Late on the election night when the trend of the votes cast was quite clear, I was sitting in a vernacular channel’s studio as a guest commentator. The anchor after a three hour long live talk dubbed me as an overt optimist. This carried me back to the days when writing columns in this paper I was called not a sceptic but a cynic. This journey from the depth of cynicism to upbeat optimism was covered apparently in a day because only a few days earlier a friend in government watching my live interview on Aljazeera International had also complained about my cynic views.

What changed in me was not the assessment of the people’s mood, for I was fairly certain of the former ruling coalitions’ unpopularity. What, however, took me by surprise was that through their verdict the people effectually silenced the orientalists in power who had claimed that the Pakistani people were not mature enough for democracy. As we will see, they were evidently manifesting the sagacity of a very adroit chess player through their mandate. Then there was this pleasure that the armed forces of our country had shown through their abstinence that their loyalties were out and out with the people of the country. Thank you very much.

In order to understand the mandate it is important to comprehend the true nature of the votes. First, as I tirelessly point out, they were essentially anti-incumbency polls. The long queues of the people for flour, oil, sugar, and CNG at various outlets showed that the people were not benefiting from the neo-liberal economic policies of the incumbent regime. Secondly, it was Benazir Bhutto’s posthumous vote and there certainly was this expectation of a sympathy wave. Thirdly, the votes were cast against the backdrop of the prolonged constitutional crisis, which had compelled our potentate to impose emergency, albeit for a limited period. Fourthly, and most importantly, the votes were being called, even by Musharraf’s own allies, as a referendum on his policies.

The results of the elections naturally shocked many, but certainly not me. The outcome proved the vote to be of federal nature and not a unitary one. Pakistan, it should be remembered, was envisaged by our founding fathers as a federation, not as a union. However, during the repeated military rule a unitary system was thrust upon us. This attitude intensified more than a bit during the last eight years where unilateral actions were embarked upon in all provinces except one. No one doubts that the state has the right to fight the decentralist forces through all means possible, but a blind use of force alone could shake the moorings of the federation was evident from the votes.

Through these elections the people were reminding us how severely the federating ties had come under strain. The 2008 election results in many ways have quite a few similarities with the 1970 elections where each province has chosen a different party to form the government. In three of the four provinces, the parties had some association with ethnic nationalism. If such a result could not come in Balochistan it was because all those who represent such value system have either been killed or forced to flee. But in a way the verdict was different from that of 1970. The parties chosen in three provinces were not viewed as enemies but principled allies. When you put the PPP, the PML-N and the ANP together you realise that they are allies in Nawabzada Nasrullah’s invention, the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD), which was essentially formed to put an end to military interventions and remove their vestiges. So the message you get is clear. The new parliament is tasked to restore unfettered democracy and federalism. And there is this ostensible unity in diversity.

But as I pointed, this is not all. There is more to the mandate than meets the eye. For instance, what do you make of the judicial crisis and the shackled media? Perhaps Nawaz Sharif’s victory in Punjab speaks volumes of the popular interest in institution building. I recall Sharif’s jalsa in Multan where he said that if his party got elected he would restore the deposed judges, give freedom to the media and then the Army House to the one who deserved to be in it. He has been given the mandate to what he had promised. Perhaps there are lessons for the victors in the fate of the MMA. It is evident that the voters like unity among the ranks of the politicians on some principles. When that unity crumbles owing to the differences on agreed upon principles, the people discard you without even looking back. Again as is visible the people have quashed all speculations about the politics of personality cults. The way the mighty have fallen shows that principles are closer to the heart of a common citizen than loyalty to any clan or personality.

Now what does the vote mean for the ongoing war on terror? Had the people of the country been principally against fighting terror, the outcome in NWFP would have been quite conservative. But like elsewhere, neo-conservatism has been defeated badly in Pakistan. This implies that while the application of blind use of force may change as a strategy, there is no sympathy in this country for the supremacist fanatics who want to ruin our freedom of choice or jeopardise our peaceful coexistence with our neighbours. And as the government in Washington is soon to be changed too, the new and smarter strategy may prove to be more viable in the coming days. I have to say this because people like Sheikh Rashid are trying to put a spin on this. If Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are listening, they are advised to get lost and leave us alone.

And now the funniest part. We have always cherished one thing about Musharraf. We believe that despite his awful record of the last one year, he is a man of his words. As they say you cannot have your cake and eat it. In my column ‘End of Pakistan’ (The Post, November 4, 2007), I had warned him that he was being exploited by a failing political class. He decided to side with them rather than us and imposed the emergency. When you openly say that if you want to support me, vote for this candidate and then that candidate is beaten badly you need to know where you stand. The way he sought mandate for presidency repeatedly will always remain disputed.

Since Pakistanis elect their president indirectly and the parliament and the government are chosen directly, the former is a weaker post and prone to re-evaluation after new elections. If these results are not chosen openheartedly as the president himself pointed out before the elections, it may lead to an unmitigated disaster. I do not believe in the proverbial good or evil.

However, I do believe in actions and their natural consequences. Since a lot of actions have already been taken, it will be unwise to behave as if there are no consequences. And for the foreign powers that want to change the consequences of the verdict through undue pressure, they should remember that the people of the world are uniting against neo-conservatism and they better save their own skins. I am sure Mr Bush will not like to be impeached in his final year, nor would Mr Brown like to lose his office so quickly. So better watch out and believe in democracy. I am then optimistic that not only the political class and the people are changing in this country, but also the establishment.

Link: http://www.pitafi.com/weblog/index.php?itemid=285