• Home
• /
• Opinion

Pakistanis approach the most crucial vote in their history

Pakistan is now struggling with the spreading phenomenon which was once unknown to us; the suicide bombing trend, which essentially stands the paradigm of security on its head. How does a society fight those who do not fear death, those for whom there is no deterrent available in the traditional textbooks teaching security? Pakistan has suffered 60 suicide bombings in the last one year. And clearly as we have seen there is no target beyond the reach of these suicide bombers now and also no target that is sacred enough to be avoided — children, mosques, women, politicians, men in power, the army, the police and even the intelligence agencies.

Two, the country has never been so polarised before. The new divide is one that is etched along religious lines — the divide of the moderates and the extremists. This adds to the existing polarisation. It exacerbates it and injects a righteous-based intolerance for the 'other.' This misfortune has been bestowed on us by those within our ruling elite who chose to adopt the language of the 'other' in their keenness to participate in clumsy and thoughtless ways in the "international war on terrorism." Pakistan's many growing polarisations are not inevitable for at the core lies the need for every Pakistani to live in peace, but with political and economic justice, as enshrined in the Constitution.

Three, since 1977, the centre's relations with the smaller provinces have never been so strained. The post-Bugti Baluchistan may have less violence but it is erroneous to see that as the beginning of province-centre reconciliation. Also the post Benazir Bhutto Sindh is seething with anger but its energies are fortunately engaged with the election process.

Four, the trust level between the state and the people has never been at such a low. There is virtually no issue on which the public and politicians seem to buy into the government's information. These are the bitter wages of a growing gap between a government whose actions have mostly been perceived as illegal and unjust, whose head is being viewed as one primarily seeking his own political survival. These are the perceptions and the facts that make people dismiss the government's version of events no matter how truthful the government is being. Mistrust distorts the public vision.

Five, the widespread public criticism of the army's invasion of the non-constitutionally-mandated space and positions in running the affairs of the state has never been greater. Some of this is now changing as the new chief begins to try and wean away the army from some of zones it had unconstitutionally occupied.

Six, the playing field for these elections is less than level. The caretaker government has card carrying members of the contesting party PML-Q, the Nazims who control the local administration have relatives contesting the elections, yet the powers of the Nazims for at least a fortnight before the election period were not suspended, the IB chief's brother who wields the mighty machine of the Intelligence Bureau is contesting the elections and yet if any contestant needs to take their complaints beyond the weak and ineffective EC they can only go to the courts which are now occupied by the post November 3 judges. Indeed, it is a less than level playing field!

Seven, the institutional weakness of the Election Commission and its near inability to implement its constitutional mandate have never been so obvious. Admittedly, some glitches to make the process somewhat fairer were removed including making the electoral rolls less controversial and transparent, the documentation of all the country's polling stations to rule out the ghost polls phenomenon and the submission to the party polling agents of signed result sheets by the presiding officer to reduce vote tampering . However, the major issue of the Election Commission's inability to redress even five per cent of the thousands of complaints that major contesting parties submitted underscores absence of the authority that the EC requires to fulfil its constitutional mandate. Most of the parties' complaints have been supported by independent Pakistani election-process monitoring groups like PILDAT and others like the HRCP.

Eight, the institutional battles have never been so fierce and unrelenting. The year 2007 witnessed battles between the judiciary and the presidency. There is no doubt that the pre-November 3 judiciary was the winner in the public's mind. Whatever followed post-November 3, the battle between the presidency and the legal community still continues. To the extent that the political parties have bought into the agenda of the lawyers of restoring the old judiciary, the February 18 elections will also influence the outcome of the institutional battles. Pakistan needs to settle the crucial matter of an independant judiciary if we must move ahead as a progressive and contemporary state.

Nine, elections have never been held under the watch of a president who has wielded state power, in violation of the spirit of the constitution. This has been the focus of some much political controversy. President Musharraf is not only a legally controversial president but with all the pluses of his tenure today he is unfortunately viewed by many as part of Pakistan's problems not its solution. He is no less a partisan president banking on the PML-Q victory primarily for his survival.

Ten, the call for the boycott of elections has never, despite being restricted to smaller political parties and the lawyer-community, been so coherent, coordinated and audible. There are thousands and thousands of voters who will not vote because of this boycott call. Those calling for boycott recall many of the above points underscore the futility of participating in the elections. They argue the outcome is predetermined.

Personally, this writer conducted a poll asking about 200 educated citizens if they would vote. Only 58 said they would, less that 30 per cent. While criticism of the existing system is valid this kind of planned inaction is not. Also with the vigilant media present, with party workers active, with observers groups in place and with a relatively better electoral system in place, it may be possible to avert massive rigging. The media will indeed be the eyes and ears of the public, it will keep a sharp check at the polling booths. Massive rigging will not be easy to hide. What is indeed needed is also the energy of the voter to serve as a deterrent against rigging. That energy will also be generated if genuine voters and believers in constitutional democracy actually come out to vote.

We must vote. Some of our refusal to vote may be self-serving, it legitimises our inaction, our indifference and our political lethargy. It is time we 'walk the talk.' A revolution is not around the corner that will change our state of affairs, neither is a perfect messiah arriving for our deliverance. Our vote is the only lever of change we have in our hands. That is the only lever we have to say no to what we disagree with and strive for constitutional rule we believe in. We believe there can be no genuine democracy with a destroyed judiciary and casting the vote may take us closer to the objective of an independent judiciary.

Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad -based national security strategist