The most important feature of Pakistan's fourth party-based general election since former military ruler General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq lifted martial law in 1985, is not who won or lost but the low voter turn-out of less than 38 percent. Public apathy during electioneering was alsopronounced.
The main contending parties in the election were: Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Moslem League (PML), Imran Khan's Tehrik-i-Insaaf (Justice Movement) and the Karachi-based ethnic Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM). The first three were led by charismatic leaders; the fourth, composed of migrant refugees mostly from India, is led by the elusive Altaf Hussain, said to be an exile in London.
The voters have shown clearly their disillusionment with the main contending parties, their achievements in office and the unfulfilled promises of leaders. Equally, the public has registered its disapproval of the corrupt ruling elite and the failure of democratically elected leaders to deliver Pakistan from continual crises.
In spite of a low voter turn-out, the results have given wealthy industrialist, Nawaz Sharif, a stunning electoral victory with a two-third majority of the seats in the 217-member National Assembly, an achievement which no other ruling regime in South Asia can boast of. He could, if he wished, implement the "very bold reforms" that he has promised, to rescue an ailing economy. When the results are finally declared he may have the two-thirds majority necessary to even change the constitution.
After her election in 1993 Benazir Bhutto seemed to have put Pakistan on the road to economic growth with her free market policies and her "macro-economic adjustment programme", until her fortunes plummeted rapidly with the brutal killing of her estranged brother Murtaza Bhutto in September last. A high court judge was appointed to investigate his death in a gunfight that took Murtaza's life. Nawaz Sharif, then leader of the opposition, in a speech in parliament accused the government of "state terrorism". Many believe that Murtaza Bhutto's killing was a murder.
Benazir Bhutto defiantly refused to concede defeat and said that she would question the validity of the election alleging wide-scale rigging and other malpractises. She later changed her mind due probably to the verdict of international polls observers who declared the election to be "free and fair" and that "all those who wished to vote were able to do so and express their own wishes at the ballot box." Bhutto may also have been chastened by the extent of her defeat; she won just 19 seats - down from 86 at the previous election.
Does this mean that Benazir Bhutto's political career is over? Given the short voter memory, this is hardly likely. Her light has been dimmed; but she could yet come back. After all, Nawaz Shariff was himself dismissed for corruption and misrule by then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan, just three years ago in 1993.
Sharif Nawaz's earlier term of office
At the time of Sharif's ouster in 1993, the Pakistani economy was in a much healthier shape with a growth rate of over 6 percent. It is ironical that Sharif himself had been charged with corruption when he was prime minister although the accusations were not proven. But observers say that under Benazir corruption and mismanagement had been on a far greater scale; there was a flow of capital out of Pakistan, domestic and foreign debt exceeded the gross domestic product and the Pakistani rupee was devalued by over 25 percent. Business in Karachi was waiting for a stable elected government. Now they have got Nawaz Sharif, the "businessman prime minister" once again.
A superstar is humiliated
Another feature of the election was that cricket superstar and self-styled champion of Pakistan's poor, Imran Khan, has been humiliated at the polls. His Tehrik-i-Insaaf (Movement for Justice) did not win a single seat in the National Assembly. His one-point campaign agenda was the rooting out of corruption. He had said that "Sharif and Benazir should both have been disqualified." Imran Khan's departure from the political scene will spare Pakistan the customary pattern of recent times, of entertainers trying to transfer their personal popularity in various fields of entertainment into political gain.
Corruption-free democratic environment for development
Within the past year the people of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan have elected new governments because of a perception of corruption of earlier regimes. The question arises as to whether the new leaders can put behind them the corruption and follies of the past and bring about a new environment for rapid development. Gordon Fraser, a former prime minister of Australia, who led a group of Commonwealth polls monitors, warned Pakistani leaders about the danger to democracy unless they turn the economy around together.
Influence of the military
In Pakistan, since its creation fifty years ago on August 14 1947, the military-bureaucratic complex has played a dominant role in governance. Pakistan has been under military rule for thirty years. Even today, the military is watching the situation that is unfolding. During the past nine years, three duly elected governments have been thrown out by presidential fiat without being allowed to run their full term. It remains to be seen whether Nawaz Sharif can reduce the influence of the military on the political culture of the country.
The caretaker government appointed by President Leghari has set up, a few weeks before the elections, a Council for Defence and National Security (CDNS) composed of the president, the prime minister, four leading ministers and a galaxy of military leaders with a sweeping mandate to act Ôin the interest of national security'. The military establishment is apparently taking no chances. It is significant that although most political parties have opposed the formation of the Council, Nawaz Sharif has not criticised it.
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page