayani only announced it yesterday, less than a week shy of the much-anticipated Feb. 18th elections.

Kayani has gradually shifted the military away from the political arena. Last month, the general warned officers not to maintain contacts with politicians. Although analysts call these actions "overdue," they nevertheless show the army's seriousness in getting out of civilian affairs. A piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday further highlighted this development, noting that that shift "could change how the Bush administration approaches Pakistan and the war against Islamist extremism." The WSJ added, "The moves, say senior Pakistani officers, stand as a clear signal to Mr. Musharraf that he can't rely on his former allies in the military to get 'desirable results' from the vote." Moreover, Kayani seems to be viewed by U.S. officials as a more favorable alternative to the President, and many say his leadership "could enhance Washington's ability to fight Al Qaeda." The WSJ added, "They say he seems to agree more than Mr. Musharraf on the need to cooperate with Afghan and U.S. forces to track militants flowing over the Afghan-Pakistan border."

In other security-related developments, media outlets also provided updates on the kidnapping of Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan, Kabul Tariq Azizuddin. According to Pakistan's Daily Times, the "local Taliban" on Tuesday claimed responsibility for his abduction and said "they would release him in return for Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor Dadullah," who was arrested in Quetta on Monday. Geo TV quoted the bureau chief of an Arab television channel, who said the local Taliban had asked tribal elders to convey their message to the Pakistani government.

Nawaz, Zardari to Form Coalition Gov't

According to news sources, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan People's Party (PPP) co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari said on Tuesday that they will form a coalition government if their parties won the majority of the votes on Feb. 18th. According to Pakistan's Daily Times, Zardari, following an hour-long meeting in Lahore, told reporters that the PPP would invite the PML-N as well as other "democratic forces" to join a governing coalition "even if the party won enough seats in parliament to rule on its own." Zardari emphasized, "We will sit together because the country is passing through a dangerous phase, and we can only steer the country out of this crisis together. I am conveying this message to the establishment that I will change this system."

According to Dawn, "The sources quoted Mr. Sharif as telling his guest that the PML-N would extend support to the PPP in forming the government without seeking any share in ministries." Sharif said he had been supporting the PPP despite some reservations of some leaders of his party and "friends in other parties." Dawn added, "The sources said that the two leaders agreed that the elections would be considered as 'rigged' if the PPP and PML-N did not 'secure top two positions.'"

The AFP reported that their comments "came after Human Rights Watch warned that Pakistan's Election Commission had failed to investigate reports of campaign violations, threatening the validity of the parliamentary elections." The news agency added, "The New York-based group said in a statement that the commission had ignored reports of arrests and harassment of opposition party members, and failed to act independently from Musharraf's administration. HRW reportedly said that election candidates had so far filed more than 1,500 complaints of irregularities, but few have been investigated. On Tuesday, news sources also reported that tens of thousands of Pakistani troops have been deployed across Pakistan to provide security for next week's elections amid a series of attacks. The AFP reported, "In a show of force ahead of Monday's polls, army soldiers and paramilitary forces stood guard at government buildings and potentially sensitive areas of several major cities."

Given how divisive party politics has been in Pakistan as well as the historic 'bad blood' between these two parties, the recent PML-N/PPP announcement is both significant and refreshing. However, could a coalition government be enough to tackle the many issues facing this country?

Pakistan Attack Victims Mourned

On Saturday, 25 people were killed and 35 were injured in a suicide attack targeting an Awami National Party election rally in Charsadda. The ANP is a secular political party that competes against Islamist parties for support among the NWFP's ethnic Pashtun community. One man, who attended the funeral of two of Saturday's victims, told the Associated Press on Sunday that the ANP has "promoted peace" in the turbulent province, adding, "We do not understand why such a big attack happened." According to the AFP, Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz linked the attack to the wave of bombings perpetrated by Al Qaeda-linked militants, "that have claimed more than 70 lives this year."

Pakistan's Daily Times reported that the ANP announced a three-day mourning period for the victims. Dawn cited Afrasiab Khattak, the party's provincial chief, who asserted the explosion was "a conspiracy to delay the polls." Reuters, in its article today, also quoted ANP spokesman Zahid Khan, who reiterated Khattak's statements, noting, "This attack is carried out by the forces who want to subvert elections." The AFP added, "The bombing has further raised fears for the security of general elections on February 18..." Image from the AP.

Pakistan Kicked Me Out. Others were Less Lucky.

On Sunday, the Washington Post released a piece in its Outlook section by Nicholas Schmidle, a Pakistan-based fellow with the Institute of Current World Affairs whose alleged deportation from Pakistan caused a major stir in the international community, [see CHUP! post January 16th for more information]. He wrote, " The police came for me on a cold, rainy Tuesday night last month. They stood in front of my home in Islamabad, four men with hoods pulled over their heads in the driving rain. The senior officer, a tall, clean-shaven man, and I recognized one another from recent protests and demonstrations. Awkwardly, almost apologetically, he handed me a notice ordering my immediate expulsion from Pakistan. Rain spilled off a nearby awning and fell loudly into puddles." When Schmidle asked, "somewhat obtusely," what this meant, to which the officer responded, "I am here to take you to the airport. Tonight."

Although the document did not include the reasoning behind his expulsion, Schmidle "immediately felt that there was some connection to the travels and reporting I had done for a story published two days earlier in the New York Times Magazine, about a dangerous new generation of Taliban in Pakistan." The truth, he noted, "is that foreign journalists are barred from almost half the country; in most cases, their visas are restricted to three cities -- Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. In Baluchistan province, which covers 44 percent of Pakistan and where ethnic nationalists are fighting a low-level insurgency, the government requires prior notification and approval if you want to travel anywhere outside the capital of Quetta. Such permission is rarely given. And the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where the pro-Taliban militants are strong, are completely off-limits."

Schmidle's commentary is interesting in light of the recent controversy and criticisms of the Musharraf regime - most notably, the issues regarding the freedom of the press and the judiciary. On Saturday, news sources reported that Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer, [see op-ed post January 19th for more background] was put back under house arrest after he tried to visit the grave of former PM Benazir Bhutto. According to the Associated Press, Ahsan's detention came just two days after he had been released from three months of house arrest. The lawyer told news agencies that the ban was illegal and had been issued on the federal government's orders. He said, "I was just going to condole the death of our slain leader, but the government is scared and took this illegal action. We will contest this move."

With the elections in Pakistan fast approaching, Aitzaz Ahsan's re-arrest is curious, to say the least. Moreover, the issue of the press and the judiciary has been an increasingly problematic issue and further restrictions on these institutions promise to make the government exceedingly more unpopular. On Saturday, Pakistan's The News released a timely and pertinent piece by Dr. Tariq Hassan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer and the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, who discussed the issue of the courts and the ousted judges, as well as the need for an independent judiciary for the country.

NEW POLL: Who Should be the Next U.S. President Based on their Pakistan Policy?

So last week's poll closed today with interesting results. Of the 64 CHUP! readers who responded to the question, "What do you think is the most immediate concern facing Pakistan?", 65% of you answered, 'security,' 21% responded, 'inflation,' while only 10% replied 'free and fair elections.' Unfortunately, I am not aware of the ethnographic makeup of those surveyed, but I still feel the results are significant nonetheless. Although there have been very vocal pressures for democracy and elections, I think we all should understand that this battle against Taliban-linked militants is a very real and very near danger, one that should no longer be ignored.

Although this blog's primary focus is the situation in Pakistan, I think it's hard to avoid the current U.S. presidential race and its potential ramifications for the future of U.S.-Pakistan relations, which in turn could be an enormous impact on the country. The increasingly dire security situation in Pakistan has subsequently caused many candidates to take a stance on the issue. Therefore, I thought it would be timely and significant to poll CHUP! readers on who you feel should be in the White House based on their current foreign policy platform towards Pakistan. If you have comments on the question, the choices, or the poll, as a whole - please comment! Below, I am pasting the basic points asserted by the current forerunners in the race for the White House, compiled by the Council for Foreign Relations:

DEMOCRATS
Senator Hillary Clinton: Sen. Clinton (D-NY) criticized rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in August 2007 for his pledge to pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan. She called it “a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with Al Qaeda and Taliban.” Clinton foreign policy adviser Lee Feinstein said in December 2007 that Clinton has “has opposed the Bush administration’s coddling of President Musharraf, and stood steadfastly with the people of Pakistan in their struggle for democracy and against terrorism.”

Senator Barack Obama: Pakistan first achieved notoriety in the presidential campaign in summer 2007 when Obama said he believed the United States should hunt Al Qaeda forces in Pakistan. In November 2007, Obama cosponsored a resolution condemning Musharraf’s imposition of a state of emergency, and calling for an investigation into a prior assassination attempt on Bhutto.

John Edwards: Edwards called Bhutto’s death a “contemptible, cowardly act.” In a phone call with Musharraf shortly after the assassination, Edwards said he urged the Pakistani leader to “continue on the path to democratization” and to allow for international investigators to look into her death. In November 2007, Edwards said the United States should use economic and military aid to Pakistan as leverage to “push Musharraf toward open free elections; toward more democratic reform, to more transparency in the way both the government operates and the economy operates” (NYT).

REPUBLICANS
Mike Huckabee: Huckabee’s response to the Pakistani crisis in late December 2007 raised concern in the media about his foreign policy experience. He made erroneous comments about the country’s state of emergency and the number of Pakistani illegal immigrants in the United States (TIME). In general, Huckabee has said the U.S. “failure to engage Al Qaeda in Pakistan seems to be leading inexorably to their attacking us again.” In his Foreign Affairs article, Huckabee called for a policy of “tough love” toward Pakistan, and said as president he will pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Sen. John McCain: Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has advocated continued U.S. cooperation with Musharraf to “dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain in his country.” In a November 2007 Foreign Affairs essay, he warned that the “Talibanization of Pakistani society is advancing,” and said the United States should make “a long-term commitment to the country.” This would include bolstering Pakistan’s security capabilities to enhance “Pakistan's ability to act against insurgent safe havens.” He also said the United States should “bring children into schools and out of extremist madrassas,” though he did not specify how the United States should approach that task.

Mitt Romney:

Romney says the United States should try to bolster moderate forces in Pakistan to prevent “radical jihadists” from taking power. At an August 2007 Republican debate, Romney criticized Obama’s plan to enter Pakistan with “actionable intelligence” to pursue al-Qaeda. Obama “says he wants to unilaterally go in and potentially bomb a nation which is our friend,” said Romney. “We’re trying to strengthen Musharraf. We’re trying to strengthen the foundations of democracy and freedom in that country so that they will be able to reject the extremists.”

"Democracy Is Not Born in a Minute"

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to stick to his pledge to hold free elections, but added that she understood that democracy "is not something born in a minute," reported Pakistan's Daily Times today. The official told reporters traveling with her to Berlin for meetings on Iran, "We are all working very hard with the Pakistanis to try and ensure that the elections will be an opportunity for Pakistan to get back on a democratic path and an opportunity for Pakistanis to come together." However, she asserted, "These elections need to be elections that will have the confidence of Pakistanis."

The issue of free and fair elections has recently been a source of contention among Pakistanis and the international community as a whole. Despite Musharraf's recent assertions during his Europe trip that power will be transferred to whomever wins the upcoming February elections, Pakistanis are still skeptical of the leader. A significant article released by the Associated Press today reported that "an influential group of retired officers from Pakistan's powerful military" has "urged" Musharraf "to immediately step down" from power, noting his resignation would both promote democracy and help combat religious militancy. In a statement released late Tuesday to the media by the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen's Society, they stated, "This is in the supreme national interest and it makes it incumbent on him to step down." The AP news agency underscored the significance of this development, noting, "The group of former generals does not speak for serving officers, but its tough stance is an embarrassment to Musharraf whose popularity has waned considerably in the past year. It could strike a chord within the army's current ranks — which are forbidden from expressing political opinions — over how a once-respected institution has lost a lot of support among the wider public as Musharraf's personal standing has eroded over his maneuvering to stay in power."

I think this week's poll falls in line with Wednesday's news coverage - should our focus be on free and fair elections if the security situation is increasingly deteriorating? Will a new, democratically elected regime be able to handle a war that is being waged in our own country? On Wednesday, former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made statements addressing this issue. According to Reuters, Sharif said Pakistan's "perilous" security situation is hindering the campaign for the Feb. 18th elections "with politicians putting their lives at risk when they go out to seek votes." The former PM told reporters, "Elections are around the corner but what sort of an election campaign can one conduct? How can we go out?"

The security situation, inflation, and issues related to the elections all present the chicken and the egg problem - does a more secure country allow for a better electoral process? Does inflation further exacerbate violence, and vice versa? The United States has grown increasingly concerned with the problematic security situation in Pakistan, and the Bush administration has been under growing pressure from Congress to cut aid to the country, "or impose restrictions linking democratic reform to funding levels." On Tuesday, Sec of State Rice emphasized that this assistance was important and would continue, reported the Daily Times. She stated, "We have to have a long-term, consistent, predictable relationship with Pakistan." Such assertions do not mean the U.S. is satisfied with Pakistan's actions regarding extremism and intelligence collection in the country. However, according to an article in Wednesday's Dawn newspaper, a U.S. official noted, "We have to be careful conducting operations in a sovereign country, particularly one that’s a friend of ours and one that has given us a lot of support. The blowback would be pretty serious." The News also cited the U.S. official, Dell Daily, the State Department's counter-terror chief, who added, "Pakistan's new military chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, already has shown he is an aggressive commander, and U.S. officials are confident he will make progress. If Pakistanis ask for help, the United States will provide it." [Image courtesy of the Daily Times]

Musharraf Vows Free Elections, Geo News Back on Air

News coverage of Pakistan on Monday focused on statements made by President Pervez Musharraf as he began his four-nation European tour. The AFP news agency quoted the President, who told reporters in Brussels, "We must have fair and transparent elections [on Feb. 18th]. Whoever wins, obviously power will be handed over to them." Moreover, he emphasized that his administration would not "deny forming a government to whichever party forms a majority." According to Reuters, Musharraf also asserted that there would be no possibility of the elections being rigged.

The President also responded to concerns over human rights and democracy in Pakistan. Although he said he believed in both, he termed Western preoccupation with these issues as "obsessive." The Associated Press quoted him stating, "While we believe in democracy and human rights and civil liberties please allow us time to reach what you have reached. And you have taken centuries to reach it." According to Reuters, Musharraf also told reporters, "We have a feudal tribal environment in some of our provinces, therefore in accordance with our environment we have to adapt democracy, human rights, civil liberties."

According to news sources, Musharraf also commented on the status of media, an issue that been very contentious in Pakistan. Although he conceded the media was "restricted" during the six-week state of emergency in November, he asserted that now, "there was no limit on their freedom." As Musharraf made these statements, news agencies reported that Pakistan's private Geo Television Network was back on air today. According to a Reuters newswire Monday, "Geo was the last channel to come back on the air of several that were blocked when Musharraf imposed emergency rule on November 3..." Although the President lifted the emergency in mid-December, Geo remained blocked on cable channels. According to the Pakistani newspaper, The News, "People from various walks of life have welcomed restoration of Geo News transmissions on cable...Lahore newsmen have termed lifting of ban on Geo News a major success of the journalist community and the entire civil society ..."

Despite the development today, BBC News noted the media still faces restrictions in Pakistan. Therefore, reported BBC's Jill McGivering, Musharraf's "need for foreign friends has probably never been greater." During his Europe trip, "He wants to convince the rest of the world that the public pledges he keeps making are genuine: that the postponed elections next month will be free and fair. That his real goal is for a smooth transition of power to the new government. And also that, if the road is rocky, he is Pakistan's best hope of stability."

An editorial in today's Daily Times noted that Musharraf, talking to six top editors in Rawalpindi, linked the current "turbulent" times to three crises facing Pakistan: (1) the crisis of the transition to democracy, (2) the crisis of the war against terrorism and extremism, and (3) the crisis of the economy if the first two cannot be contained or resolved. According to the Daily Times' editors, "The real 'crises' today have sprung from the government on President Musharraf’s watch and they are: (1) agitation for legitimate constitutional rule, including separation and autonomy of state institutions, (2) public rejection of the intervention of the army in civilian affairs and a struggle for civil-military relations under the constitution, and (3) an intractable crisis in the equation of center-province relations in the country." They added, "What is dangerous, however, is that in these crises, the crisis of fighting terrorism is not included simply because it is no longer close to the heart of the people." We already see the ramifications of the "war" that is currently being fought on the Afghan border between militants and Pakistani security forces. Denying its existence can only be problematic for the country's future.
(Picture from Reuters)

Supporting Aitzaz Ahsan - by Fahad Hasan

Note: CHUP! does not officially endorse any political candidate in Pakistan - we instead serve as a platform for young Pakistanis to voice their opinion, and balance these commentaries with factual news briefs and analyses. With the elections [hopefully] approaching, one of our contributors discusses his support for Aitzaz Ahsan:

Pakistan has often been criticized for lacking in leadership and promoting policies that exacerbate the harsh divide between the rich and poor. However, there are people fighting to restore the integrity of this federation, one of them being Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan.

Ahsan has a long history of fighting for democracy. He grew up in a feudal Punjabi family that was active in politics, and is a product of Aitchison College and Government College (GC). Following his passion, he was admitted to Cambridge to study law, where he graduated in the first division.

The principled, freedom-fighting phase of Aitzaz Ahsan’s life began after he came back to Pakistan, post-Cambridge. Ahsan was persuaded by family members to take the Central Superior Services (CSS) exam—the exam that determines who is admitted in to the Pakistani beauracracy. The acceptance rate for the CSS is said to be about 2% of total candidates—Aitzaz Ahsan finished first out of all candidates. However, much to the surprise of all, Ahsan chose to refuse the honor, stating that he did not wish to be under the undemocratic government of General Ayub Khan. This act started a struggle against the army’s constant quelling of democracy in Pakistan. He joined the Pakistan People’s Party in the 1970’s and won a provincial seat in Punjab. He became a provincial minister, but exhibited his passion for justice by resigning after an incident in which Lahore police fired on protesting lawyers. For this act of defiance, Ahsan was kicked out of the PPP. Later, Ahsan became influential in the fight for democracy and rejoined the PPP after an almost decade hiatus. He went on to become a Federal Minister in Benazir’s first government and has served various functions over the last twenty years, including Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition, and President of the Supreme Court Bar.

As President of the Supreme Court Bar, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan has done the most damage to the Musharruf dictatorship. He was prominent in the lawyers' movement for the restoration of the Chief Justice. Over the last year he has been jailed a number of times for his support for the Supreme Court judges. Presently, Ahsan is under house arrest, as he has been for more than a month now. Talking about prison, Ahsan once remarked to the New York Times, “My only prayer is that never again in this land should prison seem to be the only honorable option for political activists or for anyone else for that matter.” The tragedy of the situation is that the government can try to quell honorable voices, like that of Aitzaz Ahsan, while it talks about free and fair elections. Ahsan, wearing the hat of a lawyer, has said that he will boycott the elections because of the stifling of the judiciary.

Regardless of his current position to boycott the elections, I still strongly support this figure, a man whose history only further emphasizes his political principles and integrity.

Related videos: Ahsan speaking before his arrest
Police brutality as he appeals for calm

(Picture from Wikipedia)

Musharraf Under Pressure as Police Probe Bombings

On Monday, 10 people were killed and more than 40 were injured in a bomb blast in a crowded market in Karachi on Monday. News sources, including the LA Times and the Pakistan's Daily Times, noted that an explosive was reportedly rigged to a motorcycle and left near a fruit cart. The Daily Times cited Sindh Police Inspector General Azhar Ali Farooqui, who said, "The bomb had exploded around 7.45pm at a market near the Gul Ahmed Textile Mill, within the jurisdiction of the Quaidabad Police Station." Although no one has claimed responsibility for the recent wave of attacks, authorities say they were designed to exacerbate instability ahead of the February elections. Government officials, not surprisingly, blamed Al Qaeda-linked militants from tribal regions along the Afghan border for the bombing. The LA Times added, "The bomb was detonated in an area dominated by Pashtun tribesmen who have moved to the city."

Following the bombing, President Pervez Musharraf faced new calls for his resignation, reported the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency on Tuesday. Monday's blast occurred as Musharraf visited Karachi, although the Associated Press noted that he did not appear to be the target of the blast. Nevertheless, opposition leaders called for the ex-general to resign in the wake of the recent spate of violence, that the AFP reported has killed more than 800 people in the last year. Yesterday, Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Nawaz Sharif told an election rally of about 3,000 people in Islamabad, "Musharraf has destroyed Pakistan. He is blindly following America's orders. The whole of Pakistan is drowned in blood." [For an interesting piece on the militants in the country, see today's NY Times article.]

There has been increasing pressure on the Pakistani President to resign. Pakistan's prominent newspaper, The News, featured recent statements made by Pervez Hoodbhoy, described as "the brilliant Physics professor at Quaid-e-Azam University," who told an Italian journalist, "I want Musharraf to go -- resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems -- army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism -- but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is racing towards."

The cycle of violence and instability in Pakistan has been self-enforcing, and many have pointed a finger at the current President, who we have seen become increasingly more defensive as he has come under attack, [see Monday's post with the Newsweek interview as well as his recent interview with CBS News' Lara Logan on Jan. 6th]. I've noted this shift in his interviews with interest - from a man who once instilled hope in Pakistanis to an ex-general who has become increasingly unpopular and on the defensive - when did that change start? Do all Pakistani politicians and leaders have a shelf-life before they, too, are deemed insufficient for the process?