Last pre-election update!
Hey everyone,
I hope that you are doing well and have the date Feb 18th near your hearts 
So I picked out a couple of interesting articles that are worth reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7078656.stm
-This is a very nice overview of the different political forces in Pakistan, well worth the read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7245493.stm
-Love this article, it speculates what if anything will get done post election.
Hope you guys enjoy
Per
February 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Musharraf will be forced to accept the outcome. As President, he will have to compromise with the new Prime Minister (which may take days to choose). The elections will probably be fair given the international attention being paid. The British are there (although I understand it was difficult to get Americans to go).
If the election is fair, the PPP and Awami National Party can be expected to make inroads in the North West Frontier Province. Sindh will be a mix of the MQM and PPP. Punjab will be a mixed-bag. Balochistan will vote in its nationalist parties.
Either way, no real change will occur in Pakistan, regardless of the results.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Whether Musharraf likes it or not he has to accept the results, but I don’t understand why so many people expect him not to accept it. I think he is going to be just fine with anything. He might not be as democratically minded as the average US president, but he still does seem like a down to earth ruler. I can see him congratulating all the winners and the opposition parties with success. I think he should definitely be honored on his way down (which I am sure he won’t be). It has been a decent 8 years, compared to what was like before his coup-d-etat (im not sure how to make that better). He hasn’t been getting due respect…
It does seem like the PPP will have success in these elections, unfortunately, Benazir will miss out (God bless her soul).
-Mirak Kazanjian
Foreign Ministry
February 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Looks like the PML-N is dominating now, though, which is quite a surprise. They are only 1 or 2 seats behind the PPP, as the count stands right now. This might be because of the fact that the Punjab has better infrastructure than Sindh, and the Punjabi votes were counted first. Nevertheless, the PPP really had a surprisingly low showing in Southern Punjab. Nawaz Sharif’s men have come from behind to prove essential in forming the next government.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
And I wonder if Shaukat Aziz can be Finance Minister without being an MP. I hope so, or else my prediction that he would be brought back will be torpedoed.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Interesting comments. I know that we had a few revisions of the Minister of Finance and Revenue back when our research indicated that Shaukat Aziz was holding both the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. We didn’t feel that it was fair to have Aziz in both positions, so for a while the Minister of Finance was nameless, filled in by an “Undersecretary”. At this point, if Aziz is somehow expelled for not having a seat in Parliament, I think we’ll make an exception to the rule.
The elections will make it especially difficult for the Pakistani Cabinet to negotiate its international policies. Don’t be surprised if opposition parties, eager to claim the Cabinet and Presidency, launch political initiatives at the most inopportune times. After all, the first Bhutto profited greatly from the military’s defeat in the 1971 war…
Perhaps that’s what “states of emergency” were invented for?
February 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
There is basically only one opposition party, the PML-Q. In terms of diplomacy, there will obviously have to be a change in Foreign Minister, perhaps in ambassadors. The elections will not make it difficult to negotiate its international policies. China is ready and willing to work with whoever the Prime Minister is. The ambassador paid a visit to Asif Ali Zardari’s (PPP Chairman, Bhutto’s husband) house recently. Same for the United States, except they have a particular fondness for Musharraf, possibly saving him his post of President and avoiding a political conflict. Pakistan’s policies towards other countries, however, will basically remain the same.
Do not expect that the PML-N will cause problems. They will form a coalition with the PPP, dominate the provincial government in Punjab, and go along their merry way until the next elections. They have no power beyond the Punjab, and are not a threat.
The situation after the 1971 war was quite different. Bhutto’s popularity can be attributed to the fact that he did not want to be so conciliatory towards the Indians during the negotiations at Tashkent. Plus he was a socialist. Plus he was just plain charismatic.
Suicide bombings might happen at an inopportune time, but during conflicts with India, Pakistan shows solidarity. And the same goes for India’s body politic.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I would be very wary of the PPP and their interests and capabilities about securing leadership positions in Pakistan.
There’s a story that’s been told about the 1971 war with India that is amusing even if the veracity of it is doubted. Near the end of the war when Pakistan seemed to be about to lose its Eastern half, Bhutto was at the United Nations representing Pakistan. Yahya Kahn, the then President and leader of the military regime, called Bhutto at his office, and the telephone operator patched him through. The point of the call was that Yahya wanted Bhutto to sign a peace treaty with India before more losses had taken place. But for some reason Bhutto was having problems hearing the call, and he commented that he couldn’t hear correctly. The telephone operator, who had been listening to the conversation, told Bhutto that there were no problems with the call, whereupon Bhutto angrily muttered, “Who asked you” and hung up. The next day, Bhutto failed to approach India for peace, leading to a full defeat and Yahya’s resignation as President.
I believe that I heard this story from my professor who teaches the course on India-Pakistan, and he was told it during one of his visits to Pakistan. Hard to say if it’s true or not, but it still makes you think…
February 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Based upon what I’ve read, it seems likely such an event is true. Bhutto did not like the idea of capitulating.
In terms of real life, there’s no reason to be wary of the PPP and their interests (they aren’t going to be as corrupt as before, and no more corrupt than any other party in Pakistan) and there is no reason to be wary about their capability to secure leadership positions.
I guess the Crisis directors can do whatever they want, but realistically there seems to be little possibility of anything strange happening domestically. The PMLN is aware that it cannot go for the Premiership and neither Musharraf’s departure nor continuance to hold office should be unexpected.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Not to bash the directors or anything.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Unfortunately, I believe the story is made-up. It makes perfect sense that way. Bhutto’s opposers want him to appear as a corrupt individual; they want him to be blamed for as much as possible. Without hard evidence, this can not be believed.
Furthermore, rather than bringing up the past, we should keep our focus on the present and future. We commit and learn from our mistakes, but the importance is the present and the future.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
True, there is no hard evidence.
And now that I think about it, its almost inevitable that we will be PPP ministers anyways, which means we would need not fear PPP plots.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Our dear minister of Finance brings up a very relevant point, you guys will likely be PPP members. Also if you find a list over ministers please post it, that kind of info is not the easiest to come by so keep and eye out for it.
Cheers,
Per
February 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am
After the elections, this is a very good source I found. This article outlines most of the results, yet also has an intersting editorial towards the end about the future of the country.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/breaking_down_pakistans_election
This also brings up the point that PPP might not form a coalition with PML-N. This can create a new competitorship in the parliment. PPP seems to be dominating, however, if the rumors that the PPP and PML-N want to form a coalition come true, they will hold a combined 100 seats compared to the PML-Q’s 38 seats.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
They aren’t really rumors. They are basically going to have to. They have united on the basis of opposing Musharraf and there is little chance that they shall have significant disagreements any time soon.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
They don’t have much reason to work with each other anymore. PPP is clearly the winningest party of this election. Now it will be interesting to see who the new Prime Minister will be and whether President Musharraf will in fact remain in office through the end of his “term.” PPP has really no gain in forming an alliance with PML-N any longer. Before, they thought they might need PML-N to out number the PML-Q and hold strong in the parliment, but that is no longer true.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
No, they basically do. They cannot have a 2/3 majority unless they act in unison. The PPP needs the PMLN for that and because partnership between these two parties is something some of their constituents would like to see. If the PPP did not take the PMLN into a coalition it would prove them to be as power-hungry as its critics say it is. Same for the PMLN if it proves difficult to negotiate with.
And Pakistan is basically feudal. The PPP, who are going to become the royal family, need the nobles to be on their side. Without the Duchy of Punjab, controlled by the PMLN, what can they do?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“If the PPP did not take the PMLN into a coalition it would prove them to be as power-hungry as its critics say it is.”
I would define power hungry as the desire to form a coalition in order to control the parliament, and ultimately control the country. Having 2/3rds of the parliment votes, this coalition will have power over the country in ways that is unimaginable, which means they can overthrow Musharraf. But more importantly, this will lead to a demise of democracy.
Where is democracy in all this?
Democracy consists of:
1. Each member of the parliment should vote on an issue with conviction that they are doing the right thing.
2. If they are going to vote in alignment with their party, the PPP’s elected officials should turn to the PPP and the PML-N’s elected members to the PML-N.
3. If these two form a coalition, their coalition will dictate the votes of all these officials (turning into a dictatorship).
4. The coalition won’t give equal opportunity to the PML-Q, because they have already targeted president Musharraf and his administration. They have complained about the past mistreatment of parties; therefore, they should not commit the very acts they were once protesting.
The coalition between PPP and PML-N ruins the democracy in Pakistan which was proven by the previous elections. We can not allow this coalition to take place!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Like said earlier, there is a good chance that I will give you PPP and PML-N ministers
February 27th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
With all due respect, I think you’re a little confused.
Parliamentary democracy relies upon coalitions. A coalition does not mean a merging of two parties so that they vote the same on every single thing, which is what you seem to think, judging by points 2 and 3. As for point 4: you are right, it would not be fair to the PML-Q, but that’s politics. They lost.
Coalitions are a constant fixture in any Parliament. There’s no reason to raise the red flag for this, especially considering that we going to be primarily PPP ministers.
And PML-N ministers? I guess that might make it more interesting (after all, Crisis is more fun when it doesn’t follow the pattern of the real world ;)).
So what is the cut-off date exactly? I mean, if they name ministers on March 12 what do we do? I think it was mentioned elsewhere that committee will basically go according to whatever happens March 1st…right?
February 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Me, Eric and other crisis people will decide who your ministers will be. The tentative cut-off date for reality is Feb 29th.
Everything after that is irrelevant.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Coalitions are acceptable for mature parliaments, that is true, but Pakistan is not the average country right now. The stability of this country is so fragile. You think if PML-Q is treated unfairly everything will just go by safely and calmly? No way. PML-Q will react and will respond. There is solid democracy but there is also newly forming vulnerable democracy. Pakistan is the latter.
After these fair elections, Pakistan has the opportunity to continue smoothly, but with such a coalition and by overthrowing Musharraf, I honestly believe PPP and PML-N will be “power-hungry” and basically corrupt. There are many serious issues at hand… we have to focus on those right now, one being the social stability of the country, which starts with the suppression of Taliban in Swat Valley and along the Afghanistan border.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Their forming a coalition does not necessarily involve them impeaching Musharraf. If they did impeach Musharraf, then you would be correct. It would just be stupid of them. But one cannot consider their forming a coalition with such distaste when both parties have been so quiet about their actual plans.
Their corruption would probably not be any more or less with or without Musharraf; the intelligence services and military are keeping their eyes sharp anyways, and they don’t need the presidency to do it.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
The fact that they are quiet about the plans their coalition will have is the suspicious aspect of the whole ordeal. If impeaching (I’m sure that is not the proper word according to their constitution) Musharraf was not a possibility I don’t understand why so many critics are discussing this fact. If you realize, so many articles and editorials are taking into consideration the possibility of this being the end of Musharraf’s career as president. Why else would they bring up such a fact, unless there is reason to believe the coalition will in fact see to it that Musharraf is brought down from presidency?
On the other hand, we have much more serious issues to handle. Our government may be facing a serious threat. Not from India or China, but at the western front of our country, where we border Afghanistan, Taliban is growing. This new sect of Al-Queda with the strong belief in the power of the Shariat Law and the Kuran’s incoproration into the government, can lead the war on terror from within Pakistan. We need to suppress these actions before they bring harm to the Pakistani people and the country’s reputation. I do believe if we allow these groups, tied to Al-Queda to continue growth in our very backyard, we will a target of the world-wide “war on terror” led by America. It is a reality that Pakistan maybe be America’s new front on this war.
At a time where political and social stability is so fragile yet so important, we need to take every precaution necessary to ensure safety and security. Pakistan is a great country with a great culture; we can not allow this country to “fail.” We must stand strong and fight every threat; whether that is growing extremism or the threat of India.
It seems like the cabinet isn’t too active in this committee blog, because this discussion would be much, much more intriguing with the participation of others as well, such as the president himself.
Mirak Kazanjian
Pakistan Foreign Ministry