 |
Pakistan’s Elections Delayed |
 |
International sources are reporting, with slight variations, the news that Musharraf’s government will postpone Pakistan’s elections until February or even March. Musharraf himself is due to address the nation (and the world) tomorrow.
The New York Times confirms the delay:
Parliamentary elections in Pakistan scheduled for Jan. 8 have been postponed by the government until February, the secretary of the Election Commission said Tuesday.
The timing of the election and how the news of the delay is received could be critical to Pakistan’s stability. The two main opposition parties have threatened to organize continuous protests against the government over the delay.
Members of President Pervez Musharraf’s faction of the Pakistan Muslim League acknowledged in the last several days that if the elections were delayed for any more than six weeks, then growing frustration with the government could escalate into violence.
“Six weeks is just about the outer limit before the frustration really hurts Musharraf,†said a member of the president’s faction of the Pakistan Muslim League.
The BBC, emphasizing different aspects of the announcement, said earlier today that
The spokesman for Pakistan’s election commission has said that holding parliamentary elections as scheduled on 8 January “looks impossible.” But Kanwar Dilshad said the final decision would be reached on Wednesday after consulting political parties.
But opposition parties have spoken out against the decision, saying the government is undermining democracy and the constitution.
With this dismaying but unsurprising news, two outcomes appear likely. In the first, popular anger at Musharraf will grow, prompting further crackdowns and election delays. In the second, Musharraf will hold fraudulent elections and report a sweeping re-election for himself. Either way, Pakistan will see further destabilization. A democratic triumph by the opposition looks extremely unlikely.
And with that, the case for cutting off military aid to Pakistan grows. Rice and Bush must go beyond expressing their “disappointment”: they must shed an “alliance” that has long since proven itself to be a major liability, and join international voices in calling for a fairly administered democratic transition in Pakistan. Does that necessitate a rethinking of our mission in Afghanistan? So be it. The status quo in South Asia is becoming unbearable.
Jason Rosenbaum adds:
I’m personally surprised that the situation in Pakistan hasn’t deteriorated beyond low level rioting and violence. Many were calling the assassination of Benazir Bhutto a “Franz Ferdinand moment,” and indeed, the shooting could have precipitated large-scale civil unrest, civil war, or regional conflict. Pakistan’s elections still have the potential to be “wild,” but it seems the possibility of a failed nuclear weapons state has been put off the table, at least for now.
The road to democracy is twisted indeed.
Musharraf might be devious, but he’s not dumb. He knows that riding the coattails of Bhutto’s assassination, the PPP could’ve garnered enough electoral support to secure a majority in the National Assembly. Rather than take that risk (a risk all “democratically” elected leaders must take), Musharraf has chosen to preserve the status quo by undermining the one avenue through which Pakistan’s population can rightfully (i.e., peacefully, electorally) express their grievances with the current regime. As it is, Musharraf holds all the cards that allows him to delay elections, ensure judicial rulings in his favor and still receive billions in international aid for Pakistan’s role in the alleged “war on terror”. He is certainly not willing to allow sympathy for Bhutto to trump his well-orchestrated power-plays. As you say Alex, an “unbearable” status quo indeed.
On to the next topic: If the U.S. doesn’t start rethinking it’s relationship with Pakistan, it will only have itself to blame for continued instability in South Asia. Musharraf has given no reason for the United States to continue to aid his regime, and yet, I don’t think anything will change in the near future. (Have any of the representatives/senators/presidential candidates presented a plan for future US relations with Pakistan? I’m curious to know what’s flying around the political FP circles.)
See, I wonder if a delay doesn’t help the PPP as well. I mean, sure, sympathy votes won’t be as likely, but this gives them more time to campaign, make their case, and ensure a smooth transition. Of course, more time equals more possibility for fraud, but still….
They don’t have a real leader though…also I don’t think the elections will be legit, so they can either lose now or lose later I guess.
This seems promising. Perhaps Musharraf has turned over a new leaf in light of impending political opposition? Or he realizes an impartial investigation is the only way to clear his name.
In response to questions of electoral legitimacy, which outcome would be more detrimental to Musharraf’s regime: 1.) fair elections in which the opposition makes considerable gains, or 2.) unfair elections followed by Kenyan-style civil unrest?