Feb 21st 2008
From The Economist print edition
They have spoken clearly. Politicians should listen
TO CALL it a massive upset is to ignore the opinion polls, which for months had been recording the growing unpopularity of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf. Yet it is still a surprise—and a credit to both the army and its former chief, Mr Musharraf—that the opposition has been allowed so thoroughly to trounce his supporters in the election held on February 18th (see article). A rigged outcome would have led to months of street protest, instability and perhaps another army coup. So might the unrigged one. But at least Pakistan's politicians have a chance to break the cycle in which corrupt, incompetent civilian governments are usurped every few years by corrupt, incompetent military governments. And Mr Musharraf has the chance to be remembered as the man who restored Pakistani democracy, not the man who doomed it.
There is of course every likelihood that all involved will blow these chances. But the voters have shown they deserve much better. Despite the legacy of cynicism left by a long history of manipulated elections, and despite the risk of terrorist attack, they turned out in respectably large numbers. And they decisively rejected both the backers of military dictatorship and the avowedly Islamist parties.
Sadly, the present hopeful mood may not last long. The two big winners in the election—the Pakistan People's Party of Benazir Bhutto, assassinated in December, and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) of Nawaz Sharif—each made a mess of government in the 1980s and 1990s. And although Miss Bhutto's widower, Asif Zardari, and Mr Sharif have been thrown into an expedient alliance, the prospects for long-term co-operation look bleak. Not only do the main protagonists loathe each other (Mr Zardari was locked up when Mr Sharif was prime minister). They also lack a common agenda.
As for Mr Musharraf, he has, as ever, shown a commando-like agility in shifting his position. Before the vote, he insisted it would show that he was still the people's choice. In the improbable event that his opponents took power and threatened to impeach him, he would at once stand down. In defeat, he pretends that the election has little to do with him as president, that he will work with any prime minister and that his resignation is not at issue. He also claims that the result shows his sincerity in holding free and fair elections. That is debatable: their relative freeness and fairness may have had more to do with his weakness. The power to rig was no longer wholly his, once domestic and foreign pressure forced him to stand down as army chief. His successor, General Ashfaq Kiyani, deserves most of the kudos for allowing the voters their say.
To the victors: don't spoil it
Mr Musharraf's legitimacy is in shreds. He was elected by the outgoing national and provincial assemblies whose members have just been resoundingly rejected by the voters. He had this constitutionally dubious arrangement endorsed by a judiciary stacked with his appointees, having sacked irksomely independent judges who might have thwarted him.
Despite the deep-seated antagonism between the country's two big parties, and the personal hostility between Mr Zardari and Mr Sharif, the two men announced on February 21st that they intend to form a coalition government. If they manage to hold one together, the price may be Mr Musharraf's impeachment. And if that happens, the risk is that for the next few months, just as for the past few years, Pakistani politics will be dominated not by the vital issues of extremism, security and economic development, but by the future of one man, Mr Musharraf. It would be better for all if he were to quit now, and were allowed to do so with dignity, and some honour.
From The Economist print edition
They have spoken clearly. Politicians should listen
TO CALL it a massive upset is to ignore the opinion polls, which for months had been recording the growing unpopularity of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf. Yet it is still a surprise—and a credit to both the army and its former chief, Mr Musharraf—that the opposition has been allowed so thoroughly to trounce his supporters in the election held on February 18th (see article). A rigged outcome would have led to months of street protest, instability and perhaps another army coup. So might the unrigged one. But at least Pakistan's politicians have a chance to break the cycle in which corrupt, incompetent civilian governments are usurped every few years by corrupt, incompetent military governments. And Mr Musharraf has the chance to be remembered as the man who restored Pakistani democracy, not the man who doomed it.
There is of course every likelihood that all involved will blow these chances. But the voters have shown they deserve much better. Despite the legacy of cynicism left by a long history of manipulated elections, and despite the risk of terrorist attack, they turned out in respectably large numbers. And they decisively rejected both the backers of military dictatorship and the avowedly Islamist parties.
Sadly, the present hopeful mood may not last long. The two big winners in the election—the Pakistan People's Party of Benazir Bhutto, assassinated in December, and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) of Nawaz Sharif—each made a mess of government in the 1980s and 1990s. And although Miss Bhutto's widower, Asif Zardari, and Mr Sharif have been thrown into an expedient alliance, the prospects for long-term co-operation look bleak. Not only do the main protagonists loathe each other (Mr Zardari was locked up when Mr Sharif was prime minister). They also lack a common agenda.
As for Mr Musharraf, he has, as ever, shown a commando-like agility in shifting his position. Before the vote, he insisted it would show that he was still the people's choice. In the improbable event that his opponents took power and threatened to impeach him, he would at once stand down. In defeat, he pretends that the election has little to do with him as president, that he will work with any prime minister and that his resignation is not at issue. He also claims that the result shows his sincerity in holding free and fair elections. That is debatable: their relative freeness and fairness may have had more to do with his weakness. The power to rig was no longer wholly his, once domestic and foreign pressure forced him to stand down as army chief. His successor, General Ashfaq Kiyani, deserves most of the kudos for allowing the voters their say.
To the victors: don't spoil it
Mr Musharraf's legitimacy is in shreds. He was elected by the outgoing national and provincial assemblies whose members have just been resoundingly rejected by the voters. He had this constitutionally dubious arrangement endorsed by a judiciary stacked with his appointees, having sacked irksomely independent judges who might have thwarted him.
Despite the deep-seated antagonism between the country's two big parties, and the personal hostility between Mr Zardari and Mr Sharif, the two men announced on February 21st that they intend to form a coalition government. If they manage to hold one together, the price may be Mr Musharraf's impeachment. And if that happens, the risk is that for the next few months, just as for the past few years, Pakistani politics will be dominated not by the vital issues of extremism, security and economic development, but by the future of one man, Mr Musharraf. It would be better for all if he were to quit now, and were allowed to do so with dignity, and some honour.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.