Elections 2008

[roadrunner]

Who cares what the US thinks? They're not some moral authority to judge Pakistan's elections. Facts speak for themselves. It's clear there was not even an attempt at rigging by PML-Q. What a difference from the elections of the early nineties. I'd put money on everyone in Zardari's feudal land area being forced to vote for him.

 

[mujahideen]

Why does the govt not hold a referendum in the province and let the people choose the name they want for there province.......i dont understand what the big deal is.

I dont think renaming the province is a bad idea. But in Pakistan the problem comes when ethnicity is involved. For example lets take the North West Frontier Province. This was the name given by the British, now today all of Pakistan's provinces are frontiers in the sence they share a border with another country. Now the thing with the NWFP and I am only focusing on them is that some people want to change the name to Paktunistan. At first we would say nothing is wrong with that right, but then again take another look and you will see everything wrong and realize why the government of Pakistan has never changed that provinces name. Paktunistan meaning the land of the Pushtun's, meaning all Pustun's in my opinion at least. Changing the name would encourage the Pustun's, where ever they might be in Afghanistan or Pakistan to in a sence feel a sence of Pustun nationalism, eventually leading to a seperatists movement. I think had it not been for Dr.Khan Sahib and his Red Shirts, then maybe the name could of been changed. They planted the seed of this Pushtun nationalism, which in my opinion if the name is changed would only further grow that seed.

 

[roadrunner]

Bro i wasnt me that let zaradari out of jail so i could form an alliance with his deceased wife.

This isn't the point. No good twisting and turning. The point is that you're cheering an election in which Zardari, a convicted crook (who has served his time and been released), had won. That's what is incredibly nalak on you your behalf ad on the behalf of those that voted for him all in the name of great democracy.

 

[mujahideen]

Pakistan vote presents risks, some upside for U.S.

By Paul Eckert, Asia Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistani voters' rejection of U.S. ally President Pervez Musharraf forces Washington to find new partners in the key Muslim nation, but also presents a chance to pursue shared interests with wider legitimacy.

The United States reacted cautiously to Monday's election for the 342-seat National Assembly that showed the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League losing badly to the country's two main opposition parties.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey urged all parties to remain calm, accept the results and work together. He welcomed the vote as a "step toward the full restoration of democracy."

The White House, which had considered military strongman Musharraf a bulwark against al Qaeda and the Taliban, expressed hope for continued cooperation on counterterrorism.

A muted U.S. response was prudent while the top vote getter, the Pakistan People's Party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, discusses with potential partners the shape of a new government, experts said.

"The outcome was not a disaster. It didn't lead to the victory of anyone who would be deeply dangerous to Washington, but it will complicate things," said Daniel Markey, a South Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

He predicted the vote would lead to Musharraf's eventual departure, but said Washington should tread carefully with prospective new leaders now because "there's nothing that hurts a Pakistani candidate like the kiss from Washington."

The United States is faulted by Pakistanis for backing Musharraf despite his civil rights crackdown in 2007. More broadly, many Pakistanis believe Washington favors individuals over institutions and the military over civilian rulers.
"It is very important for the U.S. administration to move quickly to welcome the new government as soon as a prime minister is named and to make contacts and prove that we are willing to work with a civilian leadership," said Lisa Curtis, South Asia analyst at the Heritage Foundation.


DISTRACTED BY POLITICS

Underscoring Pakistan's importance to Washington, U.S. presidential candidates weighed in on the election results.

"A democratic Pakistan will be a better ally in the fight against terror and extremism, and will be better for the Pakistani people," said said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a contender in the Democratic Party primary race.

Republican primary front-runner Sen. John McCain welcomed what was reported to be a free and fair vote and said he looked forward to working with a new government.

"Whoever runs that country we have a common interest in defeating the Taliban, and having good relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan," said the Arizona lawmaker.

Markey said a new government represented long-term promise, because elected civilians were better partners than military coup leaders like Musharraf and the progressive Pakistan People's Party would be likely to promote the kind of economic development projects that undercut Islamic militancy.

But he warned against expecting quick movement before exhausting rounds of negotiating and maneuvering among Pakistani politicians produce a new government.

"All of the Pakistani civilian political leaders are going to be very distracted from any issues that have to do with things the United States cares most about," said Markey.

For the shorter term, U.S. concerns about terrorism can be addressed by Pakistan's new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who has demonstrated an understanding of the threat to Pakistan from extremism but has stayed out of politics, said Curtis.

"Kayani is showing that he wants to put distance between the military and the civilian administration and this works in favor of U.S. interests because he won't be sidetracked by politics," she said.

Pakistan vote presents risks, some upside for U.S. | Reuters

 

[mujahideen]

Pakistan election winners gang up on Musharraf

By Augustine Anthony

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pervez Musharraf's opponents said on Tuesday they would try to form a coalition, after winning an election that cast doubt over how long the U.S.-allied Pakistani president can stay in power.

Washington said it welcomed the poll as a step towards full democracy and hoped a new government could work with Musharraf, considered a bulwark against al Qaeda in its "war on terror".

A wave of sympathy helped the Pakistan People's Party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto emerge as the largest party in the 342-seat National Assembly, although it failed to win a majority.

A hostile parliament could seek to oust Musharraf, who came to power in a coup in 1999 and is accused of violating the constitution when he imposed six weeks of emergency rule in November to secure five more years as president.

Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower, said the PPP had the right to form a coalition government, adding there would be no place in it for the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML).

"As the largest political force of the country, we demand that we be allowed to make the government," he told a news conference in Islamabad.

"For now, the decision of the party is that we are not interested in any of those people who are part and parcel of the last government," Zardari said, appearing to leave open the option of changing his mind later.

Zardari, who took over the leadership of the PPP after Bhutto's death, said he would try to persuade Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister Musharraf overthrew, to join a coalition.
Speaking at a news conference in Lahore, Sharif urged Musharraf to accept he was no longer wanted.


"DICTATORSHIP"

"He would say, when people would want, I will go. Today the people have said what they want," Sharif said after his party ran a close second in Monday's polls.

He said he planned to meet Zardari on Thursday. "I invite all to sit together and free Pakistan of dictatorship," said Sharif, who returned from exile in November.

Bhutto's assassination in a suicide attack on Dec. 27 heightened concern about the stability of the nuclear-armed Muslim state, where al Qaeda leaders have taken refuge.

Musharraf, a crucial U.S. ally in a "war on terror" most Pakistanis think is Washington's, not theirs, has seen his popularity plummet in the last year as he reeled from one political crisis to another.

"It is certainly clear that Pakistan has taken a step toward the full restoration of democracy," a U.S. State Department spokesman said. "Certainly we would want the election results to be respected by all parties."

He added: "We certainly would hope that whoever becomes prime minister, and whoever winds up in charge of the new government, would be able to work with him (Musharraf) and to work with all other factions."
Groups of opposition supporters celebrated in the streets across the country as results rolled out.

But many Pakistanis are unconvinced by politicians associated with corrupt, inefficient governments of the 1990s.

"The promises that have been made by Nawaz Sharif and People's Party should now be fulfilled and they should do something for the country and not for themselves," said Mohammed Arif, sitting in his pharmacy in Karachi.

The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League trailed a distant third. The party's spokesman conceded defeat after the voters' verdict but kept alive chances of joining a coalition.

"They have rejected our policies and we have accepted their verdict," PML's Tariq Azim Khan told Reuters, adding: "We're willing to cooperate and work with anybody."


LOW TURNOUT, LOW VIOLENCE

Counting was continuing, with results still awaited in fewer than 20 seats, but no party could win a majority.

As of 8.45 p.m. (1545 GMT), unofficial results for 261 seats showed Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) had won 87 and Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) had 67.
The pro-Musharraf PML trailed with 38. Small parties and independents shared the others.

A few seats were not contested, while 70 reserved for women and religious minorities will be divided up proportionately among parties according to the number of votes they won.

Musharraf has said he will accept the results and work with the winners to build democracy in a country that has alternated between civilian and army rule throughout its 60-year history.

Relief at the absence of serious vote-rigging and relatively low levels of violence helped Pakistan's main stock market gain more than 3 percent. At least 20 people were killed, but that was not as bad as feared after a bloody election campaign.

An election watchdog group put turnout at 35 percent.

A secular ethnic Pashtun nationalist party was winning in North West Frontier Province. Islamist parties which won in 2002 were trounced, as moderate forces re-established their influence over the region of Pakistan most prone to militancy.

(Additional reporting by Augustine Anthony and Sahar Ahmed in Karachi)

Pakistan election winners gang up on Musharraf | Top News | Reuters

 

[mujahideen]

Polls dishearten religious parties

Shamim Shahid

PESHAWAR - The February 18 general elections proved to be fruitful for the Awami National Party whereas these were disheartening for no other than religious forces assembled in Mutahida Majlis Amal (MMA).
The ANP got on the top with 30 seats out of 96 according to unofficial results of provincial constituencies. The Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians remained runner up with 17 seats. The one-time strong, united and disciplined MMA has secured only nine seats.
On National Assembly seats, the ANP again remained on the top with 10 out of 35 seats, PPP-P was second with 8 berths, MMA secured only two seats and PPP (S) has secured only one seat. The PML-Q won five and PML-N secured four seats in the National Assembly.
It merits to mention that a large number of Independents have been elected to Parliament from various parts of NWFP. Majority of these Independents remained in association with the former ruling PML-Q, PPP(S) and MMA. Presence of such a large number of Independents in the field could cause destabilization in the province as in 1988 and 1993.
Former leader of the Opposition in National Assembly and MMA Secretary General Maulana Fazlur Rehman faced defeat in his native district Dera Ismail Khan whereas he was elected to the National Assembly from adjacent Bannu district. The case of ANP President Asfandyar Wali Khan is different. He won the National Assembly seat with a landslide majority in his native Charsada district but lost the Swabi seat with a narrow margin of double figures. Recounting on NA 12 is to take place on Wednesday morning (today) and the ANP leadership is hopeful of retaining the seat.
Two candidates of PPP-P including Provincial General Secretary Mr. Najam Ud Din Khan from Upper Dir and Abdul Akbar Khan from Mardan have been elected to both National and Provincial Assembly seats. Former Federal Minister Anwar Saif Ullah Khan has been elected from two constituencies of native Lakki Marwat District. In the light of his name being in the good books of late Prime Minister Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, former federal minister Anwar Saif Ullah Khan was a favourite for the attractive slot of Chief Minister. However, he could get the chance if the PPP-P leadership gets success in mustering support of the Independents elected to NWFP Assembly.
Though former NWFP Chief Minister Akram Khan Durrani along with his son Zeyad Akram Durrani succeeded in retaining his berth in the Provincial Assembly yet almost all his former cabinet members (ministers) have been defeated. Only Hafiz Akhtar Ali who remained Irrigation Minister in MMA government has retained the seat from his native Mardan district.
Despite losing the charismatic leader like late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, the PPP-P succeeded in restoring its existence in certain important parts of the province. The PPP performance remained satisfactory in Peshawar, Nowshehra, Mardan, Malakand, Dera Ismail Khan, Upper and Lower Dir regions. While the ANP had further improved its position in Buner, Swat and Lower Dir districts but its performance remained disheartening in Peshawar, Nowshera, Mardan and Kohat regions. However, from Kohat and Hangu, the ANP won both the National Assembly seats.
Whatever may be the strategies on the part of leaders of ANP and PPP regarding governing the province, the coming government may be facing the problems like deteriorating law and order situation, growing trends of militancy, terrorism, price hike, unemployment and increasing corruption and malpractices in government departments.

The Nation

 

[mujahideen]

Elections and democracy

By S. Akbar Zaidi

NOW that all the votes have been cast in yesterday’s elections, is Pakistan, once-again, a certified democracy? Does the process of choosing one’s own representatives, through a process which may have been free and fair, necessarily imply that the forces of democracy are now on the verge of pushing back the forces of authoritarianism?

For most people, the answers to both these questions would probably be, either ‘no’, or a ‘not necessarily so’, and it is improbable that many actors, including those who contested yesterday’s elections, would give an unqualified ‘yes’.

Elections do not necessarily bring about the process of democracy and as we have seen, in fact, may, instead, reinforce and legitimise authoritarian political and institutional forces. The consequences they will have in Pakistan depend on a number of factors.

The fact that a majority of the electorate decided not to vote contradicts the claim made by many analysts and politicians that this was a particularly important election for Pakistan. Some called it a defining moment, bringing about a much needed transition from military rule to democratic politics.

But, for whom was it such an important election? If it was such a pivotal election for Pakistan’s future, a ‘make-or-break’ vote, why did the electorate not endorse this view? Was the low turn-out – as one could see – an indication of the fact that the astute Pakistani voter felt that the elections would actually bring about little change, and all that would change would be a few faces? Or, was this a vote against the entire electoral process itself, against what many call ‘democracy’?

While in most stable political environments elections bring about democratic politics, this universal assumption may not be applicable to Pakistan. We have seen in Pakistan in the recent past, that elections have been held specifically for the purposes to justify and legitimise military rule, making it more entrenched as a result.

Rather than resist the urge to participate and boycott the elections, precisely because they are political actors, political parties are willing to take part in any form of elections in which they see a possible chance of victory.

These political actors would argue that through the process of electioneering and participation, they are actually furthering the democratic process. While this may be a real possibility often for extraneous reasons, often political actors are trapped into an arrangement which compromises their politics, as we witnessed in 2002 and 2004. Parliamentary political parties actually legitimised the politics of military rule in Pakistan, and did so once again by not voting against the election of President Musharraf in 2007. Clearly, elections and politics may not be a chain linked to the democratic process. While elections are a necessary condition to bring about democracy, they are certainly not a sufficient condition. The commonly held assumption that elections necessarily lead to democratic politics, must be challenged.

It is these questions and issues which we should be posing with regard to yesterday’s elections. Clearly, there is going to be some change from this moment onwards, as new aspirants to power on the basis of the vote, are going to claim a share in the new political arrangement. The belief that the elections will necessarily bring about a democratic transition is an untested assumption.

After all, many of those who were in Parliament in 2002-07, have also contested yesterday’s elections. How do we convince ourselves that the Parliament of 2008 will be more democratic than that of 2002, especially when President Musharraf has said that he will be the ‘father figure’ to the new prime minister?

Clearly, the one major difference is that the Chief of the Army Staff is no longer the president, and the position of the latter, is the weakest it has been since 1999. Other than this important factor, what makes 2008 more democratic than 2002?

It is the notion of democracy itself, which needs to be continuously rethought. If one can argue that the political space for political parties now is probably wider than it has been since 1999, then one can claim success in the process of democratisation in Pakistan. Yet, the irony is that democratic spaces have been expanded not by political parties alone, but perhaps more importantly, by forces and groups outside the electoral process.

Since the electoral process is seen as coterminous with the democratic process itself, the process of furthering democracy often comes to a halt when elections take place. Moreover, many actors who were active in the political and democratic movements outside of the electoral process often give up their activism and their agency, after the elections, expecting elected representatives to further their political causes. That this does not happen causes resentment against what is seen to be the democratic process itself.

What is seldom recognised is that those who are elected to Parliament, may have a very different political agenda and priorities, than the one being articulated by, for example, civil society or by the lawyers. The reinstatement of the superior judiciary to a pre-November situation may be seen as a fundamental democratic demand by some actors, but not by all.

Similarly, the demand that restrictions imposed on the media be removed may not be as enthusiastically supported by the new groups in power. The political process of compromise and reconciliation after the elections, may even completely push these demands off the table altogether.

The biggest dilemma facing democratic forces outside of the formal political process today will be to understand how to push for a democratic politics amongst a group of actors who may want to play politics of a different kind.

These democratic forces may even fear that many of the gains that they have achieved over the last year, will be nullified, ignored, or even reversed, by those elected to represent them in Parliament. In order to democratise the political processes in Pakistan after yesterday’s election, all those who subscribe to a democratic future, will need to continue to press for their demands, and not succumb to the politics of the elected.

If, as many believe, democratic forces outside of Parliament have been the ones which have opened wider democratic spaces over the last year despite resistance from some important political individuals, they must necessarily continue that pressure now. They must use the space and opportunity created by the elections to further the democratic agenda, and not stop at the gates of Parliament fearing that they will weaken it.

Unless democratic politics dominates electoral politics, the elections yesterday will become just another plank in a scheme to legitimise non-democratic institutions and forms of government through different political arrangements.

 

[mujahideen]

New poll by BBC

THE BBC has conducted a new poll in which 1,476 Pakistani adults were questioned. These polls sometimes catch me by surprise. First of all they do not represent the view of the whole nation, i.e. 160 million Pakistanis. Second, the way a question is posed is a question within a question which will most certainly evoke a negative response.

Why then is so much importance being given to these polls when they do not reflect the truth of the matter?

The situation in Pakistan has improved since President Musharraf came to power eight years back. We have a strong economy and there is an element of political stability. Progress is being seen on all fronts.

How can people say that President Musharraf’s election was not fair when it was the National Assembly, Senate and the provincial assemblies which voted for him?

The allegation that the government was involved in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is biased; what proof is there that the government was complicit in its involvement; none whatsoever. It is better not to rely on hearsay, but to give strong evidence of this accusation.

This I believe is defamatory in nature. President Musharraf is popular and let him do the job which he has set out to do, that is Pakistan comes first.

AMIN SULEIMAN
Rawalpindi

 

[solid snake]

Does it matter now anyways since most of it will be going into the pockets of these thugs. Its better if they keep there aid for themselves, would be helpful in the future.

Trust me on this one, the US keeps an eye on where it's aid is going. They know most of the military aid they gave us to fight Al-Qaida was spent on acquiring arms to counter India. The US will not let a single penny go where it should not, they have a very strong accountability culture. Besides, all this talk of "looting the country" should stop now.

This isn't the 90s when the only channel was the state owned PTV which only fed people whatever was approved by the incumbent government. I remember the 9pm-945pm Khabarnama would detail what the Prime Minister and President did all day, and only talk of the government in glowing terms.

One can't simply open up a Swiss bank account and transfer money there. This is 2008. A bird can't flap a feather without somebody who shouldn't know finding out about it.

 

[sparten]

And despite all that the people reelected the thugs. So if anything, we have disproved that theory my friend.

 

[solid snake]

And despite all that the people reelected the thugs. So if anything, we have disproved that theory my friend.

What theory? I don't get your point.

 

[MOSABJA]

lets talk about musharraf.One thing is for sure he will Lose power and even if he remains as president he will just be a show piece.

I think in removing 58 2b and 17 amendment all major parties including MQM will join hands.


But I think he will try his best to stay in power as he has Qs in the senate who will try to save him.

BUT THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION IS????

Where will the PML Q go??

In today's jang I just read that PML Q's dozens elected members have contacted Nawaz Shariff.

If Muslims league joins hands then it would have 66+38+4=108 members a lot more than PPPP.

Add a few Independents and they wont even need Zardari.

 

[IceCold]

This isn't the 90s when the only channel was the state owned PTV which only fed people whatever was approved by the incumbent government. I remember the 9pm-945pm Khabarnama would detail what the Prime Minister and President did all day, and only talk of the government in glowing terms.

One can't simply open up a Swiss bank account and transfer money there. This is 2008. A bird can't flap a feather without somebody who shouldn't know finding out about it.

I simply hope that you are right but remember it was musharraf that freed the media that we have today the same media that just doesnt let go a single change criticizing him. We have no gurantee that it will remain free after the president is gone and we come back to the same spot it was prior to Musharraf era. We have seen it past in both NS and PP era.
Secondly the other point i was mentioning here was that i remembered President saying that we donot need aids, we need to have more and more trade, now obiviously we cant expect much from this tola the reason is that it is one of our very old tradition to reverse all policies of the past government even if some of them atleast are for the betterment of the state. Hope you understand the drill here, its not state where transfering funds will not be easy, its pakistan, a place where people are known of becoming fools by the same people in different disguise.

 

[sparten]

lets talk about musharraf.One thing is for sure he will Lose power and even if he remains as president he will just be a show piece.

I think in removing 58 2b and 17 amendment all major parties including MQM will join hands.


But I think he will try his best to stay in power as he has Qs in the senate who will try to save him.

BUT THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION IS????

Where will the PML Q go??

In today's jang I just read that PML Q's dozens elected members have contacted Nawaz Shariff.

If Muslims league joins hands then it would have 66+38+4=108 members a lot more than PPPP.

Add a few Independents and they wont even need Zardari.

Doubt it, you need the Senate for that and even then the majority is not there.

 

[MOSABJA]

Doubt it, you need the Senate for that and even then the majority is not there.

You r right .I didnt say Musharraf is SURELY going.

But as I said his position will be weakened.

And dont forget I said that if PML Q abandons Musharraf????????

Then who knows they will have the senate too.