The two major opposition parties in Pakistan have picked up at least 153 seats, or 56 percent, of the 272-member National Assembly. The biggest winner, not surprisingly, is the Pakistan Peoples Party, or PPP, formerly led by the late Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in December. But the PPP won't have enough seats to form a government on its own.
The vote raises many implications for Pakistan, for US-Pakistan relations, the “war on terror,” and the low-grade al-Qaeda-Taliban insurgency in Pakistan’s tribal areas alongside the Afghan border.
What the vote means for Pakistan:
Pakistanis want Musharraf's pro-American, often anti-democratic rule ended. Whether the new government will pack enough force to compel Musharraf to resign his presidency, however, is unclear. The vote is more anti-Musharraf than pro-anyone in particular. It's not even clear who will be the next prime minister. Voters don't like Bhutto's widow, Asif Ali Zardar, whose past is a checker-board of corruption and nepotism. There's Amin Fahim, an establishment PPP figure, but his charisma is on the order of a Christopher Dodd or Bill Richardson. No wild teeny-bopper cheering at his rallies.
The most exciting candidate for the prime minister's post is Aitzaz Ahsan--lawyer, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, writer, human rights activist, and fabulous speaker. He's also been the victim of Musharraf imperiousness--house arrest and such--for coming to the defense of the chief justice Musharraf deposed last year. Ahsan represents Pakistan's greatest chance for change--possibly more so than Bhutto would have.
What the Vote Means for the United States
The Bush administration made one of its characteristically contradictory decisions when, in 2001, it embraced the anti-democracy Musharraf. It did so supposedly to help fight terrorism and spread democracy in the Middle East. Pakistanis, like Arabs and other people in the Middle East, saw through the double-faced strategy. Musharraf was the Bush administration's strongman. The administration is close to losing him, and with him an anti-terrorism strategy that has born little fruit (the apprehension of a few high-profile suspected terrorists aside).
The United States channeled more than $5 billion in mostly military aid to Musharraf's regime since 2001. The results: Musharraf pursued a policy of accommodation, truces, cease-fires and autonomy with the Taliban-dominated tribal leaders of the northwest frontier region of Pakistan even as he claimed to be putting down the insurgents.
How Musharraf Failed Against Insurgents
On Jan. 15, 2008, The New York Times reported that “Pakistan’s premier military intelligence agency has lost control of some of the networks of Pakistani militants it has nurtured since the 1980s, and is now suffering the violent blowback of that policy.”The militants have turned on their former handlers, the paper reported, and “joining with other extremist groups, they have battled Pakistani security forces and helped militants carry out a record number of suicide attacks last year, including some aimed directly at army and intelligence units as well as prominent political figures, possibly even Benazir Bhutto.” Many of those militants are allied with al-Qaeda and are actively involved in the war against NATO and American forcves in Afghanistan.
Osama bin laden is still at large. Al-Qaeda has regrouped. In short, Pakistan's pledge to end the insurgency in its northwest territories isn't any more advanced than it was in 2001. Between Musharraf's regime and the Bush administration, two failed strategies mutually reinforced each other until voters said, in Pakistan anyway—enough.
Does That Mean Voters Favor Pakistan’s Taliban-Inspired Insurgents?
To the contrary. The religious political parties allied with the Taliban lost big in the parliamentary election. That’s a sign that Pakistan’s tradition of secular politics is healthy and showing muscle. Voters appear to be saying that between the ballot box and a more forceful stand against Islamic insurgents, the Taliban tide can be repelled.
The question is whether Pakistan’s military has the capacity do carry out the people’s wishes. So far, it’s proven incapable.
