The following guest post is from political scientists Ora John Reuter and David Szakonyi

Foreign policy pundits have been bullish about the ability of social media to bring democratic change in authoritarian regimes. Observers have argued that social media can literally “make history” by helping topple regimes, and democracy promoters are sinking big money into a variety of trainings with this very goal.   But in countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, where users of local social networks still far outnumber users of Facebook and Twitter, authoritarian governments have used their leverage over domestic networks to contain online opposition to the regime.

The story of Russia’s most popular social networking platform, VKontakte, illustrates this point well.  In March 2013, reports (ru) surfaced about how VKontakte collaborates with Kremlin officials to gather intelligence on opposition groups that use the site.  The most damning of the reports claimed that the site shut down opposition “groups” and misdirected message traffic between opposition figures.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the December 2011 parliamentary elections, when allegations of massive electoral fraud brought tens of thousands of Russians onto the streets in the largest anti-regime protests since the fall of the Soviet Union, the relationship between VKontakte and the Kremlin even became coercive. Four days after the election, the company’s founder Pavel Durov reported that he had been summoned by the FSB (Russia’s internal security service) to answer questions about opposition activity on Vkontakte. Durov’s hesitation to cooperate fully appears to have landed him in hot water, as investors with ties to the Kremlin recently purchased a 48% share in Vkontakte and Durov may have fled the country after his home was searched in connection with an alleged traffic violation.

In our research on social media, we have found that the ownership structure of social media matters greatly for politics. When nondemocratic governments have leverage over the content and structure of social networks, users lose the ability to access independent points of view and learn about government malfeasance. Not only is information sharing monitored and potentially blocked, but democracy activists avoid networks connected with government authorities for fear of reprisals.

Though scholars have long warned about the attempts of authoritarian leaders to influence the internet, little empirical evidence has been brought forth about the effects of these efforts on politics at the micro-level. In a forthcoming article, we used survey data from the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia to examine how usage of different social networks affected users’ awareness of electoral fraud. Our results indicate that users of Western networks like Facebook and Twitter are about five percentage points more likely to believe that there was significant electoral fraud during the elections.  Usage of Russian networks, VKontakte and Odnoklassniki, meanwhile had no effect on awareness of electoral fraud.

We argue that the reason for this discrepancy lies in the type of information being spread on these networks. During the election season, local networks’ vulnerability to state pressure seems to have led many opposition activists to focus their social media strategy on Western social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, which are much harder to monitor and pressure.   Alexei Navalny, Russia’s most popular political blogger, maintained an active public Facebook page and Twitter account, which he used to spread hundreds of YouTube videos, photographs, and anecdotes documenting electoral fraud, and yet Navalny maintained only a token presence on Vkontakte and no presence on Odnoklassniki.  This strategy is at odds with the goal of reaching a mass audience since Odnoklassniki and VKontakte each have five times as many users as Facebook (only 5% of Russian internet users are on Facebook).

Caption: Figure 1 shows the week on week change in activity on social networking sites in the weeks surrounding the elections.  There were large spikes in activity on Facebook and Twitter, but no such spikes in VKontakte and Odnoklassniki usage.

Of course, it’s possible that individuals with preformed opinions about electoral violations select into usage of Facebook and Twitter and eschew usage of native social media platforms. Its hard to dismiss this possibility, but our findings do indicate that Facebook/Twitter users are remarkably similar to VKontakte users across a range of factors that might be correlated with perceptions of electoral fraud (sex, income, education, place of residence, support for Putin, levels of political participation, and support for the opposition).

Our presumption was also that Facebook and Twitter usage would also increase levels of protest participation, as the emerging narrative suggests.  This should certainly be true if the self-selection process described above was at work (users with preconceived notions about rampant fraud should be especially likely to join protests against electoral fraud).   But surprisingly, we found no relationship between usage of Facebook/Twitter and participation in post-election protests.

Thus, users of Western social networks were not more politically active than either their counterparts on Russian social networks or even non-users of social networks. Yet they were more informed about the wrongdoings of the government.

Our findings corroborate a slew of recent work that emphasizes an information-centric view of social media, rather than one geared towards organizing collective action. In a clever field experiment, Catie Snow Bailard (gated) randomized free access to Internet cafes in the run-up to Tanzania’s 2010 election. Again, Facebook users were more likely than the average Internet user to think the elections were conducted unfairly.  This finding aligns with recent work done by scholars on thousands of tweets emanating from the Occupy Wall Street protests in Greece, Spain and the USA. They find that online social media are used less for protest organization than they are to spread information about the grievances

What this discussion suggests is that social media’s effects on democratization are not straightforward. The information spreading function of social media is limited when most of a country’s online social networking occurs on domestic platforms that are vulnerable to government pressure, as is the case in a clutch of the world’s most prominent authoritarian regimes.  Indeed, one might speculate that one of the reasons that Russia was able to overcome its protest movement was that it was able to contain and control online dissent, while Egypt, which had no domestic social network, was unable to control the spread of information on Facebook and Twitter.  But a note of optimism is warranted:  Facebook is on the march. Just three years ago domestic social networks still dominated in much of the developing world, but the list of countries where Facebook is not dominant grows smaller every year.

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/17/social-networks-and-democracy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29

The chief minister (CM)-designate for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) has already made the silliest statement for the next few years, or at least, let us hope so; as there is little room to go lower. The PTI nominee for CM says that he has no enmity with the Taliban. What valour, what clarity to begin the fight. Although no real surprise there as that was the declared policy of his party all along, never mind thousands of our civilians and soldiers martyred. However, it becomes more intriguing if one considers this in combination with the young, energetic, largely urban, some of them lifestyle liberal supporters exercising their democratic right of protest against the election results in DHA, Lahore. How do they reconcile their party’s position in K-P with their lives in Lahore and Karachi? They simply do not. Will these politically conscientious young men and women be able to protest to the tune of invigorating music in Hakeemullah Mehsud’s country? Would they then be as excited about giving peace a chance? Reconciliation of apparent contradictions or making sense is not something to aspire to now. Perhaps, Lahore is a different country. Perhaps, we have quite a few different countries in the new country.

When one party gets most of its seats only in one province, namely Sindh, it is said to have been wiped out, on the verge of becoming a regional party. Whereas another party secures most of its seats in another province, namely Punjab, it gets simple majority, and it is said the electorate has chosen the “national leader”. “Regional” or “Provincial” is only relevant when used for something other than Punjab, which by the way is almost always a “card”. Ever heard of the ‘Punjab card’? Me neither. While we are at it, what in God’s name is “Interior” Sindh (as opposed to what, “Exterior” Sindh?) The PML-N won mostly in Punjab, the PPP in rural Sindh, the MQM in urban Sindh and the PTI in K-P, seems quite neatly regional at some level. Lest we forget, no change in Balochistan, the perpetual party, it seems, remains in power.

The overzealous PTI supporter feels that the population was not educated enough and not “urban” enough to realise the promise of utopia on offer. The proud Punjabi voter rationalises the PPP’s victory in Sindh by viewing Sindh as a backward feudal serfdom, where no autonomy of individual choice exists. The PPP jiyala in Sindh sees the Punjabi establishment at its antics again. As for Balochistan, it seems we do not even care enough to ascribe stereotypes anymore. Every party’s “hardcore” supporters view the supporters of other parties as not only having a political difference, but as ignorant, irrational and malicious, with an ethnic/cultural stereotype to boot. To quote Jean-Paul Sartre’s famous statement although not quite how he intended, “l’enfer, c’est les autres” (Hell is other people).

It is imperative that all reports of incidents of malpractices are looked at and thoroughly investigated, and there are many. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has failed and failed miserably, yet nowhere has it failed more than in Balochistan. However, do not fret about it, nothing as glamorous as the DHA protests.

This election was not rigged at the “systematic” state level, as is our custom. However, it was a poorly managed affair. It was never free and fair, even if the general result would have remained largely the same. The PPP, the ANP and the MQM were never given the chance to campaign. This is not to undermine the entire electoral process, which was still better than nothing or the mandate of the winning party, the PML-N. The PML-N did consolidate its usual voter base and also successfully penetrated southern Punjab, displacing the PPP. The appeal to martyrdom and sacrifice failed in contrast to the promise of better delivery (Metro Bus and Ring Road, etc). An urbanisation of Punjab, at least in terms of issues happened. The PPP needs to rework its message, focus on delivery and governance and have something to offer to urban Pakistan and also realise that it cannot abdicate Punjab. Those predicting the demise of the PPP jump the gun, many of them have made identical predictions in the past, and will probably continue to do so in the future. However no question about the PPP getting its act together, which it almost always does in opposition. The PTI has put up an impressive show, proving stereotypes wrong. One hopes that with this relative success also comes maturity and self-reflection. These are all heartening developments; this is democratic progress.

Yet, there is cause for great concern. The liberal and secular (even if nominal) have been rejected. That happens in democracies, they need to dust off and bounce back if they can. More alarming is the decline of the federal parties, and perhaps, politics. The conservative right-wing parties dominating this election promise rationality in governance and politics as opposed to appeal to martyrdom and emotion. Nothing wrong with the idea, we can certainly use some rationality. However, what will be a hypothetical rational choice for a party in power both in Punjab and at the Centre? Pure rational choice for a political party for the purposes of ensuring re-election will be to guarantee a basic level of governance in Punjab, even if it entails diverting resources from the smaller provinces, even at some expense to the Federation (although the expense cannot be too great since then, there is a possibility of your governed territory becoming smaller). For the simple fact, sweeping Punjab will make you prime minister. It is Machiavellian indeed, yet rational. This is not to suggest that this is likely to happen. Mian Sahib, we have been told, has matured and now is a democrat. One dearly hopes that “they” are right. Mian Sahib has been given a clear mandate by the people and it needs to be respected by all political forces, as should everyone else’s mandate. The business in Balochistan, yet again, starts at the wrong foot.

All individual and legitimate grievances should be taken to the ECP and the courts, yet it is imperative that they understand that the process has to continue. United they stand, or else they know the history. More somberly, all of us need to remember that this Federation is fragile; disconnect and arrogance has cost us once and greatly.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 19^th, 2013.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/551186/hell-is-other-people/

Naya Pakistan is the new buzzword in the country. It is the campaign slogan of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, and it speaks to those who are seeking not only a new leadership but also new Pakistan. There is an expectation that with this election must come a Pakistani renewal that would be more in keeping with the original promise of Partition, instead of the present corruption, poor governance and the absence of any sense of security. Many see the country suffering from the burden of an inept leadership and an expensive partnership with the United States in its war on terror, and believe Pakistan has paid too high a price for this. In the past few years, the media seems to have put the burden of both internal mismanagement and skewed external relations on the ruling Pakistan People’s Party. With new leaders like Imran Khan on the horizon, it is believed that a positive change is in the offing. Although it is not clear that Mr. Khan will be the ultimate winner in the elections, it is taken for granted that the new 40 million votes added to the voters’ list, including those of the youth, will favour the cricketer-turned-politician.

Turnout uncertain

However, there is a lot of uncertainty underlying the change mantra. Given the fact that the voter turnout in past elections was low, it is still not certain how many will show up for the election today. In provinces like Balochistan, the voter turnout in the 2008 election was as low as 20 per cent. Countrywide voter demotivation could get compounded by the threats being issued by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has warned people, especially in the tribal areas and the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, against going anywhere near a voting booth. Thus far, there have been numerous murderous attacks by the TTP against the previous ruling combine of the Pakistan People’s Party, the Awami National Party, and the Muttahida Quami Movement, targeting its leaders, candidates and campaign rallies. The TTP has declared these parties liberal-secular and thus deserving of its ire. The irony of course is that none of the three parties challenged terrorism and radicalism in the country despite being in power for five years.

Even if voters overcome these challenges to come out and vote, there is no evidence yet that a Pakistan under a different leadership can bring about the sort of renewal that is required for the task of nation-building. Nowhere is this more evident than in the attitude of political parties to the religious minorities. There are 2.9 million non-Muslims in the country formally registered with the National Database and Registration Authority. Of this, the biggest number is of Hindus (approx 1.4 million), followed by Christians (1.2 million), and then others which include Ahmedis, Zorastrian, Bahai, Sikh, Buddhist and even a handful of Jews.

Pakistan, which opted for separate electorates for its minority communities at the time of Partition, took the decision to integrate these communities in the political mainstream by abolishing that system in 2002. But in other ways, the process of integration of the minorities has been non-existent and, thanks to the overall ideological-political climate in the country, the attitude towards them is one of violent intolerance.

After many such incidents of violence targeting them and their mosques, the Ahmedis, for instance, are feeling more ostracised and threatened than before by the growing latent-radicalism in the country. The community was declared non-Muslim by the Bhutto government in 1974. Mainly concentrated in Central Punjab, the Ahmedis have opted to boycott these elections as none of the political parties seems to heed their concerns.

Earlier in the campaign, Imran Khan, who spoke about changing Pakistan from his hospital bed after his fall this week, issued a formal press statement contradicting the video footage about the party’s plan to revisit the law declaring Ahmedis non-Muslims. The video clip had gone viral on social media and the ensuing controversy forced Imran Khan to make the statement that he believed in the finality of Prophet Muhammad. But shockingly, he went on to add that no one from his party had sought Ahmedi votes. More than anything else, that declaration raises worrying questions about a national party’s agenda. Notwithstanding differences on interpretation of faith, the right of Ahmedis to life and inclusion in politics has to be ensured. It is also interesting that Imran Khan used the term ‘Qadiyani,’ which the Ahmedis in Pakistan consider derogatory.

The situation in relation to other political parties is not encouraging either. Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N, which is trying to maintain control of the largest province of the country, is entrenched in an electoral partnership with the defunct militant Deobandi organisation, Sipha-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), that is contesting elections under the title of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat (ASWJ). The party’s rabidly fundamentalist posturing in Punjab does not bode well for the Ahmedis, or for the Shia community. In these last few months, the Shia community has been violently targeted in different parts of the country, especially in Balochistan, by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an offspring of the SSP. The Shias are not a minority, but their relentless targeting is a result of the mainstreaming of Deobandi and Wahabi discourse in society and politics in general.

Misuse of blasphemy law

The Christian community is not happy either. In the past five years, there was a noticeable increase in the number of attacks on Christians using the blasphemy law. The Zia-era legislation condemns anyone guilty of blaspheming against the Prophet of Islam to death. The law is frequently manipulated to settle personal scores and disputes over land, especially by land mafias that are spread across the country. Some ministers of the PML-N were allegedly behind some of the attacks.

A similar situation seems to prevail in Sindh where Hindus feel increasingly insecure and abandoned like everyone else by what was once Bhutto’s party. Many PPP candidates are wealthy land-owning wadheras; some of them have well-known links with criminal gangs and militant outfits. The Hindus of Sindh will probably vote pragmatically for the PPP in areas dominated by the party, not out of loyalty, but to safeguard their interests and buy security, seriously deficient in Sindh.

Unlike the Hindus in South Punjab who mainly consist of the scheduled castes, the Sindhi Hindus include castes that are more affluent. They dominate business and industry in rural Sindh but consider themselves a threatened species primarily due to the abysmal economic and security conditions in the province. In upper Sindh, they say that the banyas dare not even show off their wealth for fear of attracting unwelcome attention, usually in the form of kidnappings for ransom. The overall increase in poverty and poor governance in the province have raised ordinary people’s threshold as far as crimes against rich Hindus are concerned. No one is outraged if some of their wealth gets stolen or extorted.

A bigger concern for Sindhi Hindus in recent years pertains to forced conversion of upper caste Hindu girls to Islam. Their economic influence has not translated into sufficient political clout to generate support among the political elite of Sindh to solve this particular grievance.

Wadhera-mullah combine

The lack of political engagement does not help counter the influence of religious wadheras or the wadhera-mullah combine which is now increasingly behind the conversion issue. It was in 2012, for example, that the conversion scandal involving a pir of the Bharchundi shrine became public. Mian Mithu, as he was popularly known, was also a PPP member of the National Assembly. He was instrumental in converting a local Hindu girl, Rinkle Kumari, to Islam after one of his men facilitated her abduction and then married her off to a boy she allegedly had an affair with. As Rinkle’s Talraja caste has some influence in Ghotki and adjoining Dharki, where it even has a huge shrine of Sacho Satram Das, the PPP eventually abandoned Mian Mithu.

Pakistan’s renowned Sindhi playwright, Noor-ul-Huda Shah, believes that there is a tendency to treat conversions, especially of upper caste girls such as Rinkle Kumari, as a trophy. The pride in converting upper caste Hindu girls could also be linked with the gradual spread of militant organisations like the SSP, JeM and LeT in interior Sindh. Piggybacking on the shoulders of the religious party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the various militant outfits are said to be engaged in several cases of violence including the killing of three Hindu boys in Khairpur who were suspected of involvement with Muslim girls.

The efforts made by some Hindus in the last couple of years to migrate to India caught media attention. Though most people in the community still consider Pakistan their country and would not leave, political parties have paid scant attention to their problems.

For the minorities in Pakistan, the biggest question is whether this election will help them negotiate their safety and security in a society and polity increasingly drifting towards the right wing. So far, no political party has had the courage to provide a reassuring answer.

To wake up hammered, disoriented, with a headache in an unfamiliar place with a stranger on the side is unnerving. It might be exhilarating or it might be mortifying, yet it will almost always be a slightly nervous moment. That is how some will feel today. Some might not have a complete stranger on the side, yet a changed person, and it is a new place and you are a bit hammered. There is nervousness, because somewhere deep down, there is always a small possibility that this might not be fleeting. To be caught in a moment happens to the best of us, and it could be quite pleasant or positively horrible. There are rendezvous which end up in lifelong companionships, some happy, some not quite so, or paying child support or worse. Yet, the morning after and the anxiety is the price of that moment, and the thrill of it. To be young and clueless has its charms, so does being not so young and reckless. Being a little nervous is not always a bad thing.

It is Election Day as these lines are being written, and by the time you read this, you will have some idea of what the results look like. The obvious and safe thing to do right now is to not make a prediction. Predictions are a bad idea generally, particularly so in this election. The analysts, the guys on the street, the astrologers, the candidates themselves, nobody had a clue, okay, at least, most didn’t.

This election has seen more blood than any election should see. The polling day begins with news of electoral candidates being kidnapped. Most of the violence and the threat of it were not random; it had a clear and declared pattern. Some parties were targeted and cornered, while others addressed huge gatherings. Most recently, the son of a former prime minister was abducted. The campaign was conducted primarily in Punjab, while the other provinces burnt. None of the parties who had a free campaign run (namely the PML-N and the PTI) seemed overly concerned with soliciting the “poor” vote. One of these parties has a tremendously confused stance on one of the major crisis we face — terrorism. The other, has gotten both the major questions exactly wrong — namely militancy and the civil-military balance. The tone of this election was set by urban, middle class Punjab. More media coverage was given to the untimely death of a white tiger than the dozens of PPP, ANP and MQM workers and supporters murdered. The accidental tumble of Mr Imran Khan (who thankfully, is well) saw this country displaying heartening solidarity and empathy. However, not much of it was reciprocated when Syed Ali Haider Gilani was kidnapped.

Were these elections Free and Fair? Short answer: no. Could it have been worse? Short answer: yes. Will visible improvement be made in the country in the short run? Short answer: no. Has there been progress made? Short answer: mildly emphatic yes.

These were not ideal elections. Actually, these were as distant from ideal elections as we have seen. Yet, there is hope. Today is a day to invoke some clichés. The system would have been strengthened. People would have made choices (what choices they make is an important question, yet secondary to having the freedom to make it). No major political party boycotted the election (kudos to those who were under unrelenting attack). A lot of people would have voted for the first time, hence displaying their faith in the system for the first time. All political parties both inside and outside parliament deserve congratulation. No party has actively joined hands with the establishment, though there is occasional footsie by some. The process of a transition would have begun; an imperfect, wobbly and bloody transition, yet a democratic transition. There is value in that.

It might be useful to remind ourselves of the cost of this transition. Shaheed BB was martyred in this struggle, and this country owes a substantial bit of democracy to her martyrdom and her willingness to die for it. Regardless of the results, I will end up listening to Bhutto de Beti and Dilan teer bijan on the evening of May 11. This election could not have happened had this incredibly brave woman not decided to stand up for us. And regardless of the results and party affiliations and victories, display the decency to express your gratitude. Salmaan Taseer, Shahbaz Bhatti, Bashir Bilour and many others from the PPP, the ANP and our brave soldiers had to die for you and me to have the opportunity to vote. One does not have to be a voter or supporter of these parties to acknowledge their struggle.

The transition and the potential new government also pose a challenge to many of us. Defending democracy for the past five years earned the title of “government apologist”, etc, and now there is a distinct possibility that there might be a different government with ruling parties that we do not agree with ideologically (at least, the possibility is a strong one in my particular case). The right of the elected representatives to form government and run it without undue interference from unelected institutions and to complete its term will have to be argued and defended as firmly as before, even when some of us might not like the parties in power. Perhaps, it becomes even more important when we do not like them.

So, in the end, be a little nervous on the morning after. A lot of us were caught in the moment, and went with the flow, when not completely conscious. Have a glass of water; maybe light a cigarette, wait for the hangover to subside, look around, retrace the night and think calmly. We do not know if it is going to be a one-nighter or a lifetime of bliss. Probably neither really, it will be somewhere in the middle. Yet, congratulate yourself; at least you made a move, took a chance.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 12^th, 2013.

While Nawaz Sharif has won the election decisively, he faces the challenge of reaching out beyond his main base in Punjab to the rest of Pakistan

Pakistan achieved a historic landmark with the completion of its five-year term by the civilian coalition government led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the successful completion of elections resulting in the clear victory for Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N). The election results, surprising for many, point to the challenges ahead for the country.

Although the PML won enough seats to be able to form the government without having to bargain too much with too many factions, its success comes entirely through the support of one ethnic group — the Punjabis. Every Pakistani province appears to have chosen a different party to represent it. The overall high turnout nationwide masks the harsh reality that very few people voted in Balochistan, where alienation from the centre has been growing.

Ethnicity

There is no doubt that people voted out the incumbents amid questions about their performance. But the virtual wiping out of the PPP in Punjab means that each Pakistani political party now reflects the dominant sentiment of a particular ethnic group. The PPP was the only party that had representation from all four provinces of Pakistan in the outgoing Parliament.

The election result may be a step forward for Pakistani democracy. It is a step backward for the Pakistani federation. Given the history of complaints about Punjabi domination, Nawaz Sharif will have to reach out to the leaders of other provinces. Authoritarian rule has undermined national unity in the past because of Punjab’s overwhelming supremacy in the armed forces, judiciary and civil services. Democracy should not breed similar resentment among smaller ethnic groups through virtual exclusion from power at the centre.

In addition to bringing the provinces other than Punjab on board, Sharif’s other major headache would be to evolve a functioning relationship with Pakistan’s military establishment. Although he rose to prominence as General Zia-ul Haq’s protégé, Sharif clashed with General Pervez Musharraf over civilian control of the military. He might be tempted to settle that issue once and for all, partly because of the sentiment generated by his overthrow and imprisonment by Musharraf.

Changing the civil-military balance in favour of the civilians would be a good thing. But if it is done without forethought and caution, it could end up risking the democratic gains of the last several years. The PML-N’s view of Pakistani national identity being rooted in Islam and the two-nation theory does not differ much from that of the Pakistani establishment. His real difference with the establishment is over his belief that he, as the elected leader, and not the military must run the country.

Foreign policy

Sharif has publicly stated his intention to pick up the threads of the peace process he initiated with Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1999. That process was undermined by the Kargil war, which Sharif now says was initiated by Musharraf without his authority. There can be no assurance that the establishment will let Sharif move forward over changing Pakistan’s posture towards Afghanistan and India, something it did not allow the PPP-led coalition to pursue. Moreover, having been elected with the support of hardline conservative Punjabis, how far can Sharif go against the wishes of his base?

During the election campaign, Sharif said little about Afghanistan. In his previous two terms he maintained close ties with the United States but did nothing against the jihadi groups. It was under Sharif’s rule that Pakistan officially recognised the Taliban regime and established diplomatic relations. This time, he has spoken of good relations with the West but his voters are overwhelmingly anti-American. The best he might be able to do on foreign policy would be to say the right things publicly without making tough policy decisions.

The Punjab electorate, in particular, and some parts of Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa were clearly swayed by a hyper-nationalist tide, with tinges of Islamist grandiloquence. Sharif’s PML-N and Imran Khan’s PTI used similar hyper-nationalist, anti-American language about Pakistan no longer asking the West for aid. Both parties courted Islamist extremists to bolster their respective vote banks. It might be difficult for them to get off that tiger any time soon.

The National Assembly seat break-up is skewed in favour of one province, the largest province of Punjab. Punjab sends 148 general and 35 women’s seats or a total of 183 out of 342 seats which is more than half the seats in the lower house of Parliament. With deep ethnic, linguistic and economic diversity among the provinces, with trust between the provinces being at an all-time low and with the challenge of terrorism facing the country, there is a need for Mr Sharif to show statesmanship and to appeal beyond his urban Punjabi base.

Other players

Sharif is not the only one facing challenges. The PPP has suffered a national setback but has held onto its base in Sindh. It is now time for the party to look inwards and understand that the country has changed. It is growing more urban and Sindh is also doing so. The party is down but not out. It will have to reinvigorate itself by asserting its liberal, social democratic roots. Like the Congress in India, it can continue to seek unity in leadership from the family of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto. But it has to be a party that is not dismissed as a family enterprise.

As for Imran Khan, he achieved a breakthrough by mobilising disenchanted, apolitical youth. But if he seeks to remain relevant he must realise that there is more to politics than slogans and catch-all phrases. Railing against corrupt and patronage-based politicians is one thing, offering a viable democratic alternative is quite another.

(Farahnaz Ispahani )

Following is an editorial published in Bloomberg Magazine.

As every leading candidate has proudly noted, tomorrow’s parliamentary elections in Pakistan will mark the first civilian transfer of power in that country’s 66-year history. To ensure it’s not the last, the winner should turn to an unlikely ally: India.

Whichever party takes power in Islamabad will almost certainly have to cobble together a coalition to rule. The new government will inherit a looming foreign-exchange crisis, hours-long blackouts that have provoked street riots, and overlapping insurgencies and sectarian wars that have claimed thousands of lives. Though army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has resisted the temptation to restore military rule, he will retire soon. His successors may not be so restrained.

None of Pakistan’s ills has a quick fix. But one key decision would immediately help jump-start the economy, lower regional tensions and reduce the army’s influence in politics: lifting long-standing barriers to trade with India.

The benefits of a border more open to commerce are indisputable. Trade between India and Pakistan — currently less than $3 billion annually — may grow tenfold or more if existing restrictions were to be lifted, according to an April report produced by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Millions in revenue are currently lost via smuggling and informal trade. Some estimates put the potential for Indian investment in Pakistan at $50 billion.

Fraught Border

Equally important, a more open border would be a less fraught one. The army’s obsession with the “Indian threat” drives Pakistan’s most dangerous policies. It fuels the world’s fastest-growing nuclear stockpile and diverts the lion’s share of the country’s limited resources to defense. It has led the military to lend unofficial support to anti-India jihadist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the deadly 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai. Pakistan has also backed Taliban factions in Afghanistan as a means of countering Indian influence there.

A remarkable consensus in favor of freer trade with Pakistan’s archrival has now developed across the political spectrum. In November 2011, the government pledged to grant its larger neighbor “most-favored nation” status — a decision that could not have been made without the support of the military. (India afforded Pakistan the same status in 1996.) All of Pakistan’s mainstream parties have endorsed an economic rapprochement. The front-runner — Punjabi magnate and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — has made increased trade and economic progress central to his appeal to voters.

Informal Barriers

Pakistan has yet to follow through on its 2011 pledge. Now is the time to do so. The next government should immediately trim back the list of 1,200 Indian products that still cannot be imported. Some of these restrictions are meant to defend Pakistani farmers, say, from cheaper Indian crops. But mostly they protect well-connected lobbies: More than 500 of the banned goods affect the automobile, iron and steel industries.

India needs to do what it can to help the next Pakistani government. Though India’s list of banned imports is much smaller, other informal barriers still impede Pakistani exports. It takes six months for Pakistani companies to get approval to ship cement to India, for instance. The government in New Delhi should strive to eliminate such roadblocks and to improve transport and logistics links across the border. Better trade facilities alone could pump up Pakistan’s exports to India by 200 percent.

Both sides need to act quickly, before another terrorist attack or domestic political controversy derails the current momentum. India’s next government could well be led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, whose base remains deeply skeptical of Pakistan’s trustworthiness. (Elections must be held before the end of next May.) The impending U.S. pullout could turn Afghanistan into another shadow battleground for the South Asian rivals, much like the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Delay has allowed past opportunities for reconciliation to slip away. Neither Pakistan nor India — whose own economy is slowing dramatically — can afford to let this happen again.

To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net

Between heroism and history, exist such blood-soaked gashes that can drive any person crazy. In an impressive ceremony commemorating Youm-e-Shuhada (Martyrs’ Day) this year, these latent scars hiding in the vestiges of our collective subconscious were brought back to life. And my young nation, my nascent underdeveloped overburdened nation, has been through such horrors that cannot be summed up in just a piece or a ceremony. And yet, here it was, all pomp and style, the memory of those who had passed, nerve-shattering sobs of a mother and a rich tribute paid to Bashir Bilour shaheed.

It was a welcome relief to listen to our chief of army staff speak so vociferously in support of democratisation and against terrorism. To an outsider, an army chief commenting on political matters might be incomprehensible but a student of Pakistani history, acquainted with the anatomy of our civil-military relationship, can appreciate the true potential of this watershed moment. And if there was any doubt about the army’s resolve to fight terrorism, it was cleared in a heartbeat. It was a befitting rejoinder to the apologists of terrorism who keep insisting that it is not our war.

However, as we gingerly approach the polling day, fear mounts that our counterterrorism agenda may come in direct conflict with the democratic process, as our two major political parties have time and again shown aversion to the war. And other major parties keep bringing up crimes of the past as the sole cause of our present-day woes. Call them crimes if you will but to this scribe, they were and still are desperate moves of a desperate state. It is a measure of our bewildered sadness, perpetual isolation and tragic history that we have not been able to confront the demons of our past and pledge renewal.

But the lives of 40,000 martyrs cannot just amount to nothing. Battle-scarred as we are, we cannot afford to become a prisoner of the Stockholm syndrome and end up bonding with our own assailants. War fatigue is one thing but not to notice the existential threat posed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is downright criminal.

Yet, let us not trivialise the programmes of the parties hinted above. These parties have presented good answers to a number of national questions. It is only in this crucial sector that they have been reluctant to advance some cogent solutions. There is a serious chance that these two parties may adopt a more prudent course of action against terrorism once they rise to power. But with only seven days remaining in the elections, I implore the leaders of these parties to not let petty thugs of the TTP define who they are. The TTP have already dealt a deathly blow to these parties’ campaigns by implying that there exists an understanding between them and the terrorists. The people of Pakistan, after all, are not fools and can identify the enemies of this country. They also value the blood of their 40,000 brethren killed by the terrorists. The party, viewed as an apologist of terrorists, I am afraid, will not be given the mandate to rule the country, no matter how many people attend its public gatherings.

We also need to appreciate the genuine desire to bid farewell to arms and build peace. But peace cannot come when negotiated from a position of weakness. In order to bring the enemy to the dialogue table, one first has to bring it to its knees and squeeze it so hard that it fails to see any other option but to throw in the towel. Leaders of major parties may not think much of each other but to a common voter, they are all national leaders of huge stature. If they really want to do justice to the expectations of their constituents, they need to take ownership of this war and bring it to its logical conclusion. If you don’t want to listen to folks like me, pay some heed to the chief of your own army. And the army also needs to value those who categorically support its struggle.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 4^th, 2013.

“Whosoever hateth his brother
is a murderer.”
– I John III

With about one week left in the general elections, it seems that Pakistan is ‘becoming a focal point’ of politics of hate. It is unfortunate that several politicians have been using foul language against their opponents during their election campaigns. According to international analysts, it looks like Pakistan is at war with itself. Thus, the politics of mudslinging that is currently going on must not be overlooked, since this attitude could ultimately damage the democratic process in the country.  Against this backdrop, the statement of the Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, on Martyr’s Day at the GHQ in Islamabad, in support of the elections and about the menace of terrorism is, indeed, a wake-up call mainly for those who were saying that “the war on terror is not Pakistan’s war.”

Political analysts assume that the message was not only directed toward those who supposedly have a soft corner for the militants, but also the international community, which presumes that the next government will be formed by a rightwing party, creating more problems for the world and denting the efforts to eliminate terrorists and their networks.
On the internal front, the terrorists have attacked three main political parties – the PPP, the MQM and the ANP – that had taken a principled stand against the militants, who want to impose their own brand of Islam in the country.

Unfortunately, the whole situation is now virtually turning the political arena into a one-sided match, where at least the PPP does not seems to be seriously contesting the elections. For example, none of its top ranking leaders have yet addressed the workers in their election campaigns. While there may be a genuine threat for the PPP, the MQM and the ANP, it does not mean that they should abdicate from the democratic dispensation in the country. Some candidates of these political parties on their own are trying to rally the people in their favour. At the end of the day, however, this may not be enough for the parties under threat to perform according to their full potential. It would have been better if all the democratic forces had  united against those who are trying to disrupt the election process by sending a clear signal that bomb blasts cannot impede the journey of democracy in Pakistan.

It is unfortunate, however, that this has not happened. Rather the politicians are creating opportunities for the extremists to strike at will, which has led to fear and despondency among the people.

If not now, it is expected that may be after the polls are held, the politicians will find the time to sit together and create conditions where intolerance and hatred are discouraged. Having said that, it would be prudent on the part of the politicians not to allow the temperatures to rise to an extent from where it may become impossible for them to return to normal conditions.

It is also important to note that the Election Commission of Pakistan has so far performed in a lacklustre manner and failed to implement some of its basic regulations, which are essential to hold free and fair elections. The process of scrutinising the nomination papers of prospective candidates too was faulty, while some of the decisions taken by the courts were beyond the people’s intellect.

Finally, the mere fact that the election process is proceeding on a bumpy road is in itself no small achievement. This will pave the way for subsequent elections in the country, so that democracy and the people can prosper.

The democratic transition has finally met its gravest challenge. As Pakistan moves to the general elections in 10 days, it is not clear how fair and free would these elections be. In the 1990s, the establishment manipulated the results and electoral outcomes. The decision of the Asghar Khan case is on record now that shows how the establishment engineered the results in favour of a right-wing coalition of their choice. Such direct interference in political affairs culminated in the coup d etat of 1999.

The return of democratic rule had kindled the hope that Pakistan’s civilian institutions would be stronger and perhaps, a more rational civil-military engagement will ensue. The political parties achieved much in the shape of constitutional restructuring and ensuring that they did not compromise on an extraconstitutional solution for alleged misgovernance. A few months ago, it was hoped that neutral caretakers and a vigilant Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) would steer the country through the elections process.

However, the Pakistani state and its wilful outsourcing of jihad to militant organsiations are now haunting the democratic and electoral process. The so-called Pakistani faction of the Taliban has drawn the line between the acceptable and unacceptable electoral solution. Ironically, they are mirroring the approach of their erstwhile masters by indulging in pre-poll manipulation. The instruments are violence, coercion of public opinion backed with somewhat aggressive media campaigns. The ANP, the MQM and the PPP are facing the music for being liberal and secular and for backing military operations against the Taliban.

Not that the performance of these three parties was exemplary, especially with respect to law enforcement, but the truth is that they did not control the security policy of the country. The security policy intertwined with our foreign policy — a friendly Afghanistan and containment of India at all costs — drives our foreign policy agenda. The provincial governments could have done much more in terms of policing and strengthening the legal framework, which remains in shambles since the defacto abolition of the Police Order of 2002. It should be remembered that the civilian law-enforcement agencies suffered heavy casualties in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and Fata and continue to remain under attack.

In the last month, scores of political workers from the moderate political parties are dead and dozens of attacks have been carried out. The frequency, speed and planning of these attacks demonstrate that the intelligence apparatus is lagging and little coordination exists. The most worrying aspect is how Karachi or at least parts of it have turned into little havens for militants where they are holding courts.

The caretaker interior minister, immediately after his appointment, became controversial, as he could not resist praising one particular leader and making predictions on who might win the election. The interim administration obviously did not do anything to assure the public that it might have been a case of misplaced enthusiasm. Who is in charge of security? Paramilitary forces are stationed in Fata, Balochistan and parts of K-P. They are under the control of civilian institutions but headed by the military. Similarly, the chief of the ISI is a senior military official. What is unclear is if someone is making these agencies talk to one another and coordinate to prevent the attacks on political workers.

How come the state does not know where the leaders and operatives of the TTP are located? Their spokesperson is quoted in Urdu columns and appears on TV as well. This kind of retreat by the state and media is mind-boggling. The paradox is that the TTP find democracy and elections un-Islamic and yet want to influence their course. More worrying is the silence and sometimes cajoling by the parties on the right of the centre. Some have even thanked the TTP for not attacking them and others have appealed them not to attack. The entire campaign has turned into a farce. In Punjab, the major contestants are promising the moon to the public without even mentioning the issue of terrorism. Is it naiveté or just short-termism that they are not focusing on these critical issues?

The net result could be that the voter turnout will be lower in the smaller provinces and higher in Punjab. This is neither good for the federation nor for our fragile democracy. By capitulating to the Taliban, are some political parties not ceding space to militias that impose their ideology through terror?

Published in The Express Tribune, May 2^nd, 2013.

The bomb blasts ripping through the ANP, the MQM and, though to a lesser extent, the PPP have been called a new kind of rigging. The idea of the Taliban, who take responsibility for every such attack, is to deter the leaders of these parties from addressing people in the time-honoured political jalsa. Whether it works or not is still to be seen. There is, after all, a possibility that the people will cast sympathy votes for the underdog, forgetting the corruption (or, at least, the anecdotal perception of it) of the ANP and the PPP. But the idea that hundreds of people will lose their lives and thousands will be injured before the elections is appalling. We all know how we have come to this pass and it is in bad taste if I say “didn’t I tell you” for the umpteenth time so let that pass. The parties in question are right in demanding protection for their leaders but their offices and workers are just too many to be protected. This is probably the most unique and sanguine form of pre-poll rigging in the history of elections and I cannot predict its fallout.

There is another form of pre-poll rigging which is weighted against the secular democratic parties. First, take the very translation of the word “secular”. Our Urdu writers generally call it ladiniyat which literally means “without faith” or “having no religion”. But this translation falsifies the history of the term. This term is based on the theory of the separation of religion from governance. Europe learned to separate the two spheres after hundreds of years of wars of religion and millions of blighted lives through nearly 600 years. Religion was officially declared a personal matter and the function of the state was merely to ensure that everybody is given the right to practise it without harming others. This was exactly the principle enunciated by Mr Jinnah in his August 11 speech to the Constituent Assembly. And precisely because it was to the very body which was supposed to make the Constitution, he made it clear that religion will not be the business of the state and that people will be free to believe in whatever they liked. But then what other translation can be used? There is dahriyat which means “of the earth” since dahr means “the earth” but this came to be reserved for atheism in the translations of philosophy in the early 20^th century so this term is even worse than the one we use now. My own suggestion is alami where alam means “world” and the “i” is added to show that it is an adjective.

The other form of subtle subversion of the secular parties is that they are forced to be apologetic and to use the vocabulary of the religious parties. This is partly their own fault. After all, was it not ZA Bhutto himself who tried to appease the religious right by injecting religious provisions which all previous governments had resisted and no subsequent government dared remove? And then, was it not the PPP whose ministers pandered to the religious right so that some members attended the jalsas condemning the killing of their own governor, while others waxed eloquent in the jalsas condemning the same incident. To a lesser extent, the ANP, or rather some members of it, did similar things though the MQM did not. However, this is a small part of the story. The narrative of the religious parties became mainstream thanks to the efforts of Ziaul Haq and now, whether it translates into votes or not, it defines political debate. This means that the secular parties are playing on other peoples’ wicket. That is why their performance is contradictory and sometimes hypocritical. This culture can be changed with effort but there is no chance of doing it for this election so the parties of the religious right have a natural advantage for now, which is a form of the inherent pre-poll rigging factor.

Yet another factor is the incumbency factor, which is also against the PML-N in Punjab, but the extent of the anecdotal evidence, the court cases and the media trials which the PPP has had to suffer is unmatched. Although most of our problems are because of wrong policies as I have written earlier, the social media and the jokes industry, to say nothing of the regular media, points only to the corruption which biases the voters against the PPP and the ANP. There is one kind of bias which is against all politicians and this we must guard against both in Pakistan and India. It is that everybody attacks politicians and politics without taking into account other decision-makers. This gives the impression that only the politicians are in politics whereas many other players are. Politicians are maligned in cinema, stories, jokes, media and the social media. That this happens all over the world is no consolation if you remember disasters like the “charge of the light brigade” which emerges as a piece of heroism instead of a monumental folly. And what price the battle of the Somme? And, indeed, all the failed battles for which generals go scot-free. What is wrong with this is that if one shows politicians as crooks and fools and if courts love to handcuff and fetter them as our returning officers did, the public will lose faith in the democratic process itself. This is already happening in many democratic countries so the turnout in elections is often low even in stable Western countries. But those are stable countries, whereas in Pakistan, if people lose trust in politicians the alternatives are the military and some form of fascist right-wing autocracy. How many people want that?