Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is an Islamabad-based

freelance columnist

farrukh15@hotmail.com

Eight months till October and eight new assignments. First, devising a model democracy in which one man's vote is heavier than all the voters in the country put together. Second, securing the president's office for the boss. Third, concentrating --the exact reverse of devolution -- all powers in the land into the Office of the President. Fourth, gaining legitimacy for the boss. Fifth, pre-election screening of candidates. Sixth, a whole web of constitutional amendments. Seventh, manipulating the will of the people. Eighth, satisfying the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the United States House of Representatives Committee on International Relations.

As per our constitution, the Office of the President is an elected one. The electoral college is the Senate, the National Assembly (NA) and four provincial assemblies (PA). No one can, therefore, become the president without the support of the majority party in NA and the four PAs. In essence, that means the support of the prime minister. The NRB now wants a president who essentially reaches the presidency by virtue of the PM's support but also has the power to dismiss the person who has helped him become the president. Trust the NRB, they can do it.

By October, the Senate, the NA and the PAs would all be in place and the so far un-elected President Musharraf may have to compete for votes with other candidates. NRB would want to avoid that at all cost. Let us see how they go about doing it (that reminds me of Zulfikar Khalid Maluka's "The myth of constitutionalism in Pakistan", Oxford University Press, 1995).

To be certain, in this country there are only two names that command a nationwide vote-bank. They are Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif (and perhaps in that order). These are the names on the strength of which others can also win their seats. Unfortunate for some and not so for others, there isn't a third name on the horizon.

Rigging during actual voting so as to extract a predetermined nationwide result is next to impossible. Manipulating results in just one constituency could be a logistical nightmare. On a national scale, there are going to be some 40,000 polling stations with close to 150,000 polling booths. Every candidate has a representative at every polling station. In 1997, there were 36,451 Presiding Officers, 260,413 Assistant Presiding Officers and 263,208 Polling Officers. With an average constituency of 200,000 voters, one would need some 20,000 bogus votes, and that is just one constituency. Multiply that with the total number of constituencies and bogus voters required to effect the final result runs into over five million with more than half a million Presiding Officers, Assistant Presiding Officers and Polling Officers acting as accomplices. That is all too far fetched. NRB must have realised by now that pre-election screening may, therefore, be their only route to panacea.

How does the NRB plan to stop both Benazir and Nawaz? What if the two get together and boycott? In 1988, PPP and IJI polled 72.06% of total votes. In 1990, the two put together got 72.47%. In 1993, they polled 77.96%. In 1997, they had 74.88%. Without Benazir and Nawaz participating, the NRB won't be able to satisfy its foreign masters. On the other hand, a boycott by PML (N) and PPP would mean a walkover by the King's Party. Good for the military but only over a short haul and at a great cost to the country. Artificially manufactured consensus cannot last for long, not in this day and age.

A friend who runs a large textile unit tells me that during a union election in the mill anyone having any connection with the management loses by a wide margin. That may turn out to be our national psyche.

Now on to the making of American foreign policy. To be certain, American foreign policy is no longer the exclusive preserve of the president of the United States. In the post-Vietnam era, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House's International Relations Committee, the media and various think tanks have become increasingly influential.

The most potent leverage that the Congress has over the president is its absolute fiscal powers. It is true that the president still launches a wide array of foreign policy initiatives but only Congress can authorise spending. In 1973, the Congress passed the War Powers Act, further restricting the president's authority in lands outside the US. In 1974, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act was passed that "limits the president's power to rescind or delay (impound) the spending of money appropriated by Congress".

Joseph Biden, chairman US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has already said that he plans to weigh Pakistan's upcoming elections by American standards and not by Pakistani standards. That'll be a tall order to fill. Then there is Henry Hyde, chairman House's International Relations Committee, wanting to monitor how America's newfound ally brings back democracy.

Here's a lesson out of Iran. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became America's regional power-boy and ruled 60 million Iranians for 38 years. In 1979, as riots engulfed Tehran, America quickly withdrew support and the Shah was forced into exile.

Here's another one from the Philippines. The US supported Ferdinand Marcos for 21 long years. In 1986, through "ballot box stuffing and other illegal activities, plus a total control of the media", Marcos declared himself the winner of the presidential election. The US government rather quickly deserted President Marcos upon realising the strength of the opposition. The US Senate also voted that the "election was marred by fraud". A popular indigenous rebellion forced Marcos into exile.

Conclusion of the two stories: The United States rolls the carpet without any advance notice from underneath their favourite ally on the first sign of opposition's strength. My point is that NRB's attempts to manipulate voters' will has the potential of strengthening the opposition to the military government.

Admittedly, Islamabad-2002 is not the same as Tehran-1979 or Manila-1986. We have a general who is perceived to be pragmatic, sincere and fair, leading an administration that is not yet tainted with blatant corruption or massive wrongdoing. Efforts to bend election results one way or another may, however, change all that. Either hold a free and fair election or don't hold one altogether.