Adil Najam
Although this election remains shrouded in uncertainty, despair and gloom, it is quite clear that - one way or the other - these elections will be yet another defining moment in Pakistan’s traumatic political history.
Elections are critical because they give the citizen on opportunity to make their voice heard; to make a statement. This voice is not always heard and is sometimes not made to register, but the opportunity to do so is important unto itself. Yet, political theory also alerts us that opinion can be voiced also through silence. Statements can also be made through non-participation. In terms of elections it is as important to keep an eye on who is voting as on who is not; and why not.
This is most important in this election because the issue of whether to participate in the election or not is itself an important political issue; and each represents a different political statement. On the one hand we could argue - as Imran Khan of PTI and Qazi Hussain Ahmed of Jamaat-i-Islami have - that these elections are not free and fair and therefore should be boycotted. On the other hand it could also be argued - as both PPP and PML-N have de facto argued - that to remain out of the electoral process is itself to legitimize the process and those who believe in democracy cannot really afford to be against elections, even if they are against the autocrats organizing the elections.
Both views are thought provoking and worthy of serious thought. What do you think about this question of whether to vote or not?
To make the case for each proposition, here are two views. The first from analyst Nasim Zehra, arguing that people must vote in this elections. The second from politician Imran Khan arguing against voting.
First, Nasim Zehra, writing in The News:
Why Must We Vote
… Our vote is the only lever of change we have in our hands. A revolution is not around the corner that will change our state of affairs, neither is a perfect messiah arriving for our deliverance. Those of us who are here and who care, which means all of us, must go and strengthen the democratic system by voting. That is the first crucial step to start the birth of a new Pakistan where the Constitution and rule of law will reign supreme, no individuals and no institutions. Already since March 9 those who destroyed the judiciary are greatly weakened and discredited.
Casting our vote is a first necessary step in a system which is full of problems, yet for now this is what we have. This is an interim step in a transition stage. We believe there can be no genuine democracy with a destroyed judiciary, so let’s take this step in the spirit that this will take us closer to our final objective. We are only inching ahead maybe, and that too in a very treacherous environment, but we must. Pakistan needs us to stand up and be counted. Just sitting around and criticising will not do. Boycotting, unless in complete unison by all political parties, too is not a potent tool. We must use the lever which is in our control–let us vote.
Now, Imran Khan writing in the Daily Times:
A Vote Against Voting
… elections by themselves don’t bring democracy. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, loves elections. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been holding elections for 27 years. Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov has been in power for 30 years, and has just been “elected” to a fresh seven-year presidential term. Elections are meaningful only if they are perceived to be free and fair, which requires independent referees.
… Unfortunately, most of the political parties have failed to stand up for the democratic process. Major parties like the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) have decided to participate, following the lead of the late Benazir Bhutto’s People’s Party. And, of all the major parties that are contesting the election, only the PMLN is demanding the reinstatement of the judges…. So the dividing line in Pakistan is not between liberals and extremists, but between those who support the status quo and those who oppose it. Parties that call themselves democratic are not only going along with Musharraf in this fraudulent election, but are also helping to restore the status quo.
So, what do you think? To vote or not to vote?
You can visit ATP on your Mobile Phone. Here's how!
I am officially getting ready to launch my support for MQM based on their recent responsible attitude and statements.
Vote or not to vote…………..
The thing as far as I see, not to vote is a better option. There might be many people who might not agree with my view.
These elections are not free, fair and transparent…………..Those parties who suppported Musharraf i.e PML-Q and MQM are being given leverage……………We saw newspapers showing the state machinery being used by PML-Q and MQM in their election campaign……….Political victimization aginst members of the opposition has been very much seen……………During last five years apart from SINDH no governor had a political affiliation…………….How can there be free fair transparent elections in SINDH when its Governor (Eshratul Ebad) belongs to political party i.e MQM……………..All symptoms clearly show that the present setup under which elections are being held is false and reveals favoritism………
How can one expect to win, when judiciary is not independant, media is under strict scrutiny and there is no rule of law………………
Until and unless faith on the election commission is not fully resstored, no elections can prove desired and progressive results……………….
Although it is a very hard decision to take, to boycott elections and stay away from the mainstream politics………….APDM took a principled stand and should be highly appreciated and there their deision to boycott be endorsed…………
In my opinion, nobody has put the case for democracy in Pakistan in a better way than the following article by The News’ Farrukh Saleem. I think it is appropriate for me to copy/paste it here because the ‘archives’ of The News go only so far back. Read every word and ponder. And perhaps shed a tear or two for Pakistan.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=9668 8
—————————————————————
[QUOTE]
Indian democracy
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Dr Farrukh Saleem
India’s democracy is a 60-year story of corrupt politicians, assassinated leaders, dynastic politics, food shortages, poverty, chronic unemployment, an inefficient bureaucracy, prime ministerial scandals, bribes, tax evasions, embezzlements and an abundance of secessionist as well as faith related violence. In 2005, Transparency International found that more than 50 percent of Indians had “firsthand experience of paying bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in a public office (India Corruption Study 2005; Transparency International India).”
Shekhar Gupta must be one of India’s finest of journalists (Shekhar is editor-in-chief of Indian Express and anchors the famous ‘Walk the Talk’ on NDTV). If memory serves me right, it was something that Shekhar wrote and that column is the inspiration behind what I am about to say.
Mahatma Gandhi, ‘Great Soul’, Father of the Nation, was assassinated — shot and killed — by Nathuram Godse, an extremist Hindu who had convinced himself that Gandhi was going out of his way to favour Pakistan. Jawarharlal Nehru, India’s first PM, ruled for 17 long years but failed to arrest India’s growing poverty. Under Nehru, the state of Bihar went through a series of famines, mass starvation and death. The Nehru Dynasty was founded when Nehru managed to get Indira, his daughter, elected as the president of Congress.
Gulzarilal Nanda became India’s second PM (after Nehru died of a heart attack). Lal Bahadur Shastri took over from Gulzarilal (after Gulzarilal had been in office for a mere 13 days). Shastri, a ‘Nehruvian socialist’, failed to pull India out of an economic and a food crisis. After Shastri’s death, Gulzarilal became PM for another eight-day tenure.
In 1966, Indira Gandhi became PM and remained so for the following 11 years. Indira, who remained stuck to Shastri’s economic policies, confronted a severe balance of payments crisis, consecutive crop failures and a devaluation of the rupee. In 1975, Indira exposed her authoritarian streaks by imposing a state of emergency. On June 1 1984, Indira ordered Major General K S Brar to put an end to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale’s Sikh-purist theocratic movement for the establishment of Khalistan (’Land of the Pure’). Indira’s ‘Operation Blue Star’ desecrated Golden Temple, Sikhism’s holiest shrine, and the Indian Army recorded 83 deaths plus 492 civilians killed. In the immediate aftermath, an unspecified number of Sikhs deserted the Indian Army and then in October ‘84 Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards.
Rajiv Gandhi, a professional pilot, became India’s seventh PM and the third from the Nehru Dynasty. Rajiv tried to open up India by reducing import duties. Rajiv then got embroiled in the Bofors Scandal in which he was accused of receiving kickbacks. While the Bofors case was being investigated, Rajiv was assassinated by an LTTE female suicide bomber.
Islamabad is a mere 425 miles from New Delhi. Muhammad Ayub Khan studied at Aligarh Muslim University and trained at the prestigious Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. General Muhammad Ayub Khan became our youngest full-rank general and Field Marshall Muhammad Ayub Khan ruled Pakistan for nearly 11 years.
Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan went to Punjab University and finished first in his class. In 1947, Yahya was the only Muslim instructor at the British Indian Staff College. Brigadier Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, commanding the 106 Infantry Brigade, was only 34 years of age. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan ruled Pakistan for nearly two years.
Muhammad Ziaul-Haq attended St Stephen’s College, one of India’s leading educational institutions. Muhammad Ziaul-Haq was trained at the distinguished U S Army Command and General Staff College (Fort Leavenworth). Muhammad Ziaul-Haq trained the Jordanian Army and saved King Hussein’s monarchy. General Muhammad Ziaul-Haq ruled Pakistan for 10 years.
Now, look at India. Sixty years of corrupt politicians, assassinated leaders, dynastic politics, food shortages, poverty, an inefficient bureaucracy, prime ministerial scandals and an abundance of secessionist as well as faith related violence. Look at what a bad democracy has delivered.
Now, look at Pakistan. Thirty-one years of direct rule by Sandhurst-disciplined, Fort Leavenworth-trained, smartly-dressed, intelligible, meaningful, well intentioned Gentlemen Cadets.
Just look at the wide variety of fruits of a bad democracy. A democracy mere 425 miles from Islamabad.
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com
[/QUOTE]
Boycotting is dangerous business. Today’s boycotter’s are tomorrow’s secessionists.
Keeping in view what Musharaf has done to judiciary, army, media and almost every other institution, I think election under him would be the most incredible elections ever. He’ll give some seats to MQM from Punjab and interior Sind to get some support in the parliament.
I fully support the decision of Imran Khan, Qazi Sahib and Mehmood Akazai not being a part of it.
Option to boycott elections was off the table for PPP when Maulana Fazlu firmly decided to take part in the elections; Fazlu was so determined that he virtually broke the back of MMA (a good thing, I might add!).
Allowing MMA/MQM/PML-Q to run away with a victory unopposed would have been stupid on part of major political parties. The establishment can run away with Zia and Mush’s referendums, turn non-party 1985 elections to party-based National Assembly, make IJI in 1988 by using ‘agencies’ (read Hamid Gul)…all this and there is nothing the people of Pakistan can do about it in face of jackboots supported by the West.
In its entire history, the PPP only boycotted the 1985 elections and that decision was immediately regretted by BB Compared to 1985, 1990, 1997 elections, the PPP now can smell blood and is going for the kill which will involve impeachment of Mush, restoration of judiciary, reforming the ‘agencies’, starting a healing process in Baluchistan, formation of a national govt….
All above can be only possible if the status quo changes and the best way achieve that is to expose instances of rigging to mobilise public.
Finally, I salute the political insight of BB post Nov. 3: When the whole society was agitated and asking for a boycott, she correctly countered that ‘there would be no need for rigging if we boycott the elections’. Had the PPP/PML-N boycotted then on Feb. 19th PML-Q and its allies would be declared as winners while the protestors would be called sour losers. A few thousand people baton charged, jailed but Pervez Elahi swears in as the new PM of Pakistan. Yes, the same can still happen even now but the forces of political mobilization are being unleased now and that can lead to anything if rigging happens.
I will exercise my solemn duty and vote on election day no matter the intimidation. I expect to be welcomed by bombs, not petals. I expect to be caned and teargased, but I will stand up for my country. I will vote even if it means giving my life for my beloved Pakistan.
It is a catch 22 - shall we elect crooks democratically through elections or shall we bycott the elections? What is the guarantee that those who committed crimes, when elected, will or will not face the music of justice? Unfortunately, I agree with both points of view and I wish there was an alternative course to take..