The Democratic Piece

The BBC has reported that Britain has doubled aid to Pakistan to nearly $1 billion over the next three years. The three main recipient are the areas of education, poverty reduction, health care, including the North West Frontier. 

It remains to be seen whether a new strategy will help build state capacity in a climate of political uncertainty. Pressure continues to mount against President Musharraf but the lack of legitimate political alternatives, the continued struggle with militants in the NWFP, the troubles along the Afghan border and continued nationalist sentiments in areas such as Balochistan leaves the prospects for a strong Pakistani state bleak.

While increased aid is certainly needed, it remains to be seen whether aid initiatives will change the status quo…

Today’s New York Times article examines the growing frustration in Pakistan due to the Bush administration’s consistent support for President Musharraf. Despite the popular vote signaling a desire for change, the administration continues to support Musharraf as a key ally for US policy.

It is not unreasonable for security interests to trump those of democracy. However, the centrality of democracy promotion in political rhetoric necessitates that action backs up the rhetoric. Pakistan is a clear example of an opportunity to visibly stand by those calling for democracy, an opportunity to defy the perception that America only acts in its strategic interest.

As the article points out, the notion that Musharraf can rely on the military is becoming less certain. If the opposition majority becomes a reality, and if it becomes clear that General Kayani, not Musharraf, commands the loyalty of the military, then the US needs to be sure it stands on the side of democracy and not dictatorship. To avoid increasing resentment, and to stem the fading legitimacy of democracy promotion rhetoric, this shift should start sooner rather than later.

President Bush put all of his eggs in the Musharraf basket and the Pakistani people have smashed that basket right in his face by wholeheartedly rejecting Musharraf’s political party. President Bush undermined U.S. standing in the world and our security by believing that the best way to fight Islamic extremism and terrorists in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region was unquestioningly supporting President Musharraf and funneling billions of dollars to the Pakistani military without oversight. The results of the Pakistani parliamentary elections have left the Bush administration with a lot of egg on its face.

As the State Department scrambles to get its bearings in the fluid Pakistani political environment, it is important for us to consider three things. First, why did the Pakistani government allow these elections to be carried out in a relatively unfettered manner? Second, what are the likely outcomes? Third, what should the priorities of the U.S. government moving forward in terms of security and democracy promotion? Continue Reading »

I am leaving Pakistan in a few hours and I can honestly say that I am glad came. The election was a clear success and exceeded nearly everyone’s expectations. This may seem like a bold statement so let me justify it. First, President Musharraf mobilized the military and the police to allow for a peaceful election even though he knew it was likely to spell the end of his political career. Indeed, voters soundly rejected Musharraf’s regime. Second, voters broadly accepted the results. Thus, by and large, Pakistanis view the election to be a legitimate one. For those of you who are still skeptical, the Karachi Stock Exchange gained 3% today and the Rupee appreciated slightly against the Dollar. This is a clear vote of confidence from investors. Yesterday was a good day for Pakistan and a good day for democracy. The Pakistanis deserve a break and it seems as if they have received one.

On a personal note, the folks at Democracy International did an outstanding job and I would like to sincerely thank them for their efforts. The tight time line and the security situation made this an incredibly difficult election to monitor credibly. Nevertheless, they did their best to ensure this could happen and they succeeded. I am proud to have been a member of the delegation.

Finally, I must stress that these are my thoughts, not the position of Democracy International.

The polls have closed in Pakistan and election day was relatively peaceful. Thankfully, none of the DI teams encountered any serious problems (however I heard that our security detail had to extract teams from Multan and Peshawar when their polling stations became violent). Nevertheless, it would be a stretch to say that the election was free and fair. While I saw no outright fraud, the voter rolls are hopelessly inaccurate and it is not at all clear who will observe the physical transfer of the ballots to the official counting stations. Thus, while election day seemed to go off well, there was significant manipulation before the election and post-election vote rigging remains a possibility.

Despite the relative election day calm, Pakistan is far from out of the woods. First, the country may still erupt when the government announces the results. Second, it is still far from clear how the elections will affect President Musharraf. Third, and most important, the election is not going to resolve the problem of widespread terrorist attacks. Although most of the violence recently had occurred around political rallies, the terrorists have a long-term plan; their attacks are much more about destabilizing the country than affecting the outcome of this particular election.

I also think I have an answer for why the terrorist strikes seem so random and have begun to understand the political strategy within which these attacks are occurring. There is a fair amount of sympathy for these groups in the northern part of the country, especially along the border with Afghanistan. The attacks in that part of the country seem to be targeted at those who do not sympathize with their goals. This is in-line with the political strategies of Hamas and Hezbollah that I discussed in a recent post. Outside of this region, the attacks are far more random and their goal seems to be to undermine people’s belief that the government can protect them. According to some of the experts I have talked to, the terrorist groups know they are vastly unpopular outside the northern part of the country but don’t care since they have support there. Thus, the best guess is the terrorist groups will continue their strategy to discredit the government in order to achieve their long-term goal of taking over the country. It will take far more than an election to change this dynamic.

The Washington Post’s Robin Wright has an article on our observation team that seems a bit unfair. It’s true that this was a last-minute mission. However, this is the fault of the State Department: they wanted an observation team to give legitimacy to the election and when IRI refused at the last minute, they scrambled to find someone who would do it. There is no doubt that our presence is nothing more than symbolic but it’s the US government that wants the symbolism, not DI. Moreover, DI didn’t push for this election, the US government did. No one on our team thinks we can do anything remotely close to a legitimate observation (especially given the security situation) and her implication that we think we can is just plain wrong. The folks at DI have done an excellent job staffing this mission at the last minute and to dump US government policy failures with regards to Pakistan into the lap of DI seems to me to misplace the blame. Moreover, her belittling of DI is downright unfair. Eric Bjornlund and Glenn Cowan faced difficult challenges in building their firm and it has become a success, contrary to expectations. Eric and Glenn have too much class to ask for an apology for this screed but they deserve one.

Commentators are putting faith in Pakistan’s election on Monday.

Mort Kondracke of Roll Call stresses the stresses the importance of Pakistan’s parliamentary elections on Monday, which will determine if the U.S. ally will move towards democracy or authoritarianism… Paul Wiseman of USA Today suggests that this exercise of democracy could result in the weakening of President Pervez Musharraf’s hold on the country…Thus, Wiseman reports that the United States stands to lose as well in the election.

If Barak is right, that faith is misplaced.

Second, the election is not going to be free and fair; the bar is a credible election. I think credible means an outcome that does lot lead to more chaos than currently exists.

We can make reasonable assumptions about the outcome of this election. The important question is how key actors - the Taliban, those calling themselves Taliban, the military, an enraged public - will respond in the aftermath.

I want to be clear that my comments are personal observations only. They do not represent any official view of Democracy International.

Today was depressing. We met with the US Ambassador, leaders from two main political parties, the Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q; Musharraf’s Party) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP; the late Benazir Bhutto’s party), representatives from the electoral commission, the UNDP, and the Free and Fair Election Network (a consortium of NGOs). These briefings clarified a number of issues. First, Musharraf is reluctantly holding these elections. Second, the election is not going to be free and fair; the bar is a credible election. I think credible means an outcome that does lot lead to more chaos than currently exists. Third, the country is holding its breath going into these elections. Suicide bombings at political rallies have become commonplace and the military is on its highest state of emergency for the election (i.e., mobilizing for a war). The hope seems to be for a relatively peaceful election with reasonable voter turnout.

However, it is the context of the election that is most troubling. Pakistan is entering the election facing serious political and security challenges. Suicide bombings have skyrocketed over the past year and it is not clear why. The rationale for them (other than creating chaos and discrediting the government) and the reason for targeting innocent Pakistanis is elusive. Those who attend political rallies in this environment are brave souls. It is likely that the bombings are related to the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan as sympathy for the group is strong along the border region between the two countries. Moreover, given that the Pakistan’s Inter-services Intelligence (ISI; the country’s military intelligence agency) helped the Taliban come to power, the Pakistani military is not the most obvious choice for dismantling the organization. Neither of these explains the logic of the terror attacks, however. In addition, because Pakistan uses a first-past-the-post voting system and because its political parties are fragmented, the election, especially in rural areas, is turning on purely local concerns. Consequently, at a time when Pakistan is facing enormous political and security challenges, the election in the eyes of many voters is about patronage and local political power. To put it simply, the political situation seems to be disintegrating fast.

Tomorrow I will be traveling to Lahore, the city where I will be observing the election. I am looking forward to experiencing Pakistan’s domestic airline industry. I hope it provides a bit of relief from the country’s heavy politics.

Apropos of Jack, I am in Pakistan as an election observer with Democracy International and will be blogging about it…to the extent that I have access to the internet. We arrived in Islamabad this afternoon. The scene at immigration was reassuring in a developing country way: long lines, hot, and officials zealously stamping any papers in sight. Unfortunately, we have seen very little of Islamabad except the inside of the airport and the hotel.

I know little about Pakistan outside US-Pakistani relations and am trying to educate myself as quickly as I can so I will be able to understand its politics better. I am surprised at the freedom of the English press here (I can’t say anything about the Urdu press). On TV and in print I have seen stories that are very critical of President Musharraf and the government. I also saw a journalist on TV asking people on the street what democracy means to them. It is clear that people take politics seriously here and are not afraid to say they want Musharraf’s dictatorship to end.

The main question I have at the moment is trying to understand why there have been so many bombings at political rallies and other venues likely to kill innocent Pakistanis. Support for Al Qaeda has fallen dramatically over the past year due to these bombings. This doesn’t seem to be a logical strategy. I can understand why they would target the government. It seems to me that if they want to present themselves as a viable alternative, however, they would choose the Hamas and Hezbollah tactic of providing benefits to build public support and target attacks only against the enemy. I don’t see how preying on regular citizens advances their objective. Causing chaos in the country is reducing support for the government but it seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me as people dislike Al Qaeda as much as they dislike Musharraf. Perhaps a savvy reader can answer this question.

The (federal) Islamic Republic of Pakistan will elect its National Assembly on February 18, 2008. Georgetown Democracy & Governance students and faculty are en route to monitor the vote.

Originally scheduled for January 8, officials postponed the election after PPP leader Benazir Bhutto’s assassination on December 27, 2007.

Assuming the vote is free and fair, 342 National Assembly members will be elected under a parallel or MMM system. 60 seats are reserved to women, and 10 are reserved to minority groups.

Single-member districts are apportioned to each province by population. It seems like The proportional tier relates only to the election of women and minorities. Seats are allocated to those groups from each province in proportion to their respective parties’ province-wide seat shares.

If this is correct, 242 seats are elected under FPP rules, and the 70 remaining seats make up the proportional tier.

100 senators are indirectly elected by territorial and provincial assemblies using the single transferable vote. Terms are six years, staggered.