The writer is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

One takes this quote as the text from veteran Kashmiri leader and Chief of the Muslim Conference, Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan: "I have been saying for the past four years that the agencies have taken up the role of forming governments and if ever I met General Musharraf, I will tell him candidly ... he is bound by the agencies. Rather he is their prisoner",said the veteran politician talking to a group of newsmen in Rawalpindi.

The point the Sardar wishes to highlight is the role that the intelligence agencies are playing in Azad Kashmir politics. But the question is not confined to that AK. Far more importance attaches to the role these agencies are going to play in the upcoming political journey to what has been described as the 'real' democracy. This is a major uncertainty in view of the track record of these agencies in the country. Whether President General Pervez Musharraf is or is not a free agent vis-a-vis the agencies should be best left to the three parties concerned to sort out: Sardar Qayyum, the President and the intelligence services Chiefs. But in view of the persistent reports of the administrative interference in the recent local bodies polls and the record of the efforts of the 'agencies' to obtain 'positive results' for the Army Chief of the day is none too inspiring. The subject is no longer taboo or even controversial; it is now commonly recognised as a fact of life.

For one thing, there is plenty of documentary evidence - affidavits by highly placed officials in the SC and various other obiter dicta of relevant persons - regarding 1990 general election. The ones conducted by caretaker governments later are commonly believed to have been tinkered with in the same quest for premeditated outcome. The lack of credibility of senior officials with quasi-judicial functions during the days of the so-called democratic governments is a fact with which the country has to live with. The question arises: how can we have, then, a fair election?

That this particular uncertainty is corrosive of the national integrity and unity goes without saying. There is such a miasma of mistrust among the politically aware citizenry and the so-called military-dominated establishment that a transition to democracy through free polls raises questions. That this does not augur well for the future is a truism. But the rulers and the so-called establishment, in their arrogance of power, do not realise how dangerous the situation is. They are all keen about national security. And yet they ignore the first prerequisite of security: citizens' general emotional and intellectual acceptance of the way the state is being run. Describing what democracy is unnecessary; a good college student can write an essay underlining its vital necessity without which the state's own future would be in doubt. Just as proper economic development requires democratic governance - and not merely the ambiguous 'good' governance - there can be no national security without the ownership by the people of the state and the way it works. This is a point the world takes for granted whether or not our dinosaurs recognise it.

If the next elections also produce intended results, not all the consequences may be foreseeable. The next election will be watched over by international observers - from the Commonwealth, the US, NGOs and other governments in a more or less touristic fashion; no other way is feasible. The techniques of administrative interference in the electoral process in this country are so sophisticated as to be virtually undetectable. There is certainly no crude ballot stuffing in most constituencies or any undue pressure on the voters. And yet the administration has managed to produce intended results that do not appear to run counter to observable trends. No ordinary foreign observer has been able to put his fingers on any particular malpractice in the past three elections. The integrity of bureaucracy in this country was lost a long while ago, such as is customary in stable democracies, including India. It was lost as far back as in 1953-54 when a so-called bureaucratic coterie around Governor General Ghulam Muhammad cornered ultimate power and democracy became a lifeless caricature of itself. The democracy in the years between 1986-99 was also 'by your leave'.

The point one is trying to make is that this (1986-99) charade of managed elections cannot be accepted. There has to be now a true transfer of power - not to a Prime Minister or to this or that party. This has to be to the citizens through their Parliament. All power must henceforward reside in Parliament. Everybody else, bureaucracy and the army included, have to be subordinated to it in reality and perception. Is that on the cards in this roadmap? What is likely - though it is still ambiguous - is that there would be arbitrary constitutional amendments and the Parliament would probably be a body of persons, who would be, one way or another, committed to ratifying them as a price for a share in power. This was what obtained between 1986-99; the Parliament and governments were junior partners who took orders from GHQ on sensitive issues. Which issues were sensitive was decided by the military high command. This was and would be a negation of democracy. The Parliament will have to be truly sovereign or else there should be no pretence to democracy. All parties must put their cards on the table face upwards.

The Pakistan of 2001 is already beset with tremendous challenges. The economy, despite two years-long hectic restructuring is still dependent on IMF bailouts and on a nod and wink from US Treasury. Unless we get the next bailout package, including sizeable rescheduling of debt servicing, we would all sink in formal bankruptcy and its consequent sanctions. The position has become wholly untenable. Islamabad's freedom of policy-making has now become a fiction. It has to take crude dictation on all policy matters - and not merely economic.

The polity is threatened by religious Right that is only a few shades less orthodox and inflexible than the Afghan Taliban. Let no one make any mistake: The Taliban may be more inflexible and ultra-orthodox. But they do not diverge from the substantive orthodoxy of the major religious parties of this country: Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam in all its various factions and the Jamaate Islami. The drive for power among them is nearly as strong as in Pakistan Army. Like the army, they are conscious of their own armed strength: the Jihadi organisations. The latter may be oriented to Kashmir today. But should the Kashmir issue be somehow resolved or removed for practical purposes, what would these Jihadis do? They would retrain their guns on other objectives nearer home.

The sectarian terror is stalking the land from Parachinar and Skardu to Karachi; the only exception is the countryside of Sindh. The uncertainties about the sectarian terrorists include both the intelligence agencies' role and that of the Jihadis - all three of whom are the fruits of the poisonous seeds that Zia sowed in the 1980s. The chickens are now coming home to roost. All these terrorists and Jihadis of today may have cut their umbilical chord with the army now. But the chord had connected them directly to Intelligence agencies and the military high command indirectly. This is a fact that cannot be forgotten. The whole state can flounder if the menace is not resolutely checkmated and defanged.

Our governments' masterful conduct of foreign policy, despite their victory in Afghanistan - piggyback on the US government - has resulted in Pakistan state being isolated. All the western powers had disapproved the military intervention of October 12, 1999 and had imposed sanctions on this country that are yet to be lifted, except the ones of Germany. Then, Pakistan seems to have warmly responded to the lifeline thrown by China. Others too are beginning to come round. But then this development of the Chinese getting closer threatens Pakistan being sucked into the nascent Sino-American cold war. No doubt this is still tentative and the efforts to deliberately fudge the issues have not yet ended. But its ramifications and pressures are being felt; it is a true cold war. This poses manifold uncertainties and risks for a country with a tottering economy and a brittle and virtually explosive political life; Islamabad is swaying in the wind. This is a blunder bus policy rather than realpolitik, with Afghanistan as the fulcrum.