Pakistan: Post elections, new government and geo-politics

Pakistan: Post elections, new government and geo-politics

 

Summary

 

After recent elections in Pakistan the power has shifted from one man-Musharraf to many actors in Pakistan. While most observers are commenting what this mean for Pakistan in the short term, let's look over the horizon and try to understand what the return of civilian rule in Pakistan means for the country and its behaviour on the international scene most importantly in US war of terror.

 

Analysis

 

Since the recent elections in Pakistan there is an air of jubilance amongst some sectors of Pakistani public who term the new developments in Pakistan as a new dawn which is going to usher representative legislator and independent judiciary after almost a decade long brutal dictatorship by General Parvaiz Musharraf.

 

While the above is going to become more clear with time, one thing is clear that this air of jubilance is not new, as most Pakistanis have learnt that after every election or coup, the new government in power give new false promises and new dawns only to be worst than the previous government. It is also clear that United States with its strategic interests in Pakistan along with the Pakistani military are going to remain dominant players in Pakistani politics.

 

However, lets give credit where it is due and see what this means for Pakistan and geo-politics. Pakistan today have an assertive judiciary, emerging civil society along with increasingly independent media, it is also a correct understanding that the recent elections were in reality an anti-Musharraf vote rather than to the policies of political parties, Pakistan today is more politicized and its population is more politicized than ever before. The gulf between Kiyani and Musharraf due to various reasons resulted in the distancing of the military from the politics was also the main factor behind largely fair elections.

 

The above situation has put the new formed government in a difficult position. They understand the wishes of Pakistani public is to distance Pakistan from United States war of terror on Islam, however, the new government is as pragmatic as Musharraf. Under public pressure as Gillani ordered the release of judges he is also under pressure not to appoint them under pre-emergency conditions from pro-Musharraf forces and Negroponte intensive campaign in Pakistan recently.

 

The reason for Gillani government pragmatism lies in the US's extensive economic and military aid to Pakistan, which is conditional on Islamabad's support in the "war on terror".

 

Pakistani military under General Kiyani is looking forward to use the willing feudal dominated parliament in exactly the same fashion as they used the alliance of Islamic parties post 2002 rigged elections. Pakistani military under Musharraf used the victory of Islamic parties as a bargaining chip, by reminding the West that if Musharraf is not given support in the form of aid and weapons then mullahs are going to come in power with a finger on the button. This bargaining chip also heavily utilized to draw a strategic balance between US demands to intensify operations against the Talibans who Pakistani army considers an asset, if and when US leaves the region against India and Northern Alliance.

A series of recent public statements helps illuminate the Pakistan-U.S. situation. On April 2, a spokesman for Pakistan's Foreign Ministry stated that the government would consider any action by U.S. or NATO forces in Pakistan's tribal areas an enemy assault and would be forced to react accordingly. This comes on the heels of a related statement by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on April 1 that no foreign forces are allowed to operate on Pakistani soil and an announcement the same day that Pakistani officials will be reviewing the country's role in the U.S-led war on terrorism. (The first such review meeting was promptly held April 2 with all of the heads of the major political parties present.) These statements are an attempt to show disagreement with the tight, unilateral grip the U.S. had on Pakistan under Musharraf's watch and to increase Pakistan's bargaining power.

On the other side United States is carefully watching the statements by the new government and is beginning to criticize it in public. On March 27, for example, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte publicly questioned the viability of the Pakistani government's proposed peace talks with pro-Taliban forces, claiming the militants are too hard-line to talk.

In addition to these statements, the new Pakistani government is emphasizing that it will now make decisions in a parliamentary fashion, rather then leave them up to one person (as it was done under Musharraf), and that the Parliament is the supreme body of the country. This plural decision making means that Pakistan's moves will now be subject to agreement by multiple political forces, making the United States' relationship with Pakistan and its agreement on the war of terror more difficult to continue than it was under Musharraf.

While the diplomatic dance between the United States and Pakistan appears tense at the moment, in reality huge changes in how the two countries relate to each other are unlikely. This is due to some core underlying factors that ultimately limit Pakistan's options. Pakistan needs to maintain a cordial relationship with the United States in order to continue to receive loans in building up its economy. Further, Pakistani army thinks that it is in Pakistan's best interest to continue to work with the United States in order to offset an emerging stronger relationship between the United States and Pakistan's main foe, India. Also, even though Pakistan appears committed to its new parliamentary process, in reality military will still maintain a crucial role in Pakistan's decision making, as a strong military is necessary to keep the various ethnic groups within Pakistan from constant clashing and to keep the country intact.

What Pakistan should do

 

United States is not longer a super power as it emerged from the cold war period. Iraq war is an example of how far US militarily can stretch. There are already echoes of defeat in Afghanistan and recent NATO summit in Romania is the last straw to save the coalition and its occupation of Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, the current political show is nothing but a game to further individual interests at the cost of the nation. According to the BBC, Gillani appointment ''Many believe he would be willing to quietly step aside if Ms Bhutto's widower Asif Zardari becomes an MP and therefore eligible to become prime minister''. A retired general and prominent policy analyst, Talat Masood, noted to the AP news agency that the new PM would be "easier to dislodge" than other prime minister candidates who were considered for the position (including the party's president Makhdoom Amin Fahim).

Whilst to the innocent bystanders the customs and formalities of the last few days may have ushered in a long awaited sigh of relief welcoming the return of 'democracy' to Pakistan, the internal 'goings-on' are a clear reminder, if not representative of exactly what type of 'democracy' is in store for the people of Pakistan as each person vies for the coveted lions share of the spoils of war i.e. the posts of the Premier and the cabinet.

Notwithstanding this, the real 'democracy in Pakistan' was elaborately epitomized in earnest as US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher arrived in Pakistan last week , the very same day that the new PM, Yusuf Raza Gillani, was sworn in. Commentators were clear in stating that the timing clearly implies that the US was trying to influence the policies of Pakistan's new government. Zaffar Abbas, an editor with Pakistani newspaper Dawn, said the arrival of the US delegation on the day the new prime minister had been sworn in suggested they were "trying to dictate terms." President Bush has already phoned the new PM Gilani and invited him to Washington "at his convenience," and Gilani's office quoted the Premier as saying, "Pakistan would continue to fight terrorism." US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher held talks with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), with Pervez Musharraf, General Ashfaq Kayani and the head of the ISI. The US is clear; it expects Pakistan's new government to remain a mercenary force along the country's border with Afghanistan.

Last but not least, with the US firmly ensuring its agenda remains at the forefront of any government, it has in President Musharraf its ailing proxy. The US and UK ensured that the demands for Musharraf to go were dropped early.

The above reflects the real plight for the ordinary citizen of Pakistan. The interests and needs of the people of Pakistan are 'secondary' if at all on the agenda of any of the above, as has become abundantly clear. Furthermore, Pakistan is not alone in this type of betrayal and treachery. This 'cocktail of democracy' is the same currently being served to the people of occupied Iraq under Nouri Maliki, that has been served in occupied Afghanistan under Hamid Karzai and is in store for the peoples of Iran and else where in the Muslim world. It is the type of western, colonial interference in the affairs of the Muslims that makes Egypt support Israel's blockade of Gaza and the undermining of the elected Hamas government. It is a continuation of the interference and betrayal that weakened the Ottoman Caliphate by sowing the seeds of division along nationalistic lines, which paved the way for the invasion and division of the Muslims lands after the First World War.

Thus, the true alternative and only the real form of governance which will reflect the interests and needs of the people, whilst ensuring accountability and good governance for the citizens is provided by Islam in the form of its Khilafah ruling system. Until this is realised, the citizens of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and other states around the world will continue to suffer under the oppression and guise of the 'sham democracies' that will be given to them.

 

 

Note to the Editors: Tauseef Zahid is a freelance columnist.