Appearance and reality

Local government elections have been completed. The real victor is the Army Chief Pervez Musharraf, who also runs the country. Parties loyal to him have won. The MMA has put up a fairly good show in NWFP and so did Baloch and Pushtoon nationalists in Balochistan. Punjab, the heartland, is securely Musharraf's; opposition parties have been crushed. In Sindh PML(Q), PML(F), and MQM are victorious, though MMA has some presence in Karachi.

What conclusions flow? First, Musharraf's political architecture looks stronger. The PPP seemingly has been eliminated; it failed to win even Larkana. At face value, both PML(N) and Benazir's PPP have become irrelevant. But is this the final verdict?

These elections conform to the pattern of 2002. We can expect that the 2007 elections are likely to be similar. Indeed, the October 6 elections were a trial run for the 2007 event., which is why the question recurs: how credible were these polls? All the opposition, some in King's party and MMA have accused the establishment of wide-scale rigging. Official comment is tart: every loser in Pakistan always alleges rigging. There is some truth in it but, in this case, the allegations do ring a bell. While predisposition to make this charge exists, charges traded and factional fights inside the PML(Q) and the knowledgeable's opinion, point to these elections being more 'managed' than the 2002 ones. Facts or details are scarce. But some techniques of rigging have been detailed by opposition leaders. The credibility of these elections is thus near zero.

A military dictator has his compulsions. He holds an election to gain credibility and hopes to prolong his rule. He cannot afford to lose. His own constituency will rebel. He has to 'manage' the elections to yield “positive results.” Like a politician, he cannot safely go home after losing. He has to fear the Constitution's Article 6 once he goes home. Thus he cannot risk handing over power to winners. Once a General takes over, he has to stick it out, come what may. However, change is the law of nature.

Lack of legitimacy undermines credibility of all dictators. Gen. Musharraf too lacks legitimacy and credibility. Unfree elections are useless for him but not for the people. These help identify the politicians who support the military dictator, collaborating politicians need to be recognized by voters. That should guide them in future. For rulers unfree elections are dangerous. Why?

A miasma of cynicism follows unfree elections. Citizens tend to give up on democracy. The cynicism makes people ask questions: What is the point of it all? Why waste one's time? It is always the General's nominees who win. Who can defeat them? Why not care about one's own security and interests. Actually politics as such becomes discredited. If this goes on long enough, and another process begins.

It does not operate in clear-cut stages. The stages overlap and often dovetail. In some cases, cynicism quickly graduates into alienation. In others it takes time. But continuation of cynicism over time does lead to alienation with the state. It originates in disbelief in the possibility of improving things. People give up on the state that it will perpetually remain under Army control. This giving up on the state has terrible consequences. Such states where most people are alienated collapse.

Look around the region. There is Nepal. Obviously, unless the King hands over power, the whole state will melt down. A civil war is raging; nobody appears to be in control. The outlook is uncertain. Over many parts of India, the Naxalites constitute a negation of Indian state. In both cases it is alienation that produces insurgents. The scale of Naxalite rebellion underlines the wasting disease of the state. To Pakistan's west, Afghanistan is engulfed in similar troubles. Let's be careful.

The alienated always intone that there is no hope. Pakistan cannot be an exception to nature's law. It will survive as it is -- no better and no worse. No political improvement is likely. But it can get a lot worse. This underlines the disconnect between the individual and state. Such persons would not die for the state, no matter what the government claims. But the state had better survive. Collapse or disintegration of a state is a terrible upheaval. It is best avoided. But that can only be if it provides legitimate governance that inspires confidence.

Many in Pakistan are already becoming alienated. The process is decades old. There are incipient rebellions in distinctive parts and by identified groups. There are attacks in Waziristan and other Pushtoon areas in Punjab, Sindh (sabotage) and Balochistan. These are at an initial stage. They can still be stopped if the government wishes to deal politically with them and attend to their grievances. Insensitivity toward them makes people angry and they become ready to do the unthinkable. The instincts of this government are crudely militaristic and violent. Its knee-jerk reaction is to resort to military action or other hard suppression. This is not the way to solve deep-seated political grievances. But as many have noted, the government is unchangeable and its characteristics are likely to persist. Who will be surprised if things get worse in coming days?

In NWFP the danger comes from Islamic extremism and a new religious Pushtoon nationalism. Over time, Pakistan has become a huge terrorism-producing factory. Only, religious extremism has acquired a tinge of Pushtoon nationalism, as Taliban exemplify it. Many people assert that madressas have always produced apolitical Masjid Imams. That is true enough. But gradually in Pakistan, a whole Jihadist psychology and culture have been fomented by a political party and the state for its political schemes in Afghanistan and Indian-controlled Kashmir. The monster is now threatening the creator.

Since Taliban's religious beliefs are narrowly exclusivist and violent, the terrorists linked to India and Afghanistan become sectarian terrorists inside Pakistan. They too are the products of madressas. No doubt, some highly indoctrinated Britons, born and brought up in Britain, have also taken to terrorism. But that results from the rather recent spread of the appeal of Islamic sway over the Islamic world. These extremist groups believe that an Islamic Revolution is coming. Whether or not they want to conquer the world, they certainly want to overthrow pro-western regimes in Muslim countries to be replaced with Taliban-like governments. That spells regression and the death of the democratic progress. What is the Musharraf regime doing about it?

Islamabad increases security at places of worship, particularly those belonging to Shias and Ahmadis, after every outbreak of sectarian attack. Adding to the number of constables at various points is not fighting the menace. It is a feeble attempt to treat symptoms. The need is to politically attack the problem's roots. There is, of course, no cut and dried formula for it. But permitting genuinely free politics can gradually shrink the space terrorists occupy today. The parties that have supposedly been defeated but retain popular appeal hold the key: PPP and PML(N). Let them be allowed to contest politics freely. Let all subjects be raised and openly debated and discussed in a free atmosphere. It would require the end of the army's stranglehold over Pakistan politics. Instead it is continuing to tighten its grip over the country. The opponents are in disarray. The eventual price will be paid by the welfare and safety of an alienated populace.

An opportunity has been provided by reaction to the October 8 earthquake among Pakistanis. The sense of solidarity they have felt for sufferers and their readiness to help show what may still be possible; a resuscitation of hope and a consequent commitment to do what it takes to remake their political life.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.