In her public utterances Ms Rice appeared to be making a conscious effort to dispel the impression that the people of Pakistan do not count for anything in the eyes of the US, that Washington was beholden to Musharraf alone and that given a choice between an uniformed Musharraf and democracy President Bush would put his weight behind the General. And unlike her predecessor she talked more about Pakistan and its people and very rarely did she mention Musharraf by name or title when characterising the growing bilateral links between the US and Pakistan. And she seems to have done a lot of tough talking on democracy and A.Q. Khan with the Pakistani leadership, shared its concerns about maintaining military balance in South Asia without, of course, promising anything concrete in terms of supplying any kind of sophisticated weapon systems, and told Pakistan to stay the course on the peace process with India.

Ms Rice’s remarks on the AQ Khan affair conveyed a serious disagreement between Pakistan and the US with the latter insisting for access to Khan and the former continuing to resist. She made it clear that the US still did not know what had happened and how it had happened with regard to the clandestine nuclear proliferation network allegedly built by Dr Khan. This in effect meant that the information so far provided by Pakistan to Washington on the affair was not of the right quality. Sans the diplomese, she seems to be openly questioning Pakistan’s ability to ask the right questions of Khan and emphasising by implication the need to let the US investigators have direct access to the Doctor. There was a clear hint of urgency as well in her remarks on the subject. As it is, the US Congress is said to have linked Pakistan’s repeated requests for F-16s to Islamabad’s agreeing to let the US investigators meet Dr Khan face to face. So, the trade-off offered by the US is, give AQ Khan and get F-16s in return. A clear but impossible choice for Musharraf.

The US Secretary of State had appeared even tougher on the issue of democracy. Every time she was asked about the issue of uniform, she would respond by emphasising the need for democratic reforms and hoped that the 2007 elections would be fair and free. “We did talk about the importance of democratic reform in Pakistan, about getting on a road to democratic reforms that would, in fact, lead to free and fair elections in 2007. And that was the character of our discussion. So we will always talk about the need for democracy. And it is central to our dialogue with every country in the world and it is also central for our dialogue here,” she declared at the joint Press conference trying perhaps to absolve the US from the charge of being hypocritical on the issue of democracy in the case of Pakistan. That she was persuasive enough was immediately borne out by Khurshid Kasuri’s intervention in which he said: “And I agree with Secretary Rice that when we discussed the issue, we looked forward to totally free and fair elections in 2007.”

Pakistan’s opposition, however, reacted sharply but legitimately against Ms Rice’s seeming endorsement of the officially touted year of next general election. The ARD comprising both the PPP of Benazir Bhutto and PML(N) of Nawaz Sharif, thought Ms Rice by so doing was only enhancing the life of a military led government negating the very ideals of democracy. They said it was the right of the people of Pakistan to decide when to have and when not to have an election and that Ms Rice had no right to make any suggestions in this regard.

On the other hand, by not specifying the steps that need to be taken to introduce further democratic reforms and the essential conditions that need to be met before free and fair elections could be held in Pakistan Ms Rice appeared to have left a door wide open for Musharraf to continue to play his game of bringing the Army in to keep it out. Indeed, to be truthful, as of today, there is no sign that the government has any plans to reform the electoral system, its laws and rules.

The Election Commission is still serving as a handmaiden of the executive. And political parties not in the government certainly have no confidence in the government appointed Chief Election Commissioner. Two years is a long time. Anything can happen between now and 2007. Musharraf is already trying to woo the Opposition in the name of reconciliation by using the carrot and stick method and; if he remains all powerful for two more years, he might actually succeed in breaking the Opposition. This would mean another unlimited extension of military rule in the country. Already intense activity is going on behind the scene to secure Musharraf’s uniformed future even beyond 2007.

Nevertheless, Ms Rice’s utterances in Pakistan last week seemingly point to a positive change in the US administration’s stance on democracy in Pakistan. This change would be tested on ground during the forthcoming Local Bodies elections in the country this year. If these elections pass the test, then one could hope for fair and free general elections whenever they are held next. If not, then the next general elections would be fought according to Musharraf’s game plan in which his 102 or so hand picked District Nazims would be playing a major role to keep genuine democracy out of Pakistani parliament for many more years to come.