Pakistan's Pre-Election Frenzy

By Farhana Ali

With parliamentary elections in Pakistan only hours away, there are two relevant questions for the United States to consider: Will a newly elected Pakistani prime minister agree to work with Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, America’s staunch ally on the war on terrorism? If the answer is no, what should the United States do in response?

To allay U.S. fears about the elections, Musharraf and his Pakistani friends in Washington repeatedly have told American policymakers that Monday’s elections will be “free, fair and transparent,” as well as on time -- a relatively new word attached to the infamous slogan.

No one doubts that elections will move ahead as planned, but many U.S. experts and officials are wary about whether the election will produce an honest result. From the U.S. State Department to the Washington-based think tank community, there are concerns that manipulation of the results may force the White House to make some tough choices.

Contrary to some Western news reports, the choice for the United States in Pakistan is not simply between a moderate democratic leader or the all-powerful military regime. Rather, the choice for America was boldly articulated this month by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice before the U.S. Senate Hearing Foreign Relations Committee: “No matter what the [election] result, we need to move in Pakistan from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy.”

Her remarks signal that the United States no longer can afford to blindly support Musharraf. Hence, America is moving toward defining a new policy direction for Pakistan, and for good reason.

For a long time the United States has supported Musharraf -- a leader who harbors a “cult of personality.” He is not unique among Pakistani leaders in this regard. Previous rulers, from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to General Zia ul-Haq, have assumed a larger-than-life leadership role. It is no different today with the ex-General Musharraf in power.

When I worked for the U.S. government, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, security analysts could not have imagined a Pakistan without Musharraf. Each time an assassination attempt was made against him, the U.S. government officers I knew sighed in relief when Musharraf escaped.

In those early years after 9/11, U.S. government analysts understood that without Musharraf, the U.S.-Pakistan counter-terrorism cooperation might have been stale and stagnant. Pakistan boasts of arresting or killing at least 700 al-Qaeda operatives on Pakistani soil, a point U.S. analysts accept. Without Musharraf’s consent, damaging al-Qaeda’s core infrastructure (i.e., training camps) might not have been possible.

But today, the stakes are too high for the United States to compromise its vision of promoting democracy in Pakistan. The United States must support a democratically elected leader to help Pakistan evolve from a weak state to a strong state.

However, the ballot box alone does not guarantee promotion of democracy in a country like Pakistan. With a large rural population, which is illiterate and easily manipulated, this year’s election will unlikely represent the sentiment of the masses. The only way for this election to be “free, fair and transparent” is if the Pakistani elite accept the outcome, no matter how unfavorable it might be for Musharraf. And America should be willing to support the next civilian ruler even if he refuses to enter a power-sharing agreement with the ex-military ruler.

Farhana Ali is a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization.

TrackBack