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.