It is a year to the day since the eruption of the popular agitation that has left the once mighty Pervez Musharraf and the military that he no longer leads fighting for their political lives. As a political movement, the agitation is totally unique, led as it has been by a professional group and persisting for as long as it has. This is not the first (and presumably not the last) time that Pakistanis will come onto the streets in the struggle against dictatorship, but surely the only instance in which black suits have fought toe to toe with baton-wielding security forces in the name of democracy.

It is only fitting then, that on March 9, 2008, we take stock of what has transpired in the year since the Chief Justice was unceremoniously dismissed by Musharraf and a coterie of senior generals. Arguably the most significant aspect of the lawyer-led movement has been the steadily increasing participation of upper-middle class segments of society that have traditionally been supporters of 'apolitical' military rulers.

Even under British rule important sections of the intelligentsia acceded to the administrative model of government that was the colonial state. In this model, politics and politicians were a nuisance, unruly distractions from the clean and efficient administrative order represented by the Indian Civil Service and the British Indian Army. In 1958, when Ayub Khan took power, the educated elite was his biggest supporter. The same elite gave a blank slate to Ziaul Haq to rule under the guise of eliminating the scourge of populism, the symbol of which was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Obscurantism and repression were infinitely preferable to politics in which working people actually had a say.

When Musharraf took over, the majority of the intelligentsia welcomed an end to the game of musical chairs that had persisted through the decade of the 1990s in which the protagonists, Benazir Bhutto's PPP and Nawaz Sharif's PML, were predictably depicted as villains beyond redemption. Musharraf was lauded on a variety of accounts; he was liberal in his thinking, he wanted to take on the 'extremists', and he was committed to cleaning up a by now decrepit political system.

The promise that the general made to "clean things up" was indistinguishable from those made by Ayub, Yahya and Zia, and indeed every British administrator in the 200 years of colonial rule. But on this occasion, the dictator's most important constituency deserted him. In many ways this was a reflection of the fact that, over time, Musharraf started to offend the liberal sensibilities of an elite that had been chastened by the Zia experience, and also bought into the rhetoric of freedom and democracy that is tossed about regularly in the global political discourse.

Of course the elite was almost forced into siding with the legal fraternity because, for the first time, the superior judiciary came into direct conflict with the administrative-executive. This almighty crisis of the praetorian state meant that no one with political credentials -- including those whose expertise is limited to drawing room discussions -- could afford to sit on the fence.

Thus while the rank-and-file of the movement remained young lower-middle class lawyers and political activists, upper-middle class socialites and their children came out onto the streets for the very first time. The compelling images of this elite getting tear-gassed and tossed around has been a huge headache for a regime that was for a long time the darling of the international media because of its geo-strategic significance in the so-called 'war on terror'. In the aftermath of March 9, Musharraf and his government's image has taken a beating not unlike that which the security forces have been handing out to those on the streets.

The other defining feature of the movement has been the lack of participation of working people. Musharraf is still clinging onto power because the scale of the protests has been relatively limited, even though their profile has been magnified because of the elite's participation. As the Feb 18 election showed, the majority of Pakistanis anti-government sentiments are no less deep than those involved in pitch battles on the streets of Islamabad and Lahore. Yet working people remain absent from these battles because of their progressive alienation from politics and the suppression of all forms of organic grassroots politics by the state over the past couple of decades (with the exception of religio-political movements, of course).

Needless to say it is essential that political forces committed to building upon the gains that have been made since March 9, 2007, address this lack of working-class participation. An active culture of people-centred politics must be regenerated in streets, neighborhoods and villages for genuine democratisation of the state and the society. It is facile to expect that five dozen judges or the educated elite can or even want to spearhead a transformative politics; such a politics must be a politics of the people and will only emerge if concerted efforts are made by political forces.

What has also been conspicuous about the movement is the extremely limited role played by the religious parties. Both the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the two biggest religious parties in Pakistan, have been non-actors for the most part, the latter completely throwing in its lot with the military regime and the former unable to influence the course of the movement in any meaningful way. If nothing else this proves that religious politics remains a fringe phenomenon in Pakistan, notwithstanding the state's sponsorship of it.

It is difficult to predict the long-term impact of the movement. Of course it has yet to reach its logical culmination, which would be the restoration of the pre-November 3, 2007, judiciary and an end to Pervez Musharraf's rule. It is clear that the lawyers and political sections that have been at the forefront of the agitation will not rest until these goals are achieved. When this happens, the 'doctrine of necessity' could well be banished from Pakistani politics, never to return, unless of course mainstream political forces do not display the level of maturity that is required.

More generally, the military's power will be curtailed. However, it will remain the arbiter of an oligarchic political system that remains deeply entrenched. As suggested above, the political system itself can be uprooted only if working people come to play the kind of role that they did in the late 1960s and the 1970s before the dark days of Ziaul Haq. However, the role of the intelligentsia in informing a politics of change should not be overlooked.

Until and unless the state ideology remains that of national security and Islam continues to be by the state, the military will remain a behemoth that casts its shadow over everything. If the intelligentsia has really made a break with its dodgy past, the movement for judicial independence will become an introspective look at the meaning of Pakistan and what it should be; and 60 years of oppression can give way to a new social contract that makes people sovereign.

What historians call the 'Irish Troubles' began more than three hundred years ago when Ireland first raised the banner of revolt against English tyranny. After a long struggle, the southern half of Ireland eventually became independent in 1926 and took its place in the comity of free nations as the Republic of Ireland. But Northern Ireland, which by the nineteenth century had a large population of English settlers, remained part of what Brits to this day call "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" -- to the fury of many people in Ireland who want to see the north and south re-united as one country.

Britain's continuing occupation of Northern Ireland led, in 1970, to the outbreak of a fresh round of Troubles, which did not end until the so-called 'Good Friday' agreement of the year 2000, which committed the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to put arms "completely and verifiably" out of use. But it is still an uneasy peace at best, with pro-British and pro-Irish factions in Northern Ireland still suspicious of each other's intentions.

Even as Northern Ireland's troubles continued to simmer through the 1990s, however, things south of the border -- in the Republic of Ireland -- underwent an amazing transformation and the once sleepy Irish economy, fuelled by large doses of foreign investment, started to boom and has now become one of the fastest growing in Europe.

The Emerald Isle, for many years one of the poorest countries in Western Europe, has done much in recent times to shed its picture-postcard image of peat fires, leprechaun legends and poorly-lit country pubs. In fact, Ireland has become one of the major economic success stories of the continent, according to a report in Germany's New World magazine.

Today, internationally operating call centres and telesales companies are among the many businesses that have flocked to Ireland, says the report. Multinational banks and chemicals companies have also opened branches in Ireland or even, in some cases, relocated their headquarters to Dublin, Cork or Limerick. Above all, however, it is computer software and hardware manufacturers that have found their way to the island, closely followed by service providers in the fields of data processing and information services.

"When the company Digital moved to Galway in 1973, nobody really knew what electronics was," Eamonn Ryan, director of the Industrial Development Agency (IDA), a government body responsible for promoting business in Ireland, was quoted by the New World report as saying. The IDA is responsible for much of the dramatic change the country has experienced in its economic fortunes. Recent years have produced a constant increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) on a scale other European countries can only dream about.

Though it has a population of only a little over 3.5 million people, the Republic of Ireland had an estimated GDP of $ 100 billion in 2006 (which works out to a per capita GDP of $ 28,571, a figure nearly at par with Japan's per capita GDP and almost twice that of South Korea's). Ireland's economic growth rate in 2006 was over eight per cent -- the highest for any country in Europe. And though growth has slowed down in the last two years, it is still well above the growth rates for most other European countries.

"It's difficult to describe the IDA," said Finn Gallen, Ryan's right-hand man at the agency. "Lots of people think we're just a bunch of guys with briefcases who go around knocking on the doors of foreign companies." There's some truth in the picture -- after all, in 2006, multinational companies posted revenues of over $ 40 billion in Ireland. But the IDA actually does a whole lot more.

The story really begins in 1958, says the New World report. Back then Ireland had no real industry to speak of. Old and inefficient companies muddled along as best they could, "sheltered from the cold winds of foreign competition by high tariff walls." At that time, the country's chief export was agricultural produce.

In those days the highest-ranking civil servant in Ireland's Ministry of Finance was a man named Ken Whitaker, says the New World report. Legend has it that a memorandum written by him ushered in the country's economic turnaround. In any case, the memo certainly led to the creation of the IDA. "We'd all read our John Maynard Keynes," Whitaker was quoted as saying.

Keynes' theory was that the way to reduce mass unemployment was to boost aggregate demand for goods and services, by increasing overall investment in the economy. The theory doesn't seem very starling today, but it sounded almost revolutionary when Keynes first posited it in the 1930s. This Keynesian view was a lesson that Ireland was to take to heart in the years following Whitaker's famous memo.

As the New World report points out, tariffs were the first thing to fall, followed soon afterwards by tax rates. A system of government incentives, administered by the IDA, was used to attract foreign investment. So attractive were the incentives that even some Pakistani entrepreneurs set up factories in Ireland. Simultaneously, Ireland made great efforts to raise standards in its schools and universities.

Corporate taxation policy was a key element of IDA strategy, says the New World report. In the first few decades of its existence, export revenues were freed entirely from corporate taxes. It was only in 1981 that the Irish government began to levy a 10 per cent tax on the manufacturing industry -- a rate that remains the envy of the rest of corporate Europe. "The biggest mistake is to continue pursuing a policy that has long since demonstrated its lack of suitability or effectiveness," wrote Whitaker in his 1958 memo. It's a motto that the IDA has made its own ever since.

In 1994 a new agency, Enterprise Ireland, was created to concentrate on promoting domestic firms. The policy has paid off, with the country's homegrown industry now showing the same vigour as the imported variety, says the New World report. Ireland, today, is no longer the poor man of Europe. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Irish experience, lessons that developing countries in other parts of the world would do well to emulate.

Bashir Khan Matta hails from the Matta Shabqadar area of the Charsadda district in the NWFP. He got his Law and Master's in Political Science degrees from the University of Peshawar. Later, he passed the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination and joined the Foreign Services of Pakistan. During his stint as a diplomat, he served in Pakistani missions in New Delhi, India, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Because of his ethnic background, he was almost forced out of service and had to take political asylum in Afghanistan in 1974.

On his return to Pakistan, Matta joined the Awami National Party (ANP) and remained the member of the party's central executive committee. He was thrice elected to the Senate, where he was considered among one of the most sobering and logical voices. He also served as general secretary of the ANP and twice as chairperson of the party's parliamentary board.

Matta has also authored a book, entitled Sher Shah Suri: A Fresh Perspective. After sensing that the ANP was not pursuing its avowed policy, he joined the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) and currently is a member of the party's central committee. The News on Sunday interviewed him recently. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: The elections have recently been held in the country, and new governments are about to be installed in the provinces and the Centre. How do you see events unfolding in the days to come?

Bashir Khan Matta: First of all, the elections were a positive development. It seems that they will lead to dictatorship's end, restoration of liberties and effective implementation of democratic norms. I personally feel that the problems being currently faced by Pakistan are not of a short-term nature; they are deeply rooted problems. It is unfortunate that the people in power in Pakistan have always given priority to smaller issues and ignored the larger ones. I do not know why, but the people in power always seem to ignore the long-term and deeply rooted problems.

TNS: Would you like to elaborate on these "deep rooted problems"?

BKM: The deeply rooted problems of the country are obvious. All countries in the world, including Pakistan, have their own distinct problems and they live in peace only if they could offer solutions to these problems. The natural context of Pakistan is that it is a multi-nation state. The major nationalities in Pakistan include the Pakhtoons, Sindhis, Punjabis, Balochs and Seraikis. They have been living on this land for centuries.

When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, they were already there. It is the need of the hour that basic human rights are granted to all these ethnic groups.

If you deny them cultural, political and economic freedom, it would be freedom only in the name. But the 'political sages' of Pakistan do not seem to care a bit for this.

All the problems that we are facing today as a nation are a result of denial of basic human rights to different ethnic groups. The successive governments have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question, which apparently is very simple. It should be recognised first of all that there are five major ethnic groups in the country as named above and all of them want to live in peace with each other. They want prosperity and progress, but they also want to retain their ethos, culture, history and language. I will particularly speak about the Pakhtoons, who have served the cause of Islam in the subcontinent in particular and in the world in general better than most other Muslims. They have also rendered great sacrifices in this connection.

TNS: Now that the problem is not of creating anything new, but of preserving the old ones, what is the solution?

BKM: The solution is that we all have an open mind. Since its inception, Pakistan has always been moving from one crisis to another. As a result, we often hear that this is the worst-ever crisis faced by the country. How can this be stopped? The only answer that comes to my mind is by eradicating the root causes of the problems. Take the example of the separation of the country's eastern wing. The root cause of the problem was that we did not acknowledge the Bengalis, though they were better Muslims than most of us.

I have been to Bangladesh thrice and have seen with my own eyes how deeply religious people the Bengalis are. But only because they spoke a language different from ours and also loved it, the Bengalis were looked down upon as if they were aliens, rather outcasts. If we want to improve the situation, the first step should be to re-draft the Constitution in a manner that the past mistakes are not repeated. Considering Pakistan's context, it is imperative that the country grants rights to its different ethnic groups on an equitable basis.

TNS: We have always been talking about equality, but what does this term actually mean?

BKM: In Pakistan's context, equality means that the provinces have an equal say in the policy-making. It is true that majority is authority in a democracy, but this principle applies only to those countries that are inhibited by a single ethnic group and where there is no sense of deprivation among the masses. In Pakistan, the typical mindset is that granting rights to different ethnic groups would result in centrifugal tendencies. Let me share the example of Switzerland, which has three ethnic groups -- the French, the Germans and the Italians. All these ethnic groups are treated equally and in such a manner that they do not want to become a part of France, Germany or Italy, despite the fact that Switzerland shares border with all of them.

TNS: Asif Ali Zardari has said he is all for provincial autonomy. Mian Nawaz Sharif is also harping on the same tune. Do you think that they have the capacity to deliver on their election promises?

BKM: Mian Nawaz Sharif is the same person who had once promised to the Awami National Party (ANP) that he would accept Pakhtoonkhwa as the new name for the NWFP, but later went back on his words. I do not know whether the ANP has now taken any such pledge from him or Asif Ali Zardari. If the Pakhtoons are not represented in the real corridors of power, it would not make much difference even if the NWFP's name is changed to Pakhtoonkhwa. The Pakhtoons are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan after the Punjabis, but they have been divided into various administrative units to weaken their power.

TNS: Do you think that the state institutions, if they are re-constituted under the 1973 Constitution, can ensure equality?

BKM: Pakistan came into being in 1947, so it remained without the 1973 Constitution for all those years. There is nothing sacrosanct about the 1973 Constitution. It is just like a dress that does not fit everyone. All the ethnic groups in Pakistan want a constitution that caters to their needs. We do not need a constitution that borrows too much from constitutions of other countries; instead we need a constitution that incorporates the realities exclusive to our country. This implies that there is nothing wrong with framing a new constitution -- it is better to have a new constitution than to lose whatever is left of the country. So, in my view, we need a new constitution for Pakistan that grants full rights to the different ethnic groups that make up the country.

TNS: Can Pakistan make adjustments to its Afghan policy?

BKM: Right now it cannot, of course.

TNS: You have been elected to the Senate thrice. Please tell us something about its role?

BKM: The Senate of Pakistan is just a glorified debating society.

TNS: You have also worked in the Foreign Services of Pakistan. What has been the problem with Pakistan's foreign policy, particularly in today's context?

BKM: The major problem with Pakistan's foreign policy from the very beginning has been that it is too India-centric. Someone has rightly said that war is the continuation of diplomacy and diplomacy is the continuation of war; they are two sides of the same coin. Pakistan is not a strong country economically, so it needs to have good relations with the entire world, especially with India and Afghanistan -- bad relations with these two countries directly affect the peace and prosperity of Pakistan. In short, Pakistan can afford to have strained relations with other countries, but not with India and Afghanistan. Basically, it is in the interest of Pakistan and its people to have good relations with these two countries. How to develop good relations with them, however, is up to the people who hold the reins of power.

Despite the fact that the outgoing government continuously claimed achieving economic revival and breaking the begging bowl, the country's economic health is not so good when the incoming government is about to take over. The current account deficit, for instance, has phenomenally surged to its all-time high because of an increase in imports and the widening trade deficit. The country's current account deficit crossed $ 7.510 billion in the first seven months of the current fiscal (July 2007-January 2008), which is 47 per cent more than in the corresponding period of the last fiscal.

Considering this, independent economic experts fear that the current account deficit may touch the figure of $ 12 billion by the end of the current fiscal, if corrective measures were not adopted. The increasing current account deficit has put the country's economic managers in a fix, as they are unable to make external payments, particularly on account of petroleum products. Increase in oil prices in the international market has further aggravated the situation, forcing the government to resort to more borrowing.

The economic managers blame the increasing oil prices in the international market for the balance of trade problem. According to official data, Pakistan's imports during the first seven months of the current fiscal year touched $ 18.783 billion, while the exports stood at $ 10.977 billion during the same period. This widening trade deficit has exacerbated the current account deficit problem. "Pakistan's current account deficit situation is very alarming, but the government is not taking any serious step to contain it," views Dr Shahid Hassan Siddiqui, chairperson of the Research Institute of Islamic Banking and Finance.

Talking to The News on Sunday, he points out that in 2002-03 the country's current account balance was $ 8 billion in surplus, but it started declining gradually and went in deficit of about $ 5 billion by 2006-07. However, the situation at present is even more alarming as the current account deficit has already swelled to more than $ 7.5 billion in only the first seven months of this fiscal. The balance of trade is the most important component of the current account -- when imports are increasing and exports are decreasing, the gap widens further. Moreover, there is no privatisation and the only avenue left is foreign direct investment (FDI), which is mostly limited to the services sector.

According to Dr Siddiqui, in the recent past the FDI came mostly in the services sector, in particular in the telecom industry, that does not contribute much to the country's exports or even to its overall economy. "The FDI actually creates further liabilities on the government, because the companies repatriate their profits without any checks and balances," he elaborates. According to the State Bank of Pakistan's (SBP's) data, the companies operating in the country with foreign shareholdings sent $ 519.3 million abroad in the first seven months of the current fiscal, which is $ 467.9 million more than the amount repatriated in the corresponding period of the last fiscal.

Independent economic experts believe that the outgoing government's policies played a major role in free flight of the foreign capital, as it allowed the foreign companies to repatriate 100 per cent profits to their owners abroad. "We are trapped in a vicious circle," remarks Dr Siddiqui, adding that an increase in the current account deficit retards the gross domestic product (GDP) growth. "When the GDP growth slows down, it fuels inflation. To contain inflation, the SBP has to tighten the monitory policy as it recently did. In short, when inflation goes up, the GDP growth goes down."

Dr Siddiqui believes that for containing the current account deficit, the government would have to discourage the import of luxury items. For that purpose, he suggests, the private banks should stop extending consumer financing loans, except for housing projects; and the government should support the agriculture sector, so that it produces more import-substitute crops to reduce the import bill. The government must also curb smuggling, he adds. After petroleum, the country's import bill goes to items like edible oil, pulses and wheat. This year, due to the smuggling of wheat to Afghanistan, Pakistan witnessed the worst-ever crisis of flour, which is yet not solved and long queues outside the utility stores are a proof of this.

The incoming government is faced with serious economic challenges; the major one being to support the dwindling economy by taking bold steps. The budget deficit has already increased to an alarming level. The government's own figures indicate that it has reached Rs 356.321 billion in only the first six months of the current fiscal, while the target set for the whole year is Rs 399 billion. A major reason behind this monumental increase in the budget deficit is the soaring oil import bill -- the government currently is paying a subsidy worth billions of rupees per month to the oil marketing companies, so that the common people are not hit by the increase. According to an estimate, the government has paid a subsidy of Rs 80 billion on petroleum products in the first seven months of the current fiscal, which has adversely affected almost all the targets set in the budget.

Though the caretaker government increased the prices of petroleum products with effect from March 1, it is a matter of too little, too late. This, in effect, means that more such measures can be expected in the near future. A lot depends on the incoming government as to how it frames the economic policies to provide relief to the common people. The major impact of the recent increase in the prices of petroleum products will be on inflation, which is already very high and is likely to increase further as a result. The transporters, for example, have already increased their fares, while the prices of essential commodities are also on the rise.

In view of the increasing budget deficit, the government has already curtailed the Rs 520 billion development expenditure, or the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP). At a high level meeting chaired by President Pervez Musharraf on February 4, the government decided to cut the PSDP by Rs 70 billion, because of the economic recession and the losses incurred in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination on December 27, 2007. It goes without saying that the latter is more of an excuse to cover up for the wrong economic policies pursued by the outgoing government.

A Planning Commission official said the February meeting had only decided not to release funds for new projects or for those schemes that had still not taken off. "We are providing more funds for the ongoing projects and the new projects will be financed from the next fiscal year's PSDP," says Muhammad Asif Sheikh, the Planning Commission's spokesperson. Talking to TNS, he adds that the impression that the PSDP has been cut is wrong -- "in fact, some ongoing projects have been provided with more funds so that they could be completed on time."

The recent elections have rendered a severe blow to some political parties, especially the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) or more precisely the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), in the NWFP. On the other hand, they have proved to be a pleasant surprise for others, like the Awami National Party (ANP) and the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). While the expectations of the former have been shattered, the latter are celebrating their spectacular win in the province. The MMA, in particular, has suffered -- while it had won more seats in the NWFP Assembly than those of all other parties combined, 52 to be precise, in the 2002 elections, it has managed only 10 this time around. Similarly, the MMA has been able to win only four National Assembly seats in the recent elections from the NWFP (seven from all over the country); in the 2002 elections, it had won more than half of its 59 seats from the province. On the other hand, the ANP, which had won only eight NWFP Assembly seats in 2002, has emerged as the largest party in the province with 32 seats in the recent elections. Interestingly, the party had no representation in the outgoing National Assembly, while this time it has won 10 seats, all from the NWFP.

In the Mardan district, for instance, the MMA had grabbed seven of the eight provincial assembly and all the 3 National Assembly seats in 2002 -- this time, only Hafiz Akhtar Ali, the outgoing irrigation minister, has won a provincial assembly seat and Maulana Qasim has been able to retain his National Assembly seat, "thanks to the development work and good public relations skills of the former and the spiritual influence and weak opponents of the latter," according to a political worker of the area. The ANP, on the other hand, had failed to win even a single seat from Mardan in 2002, but this time it won a National Assembly and three provincial assembly seats from the district. One of its candidates, Gauhar Ali Shah Bacha, has also lost the election on a NWFP Assembly seat by a margin of less than 400 votes and has filed an application for the recounting of votes. Similarly, the party swept the recent elections in the militancy-hit valley of Swat.

In an attempt to ascertain the reasons behind this change of mind by the voters, this scribe conducted a survey, and contacted many notable leaders and workers of different political parties in Mardan. It was found that many a factor facilitated the new scenario. The Pakhtoons, basically, are anti-imperialists and pro-religion in their outlook. The ANP's defeat and rejection in 2002 was caused by its erstwhile secular and Anti-Taliban policy, and utterances that were not in conformity with the public sentiments in the emotionally charged situation in the NWFP in the aftermath of the October 8, 2001, US-led invasion of Afghanistan. When the coalition waged a war against the helpless Afghans, the Pakhtoons hoped that the ANP would oppose and resist the invasion. But the ANP, instead, started an anti-Taliban campaign that was seen as support for Pervez Musharraf and the US. Also, the ANP's leadership had developed unnecessary differences with the religious elements that abound in a Pakhtoon society. The outspoken Farid Tufan Khan, who has now joined the PPP, and some others felt happy to widen the gap between the ANP and the influential mullahs.

To add to this, the mullahs had not yet been put to test by 2002 and they commanded high respect among the Pakhtoons. Moreover, the MMA's anti-American campaign and criticism of Musharraf's policies had pleased the common Pakhtoons, as well as the urban and educated voters. The symbol of book allotted to the party had also helped it, as many illiterate masses took it for the Holy Quran. The MMA's leadership and candidates made some popular, albeit irrational and unrealistic, promises that attracted the simple-hearted Pakhtoons towards them. The party's candidates also won the people's heart for their simplicity and straightforwardness. The Pakhtoons, being disillusioned with other political parties and displeased with their policies, decided to support the MMA and gave the party an astonishing and overwhelming majority in the NWFP. In short, the ANP had annoyed the people with its anti-Taliban, pro-Musharraf, pro-imperialist and secular rhetoric. The party went against the tide before 2002 and got a stunning defeat in the elections that year.

The ANP's splendid comeback in these elections was on the cards after it underwent a transformation in the recent past. The party's official website displayed a message of its president Asfandyar Wali Khan before the elections, declaring: "Islam is our religion." Also, in what seems to be a well-calculated move, he started talking of a working relationship and a close cooperation between the hujrah and the mosque. Asfandyar also said that he sincerely wanted to end the existing tensions between the two. On July 27, 2007, the media reported Asfandyar as saying that "any foreign aggression, including that by the US, on the Pakhtoon soil will be strongly resisted." This statement came as a pleasant surprise to many who were unhappy with the silence of ANP leaders over US attacks inside the Pakistani territory. The ANP rehashed its policy on militancy -- instead of targeting the 'extremists' and blaming the establishment for extending support to them, the party opposed the military's operation against the "sons of their soil" and urged the use of peaceful means to solve the problem.

The ANP also embarked on an anti-Musharraf campaign, which coupled with the party's support to the struggle for the judiciary's independence attracted the increased anti-dictatorship element among the Pakhtoons. Another incident that went a long way in creating a goodwill for the ANP among the Pakhtoons was Karachi's May 12, 2007, tragedy -- many Pakhtoons were killed in violence on that day and the ANP was the only party that fought their case. The Pakhtoons were so pleased with the party that they also voted two of its candidates to the Sindh Assembly, for the first time in history. A few days before the recent elections, the ANP also distributed a well-worded pamphlet, entitled The Call of the Land, in which a passionate appeal was made to all the Pakhtoons to support the party to save themselves from further destruction and injustices. All these factors -- coupled with the fielding of winnable candidates, and a vigorous and well-organised election campaign -- as well as differences within the MMA and its failure to deliver during its stint in power made the ANP the darling of the Pakhtoon electorate.

Besides these factors, the bracketing of the Pakhtoons with terrorism and extremism made them opt for moderate parties, like the ANP and the PPP. "The Pakhtoons, by casting their votes in favour of the ANP," Asfandyar says, "have sent a clear message to the international community and the establishment of Pakistan that they are against extremism and terrorism." He believes that the ANP won mainly because it propagates non-violence and peace. Amir Haider Khan Hoti, the chief minister-designate of the province, told this scribe that the sense of deprivation among the Pakhtoons, their disenchantment with the MMA and their belief in the ANP's ability to deliver attracted them towards the party. "It would be wrong to say that the ANP has changed its stance on the relationship between the hujrah and the mosque. In fact, the late Bacha Khan had also urged the same," he argues. Hoti further views that the MMA lost the public confidence because it could not keep its election promises. "In its defeat lies a lesson for us," says the chief minister-designate, promising that the ANP would not disappoint the Pakhtoons.

Hafiz Akhtar Ali, one of the few MMA candidates who have managed to retain their seats, believes that this time there was a nationalistic wave in the NWFP. He accuses the ANP of changing its posture from a 'secular-nationalist' force to an 'Islamic-nationalist' one, to please the Pakhtoons. The JUI-F leader, however, concedes that differences within the MMA also dealt a serious blow to the party's election prospects. He comes down hard on the Jamaat-e-Islami for boycotting the elections and covertly supporting rival candidates of the MMA: "We lost 22 seats with a small margin, just because of the JI's double standards." But a worker of the JUI-F, who did not wish to be named, plainly admits that his party's performance was not up to the mark. "We won the 2002 elections in the Taliban's name, but later dissociated ourselves from them," he says.

Unlike the 2002 elections, the Awami National Party (ANP) contested the recent ones employing the slogan of peace in a province torn apart by violence. The peace-loving Pakhtoons responded enthusiastically to this slogan and voted in record numbers for the nationalist party in the recent general elections. The ANP was, thus, able to secure the highest number of seats, 32, in the NWFP Assembly besides 10 seats in the National Assembly from the province.

The ANP's victory also ensured that, for the first time since Pakistan's inception, the NWFP would have a chief minister from the party. Amir Haider Khan Hoti, the grandson of the late Khan Abdul Wali Khan and the son of former federal minister Azam Khan Hoti, has already been nominated for the post. With support from the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), he is all set to become the province's chief minister.

The ANP has, in the NWFP, shared power with other political parties many times in the past, but the fact remains that the party never had one of its own leaders as the province's chief minister since the country's inception. The nationalist party has not led the province since Dr Khan Sahib, who remained the NWFP's chief minister with the support of the Indian National Congress. However, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah dissolved this provincial assembly, under the Government of India Act, 1935, after the partition.

The 2002 elections showed that the ANP had lost its charisma, as it could not secure even a single National Assembly seat. It got a meagre one per cent of the total votes cast in the country and lost almost all its strongholds in the NWFP to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). In the recent elections, however, the rejuvenated ANP has also, for the first time, won seats of the Sindh Assembly (two, with the support of the PPP from Pakhtoon-dominated areas of Karachi). Similarly, it has managed to win seats of the Balochistan Assembly (two) for the first time after the 1970 elections.

In the recent elections, the ANP revived its old slogan of non-violence, which was coined and popularised by its founding leader Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as Bacha Khan, during his struggle against the British imperialism in the undivided India. He spent years in prison both before and after the independence, and is probably the longest-serving political prisoner in the subcontinent. Bacha Khan's Khudai Khidmatgar (Servants of God) Movement was a vibrant, but non-violent response to the oppression of the British Raj in the pre-partition India.

None-violence has always been the bedrock of the ANP's politics in the NWFP. However, it gained a new meaning in the current scenario owing to the 'war on terror', which until now was being fought at the doorstep of this province neighbouring Afghanistan and has now reached Darra Adamkhel, barely an hour's drive from Peshawar. The prevailing situation has prompted the residents of troubled areas to search ways and means for the restoration of peace, and, thus, follow the ideal of non-violence, as they are being tormented by the violence that has become a regular part of their life.

For the first time in history, the NWFP experienced deadly suicide attacks during the outgoing government, which disappointed the people due to its failure to deliver anything substantial for peace in the province. The law and order situation worsened during the MMA government, and most of the people blame it for the loss of peace in Swat and other parts of the province. In fact, the religious alliance's government used delaying tactics, instead of a prompt response to the issue of law and order in the province.

Many people also believed that the MMA government covertly supported the militants, as it could not make any headway to restore peace in the restive parts of the province. In this scenario, the ANP candidates made a clean sweep in the militancy-plagued Swat Valley, which was formerly a stronghold of the religious parties, in the recent elections. This also shows that safety of life is the top priority of the people of the NWFP, most of whom have been a witness to violence in one form or another.

Now that the militancy has already spilled over to the settled areas from the tribal belt alone, the incoming ANP-led coalition NWFP government would have to handle tough tasks. Already, the ANP leadership has reservations regarding the way the 'war on terror' is being fought in the Pakhtoon-belt bordering Afghanistan, which has not only put the security of the province at stake but has also tarnished the image of the Pakistan Army to a great extent. The ANP will have to materialise its slogan of peace and non-violence, which is a matter of great significance for the people of the province as they have been withstanding the worst of the 'war on terror'.

Commenting on the ANP's electoral success, the party's chief Asfandyar Wali Khan says the Pakhtoons have given their verdict -- they were not terrorists, but peace-loving people. "The Pakhtoon nation is the victim of a conspiracy hatched to make it a scapegoat in the 'war on terror'," he believes. A sense of deprivation and disillusionment forced the people to launch a rebellion against the government, adds the ANP's chief, who has been critical of the government for its policy vis-vis the 'war on terror" and terms it "genocide of the Pakhtoons for ulterior motives."

Asfandyar further says: "Our foremost priority is to restore peace in the NWFP, which is now known worldwide for producing extremists and terrorists. The people of the province have made it clear through their votes that they do not want wars and militancy." The central leaders of the ANP also say that they believe in talks, rather than use of force to address the issue of terrorism. "We also want to involve the people of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in efforts for the restoration of peace in the region," they add.

In a nutshell, the party prefers the policy of appeasement, not confrontation, and is also cognizant of the needs of the people in the troubled region. However, the most important challenge for the incoming NWFP government will be to put out the flames of violence and terrorism that have now engulfed the province. This is the yardstick that ultimately will be used by the people of the NWFP to judge the performance of the incoming provincial government.

After harsh experiences of the past and protracted years of despondency, the people have again reposed confidence in the political parties; so it is the utmost responsibility of the elected representatives to translate the hopes and expectations of the people into a real change, both in the lives of the people and in the institutions that could cater to their needs. The appetite for change in Pakistan has never come to the fore as stridently as it has in the recent elections. The people want to live on their soil with peace, dignity and prosperity. Their democratic aspirations can only be met by transforming the entire edifice of the state. Strong will of the people for a democratic dispensation has sent ripples in the establishment and their civilian collaborators.

The Musharraf regime, an epitome of repression across the country, has embroiled the country in endless violence. The sense of insecurity has been instilled in the people to the extent that do not feel safe even within their homes. The political parties and mainstream leadership have been deliberately kept aloof from the people through the use of propagandist and highhanded means, but all this has failed to achieve the desired results -- as proved by the people of Pakistan on Feb 18. After the elections also, the winning parties have shown enough sagacity to form coalition governments in the provinces as well as the Centre.

However, the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) -- formed in the wake of the London All Parties Conference (APC) -- demanded removal of the Musharraf regime and complete restoration of the 1973 Constitution as a pre-condition to taking part in the elections. The reinstatement of the deposed judges was added to the APDM's list of demands after the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007. The alliance remained aloof of the newly emerging realities, while some of its component parties made the wiser choice of contesting the elections. Now the APDM consists mainly of nationalist and liberal parties and groups, and a few religious parties.

An amalgam of parties and groups with such divergent political and ideological views has never been seen before in the political history of Pakistan. On the one hand, we have the secular Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) of Mahmood Khan Achakzai; while on the other, we have Qazi Hussain Ahmed's right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). Though these parties and groups apparently have a collective agenda to mobilise the people around their demands, they have miserably failed to attract them. Even the JI, known for its nuisance value, do much in this regard. Some analysts also view that the JI is a pro-establishment party, and it boycotted the elections under the banner of the APDM only because it wanted to provide Musharraf with an excuse to postpone them.

Coming to some of the other reasons behind the APDM's failure to attract the masses, an important one was that it did not try to establish enough contact with the much more organised parallel lawyers' movement -- though both claimed and still claim to achieve the same ideals of supremacy of the Constitution and restoration of the judiciary. The lack of cooperation between the two is reflective of the apprehensions both have about the other. The Awami National Party (ANP) and, subsequently, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), realising the vague agenda of the APDM, parted ways well before the elections.

The post-elections scenario in Balochistan is dismal. It is strange why the Balochs, who are struggling against the regime, have elected the King's Party in terms of number of seats in the provincial assembly, but the fact remains that tribal chiefs enjoying partial support from the masses have succeeded on individual basis. The PML-Quaid, as a party, had little influence on the election results. Also, the voter turnout was the lowest in Balochistan, as most the people preferred to remain at their homes on the election day. Balochistan is the only province in Pakistan where the nationalist parties have always managed to win at least a few seats, but this time the boycotted the polls.

Though Baloch leaders have shown willingness to amicably address the issues of provincial autonomy, particularly recognition of economic rights on their resources; conceited generals and short-sighted politicians have never considered their case compassionately. The issue of Balochistan is mainly linked with the blatantly denied right of provincial autonomy, which was assured at the inception of the country and then in the 1973 Constitution. Considering this troubled history and repeated violations of constitutional rights and agreements have left the Baloch polity in a pathetic sate. This has actually been expressed by the Balochs in the recent elections.

Since the killing of the late Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the Balochs have increasingly realised that the establishment is not serious in taking up their issues and in designing a long term framework for distributive justice. The disgruntled Baloch polity has started manifesting the mode of non-cooperation and non-participation towards the federation, irrespective of whosoever represents it. In this scenario, the Baloch youth is being dragged into increased alienation and there is a wider acceptance for the option of breakaway among them. One can understand the pain the Balochs as a nation have gone and are going through, but it is difficult to understand why the Baloch nationalist forces deem it fit to articulate their demands from the platform of the APDM, whose image is marred and which consists of such groups that do not even acknowledge the socio-political rights of the Balochs.

However, despite all the anger that the Balochs have been directing towards the Centre, by joining the APDM they have exhibited that they still want to fight for their rights under the federal framework. On this premise, the Baloch political parties, already working as an alliance, should have taken part in the elections and should not have left the room open for those people who are working as stooges of the establishment. Now emergence of the PML-Quaid as the single largest party in the Balochistan Assembly has provided an excuse to the politically- and socially-alienated elites to question the authenticity of the Baloch issue.

In the wake of the King's Party humiliating defeat, there is a consensus among political circles that the mandate given by the people of Pakistan should be respected -- through the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary. The political will shown by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the Awami National Party (ANP) and a large number of independent election winners, who have agreed to cooperate with each other in the National Assembly for this purpose, is indeed laudable, though they are still faced with serious legal challenges to achieve their objective.

The proponents of the status quo and supporters of Musharraf argue that in the presence of the Supreme Court's judgment in Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs General Pervez Musharraf and two others case, and dismissal of review petition against it, validating the act of November 3, 2007, the deposed judges cannot be restored even by the new parliament. On the other hand, the opponents of Musharraf insist that since the Proclamation of Emergency order of November 3, 2007, by the then-Chief of Army Staff and the subsequent two orders -- the Provisional Constitution Order No 1, 2007, and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007 -- were prima facie ultra vires of the Constitution, the new parliament by not validating the same can remove the cause behind the Supreme Court's judgment, thus paving the way for the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary through only an executive order.

They view that any amendment in the Constitution, through a two-thirds majority in the parliament, to undo the action of November 3, 2007, is a difficult proposition. Even if Musharraf's opponents were able to muster enough support for any such amendment, it would amount to endorsing unlawful actions of an individual. In these circumstances, a legal review of the Supreme Court's judgment, by the apex court itself, through a parliamentary resolution seems to be the best solution.

In view of the hierarchical structure of the judicial system in Pakistan, it is important that judgments declared by the courts are clear and consistent. It is an established fact that most decisions of the courts are of significance, not only because they constitute adjudication on rights of parties and resolve disputes between them, but also because in doing so they embody a declaration of the law, operating as a binding principle ('stare decisis') in future cases. In the Constitution of Pakistan, the doctrine of 'stare decisis' is reflected in Articles 189 and 201. Since this doctrine enjoys a constitutional cover, it needs to be implemented in the letter and spirit. In short, any violation of this rule amounts to violation of the supreme law of the land.

There exists, however, one exception to the doctrine of 'stare decisis', which is a 'per incuriam' decision. The Supreme Court had explained in an earlier judgment that "a decision would be treated as given 'per incuriam' when it is given in ignorance of term of statute or a rule having the force of law." Earlier, the apex court had elaborated this principle in great detail in the case of Province of the Punjab vs Dr Syed Muhammad Zafar Bukhari. In this background, Para 4(vi) of the apex court's judgment in the Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs General Pervez Musharraf and two others case, holding that judges who were not given or refused to take oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, "have ceased to hold their respective office on the 3rd day of November 2007", needs reconsideration inter alia for the following reasons:

• The observation that Chief of Army Staff was competent to issue Proclamation of Emergency order of November 3, 2007, is made without citing the language of Article 232 of the Constitution, which gives exclusive powers to the President of Pakistan to take any such measure. The judgment, in departure of unambiguous wording of Article 232 of the Constitution, is not binding in view of ratio decided by the apex court in an earlier decision.

• On the one hand, it has been recorded in the order that "the Prime Minister apprised the President of the situation through the letter of November 3, 2007" and requested for the imposition of emergency; while on the other, the order passed by the Chief of Army Staff was validated by the apex court. This is self-contradictory. It has not been elaborated under what authority of law, the Chief of Army Staff could have imposed emergency on the advice of the Prime Minister.

• It is held that judges who "who have not been given, and who have not made, oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, have ceased to hold their offices on the 3rd day of November, 2007. Their case cannot be reopened, being hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction." Since the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, is not a valid law, any proceedings taken in pursuance of the same are void 'ab initio'. There is only one method provided in Article 209 of the Constitution to remove any judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court. Thus, the judgment given ignoring Article 209 of the Constitution is 'per incuriam'.

Since the judgment of the apex court is 'per incuriam', the reinstatement of judges, deposed through a law violative of express provisions of the Constitution, poses no problem. First of all, the newly-elected parliament should pass by a simple majority a resolution invalidating insertion of Article 270AAA in the Constitution. This will make the judgment of the Supreme Court ineffective, as held by the apex court in an earlier decision -- stating that where the basis of a judgment is removed by the legislature, the order of even the Supreme Court becomes inoperative. Once this is done, the apex court, vide suo motu action or through filing of a review petition, can declare PLD 2008 Supreme Court 6 an ineffective order, paving the way for the reinstatement of the deposed judges.

Thus, there is no need for any constitutional amendment to restore the judiciary to its pre-November 3 position, as argued by certain circles. The problem is simple and should be solved through parliamentary and legal procedures, rather than entering into political polemics and undue controversies. Resistance and resilience by the new parliament can restore the rule of law and reinstate all the deposed judges. It is high time that the judiciary gracefully admits its own wrongdoings of validating unconstitutional acts usurpers. A decision to this effect, overturning the judgment in the Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs General Pervez Musharraf and two others case, will go a long way in starting a new era of an independent and strong judiciary in Pakistan. All the organs of the state should remember that it is always the Constitution that represents the will of people, and not the legislature. The legislature exercises delegated powers given by the mandate of people within the framework of the Constitution, which should not be mutilated by the elected representatives, let alone by an individual usurping power through unconstitutional means.

Before the creation of Pakistan, Karachi was only a small harbour city. However, soon after the partition, a large number of Indian Muslims migrated to Karachi, mainly because of the relatively calm and quite atmosphere in Sindh, and the business opportunities offered by the city. The scope and prospects of growth in Karachi, owing to the city's geographical location, attracted even more people in the coming years. Migration from India to Pakistan continued even after the 1960s.

The settlement process gave rise to increased job opportunities and, as a result, a large number of labourers and businesspeople migrated to Karachi. Thus, the city became a metropolis of peace and love, as well as a source of livelihood for many. With the passage of time, distinct professional groups evolved along ethnic lines.

The Indian immigrants (mohajirs) happened to be more educated than the people who had migrated to Karachi from other parts of Pakistan. As a result, all the white-collar jobs and services, as well as the businesses, went to the former; whereas the major chunk of the former, especially the Pakhtoons, had to contend with jobs as labourers and unskilled workers in different sectors.

Hence, Karachi became a sprawling city by the 1980s. The public transport in 1985 was so efficient that no passenger had to wait for more than two minutes to board a bus to any destination in the big city. The people, especially the Pakhtoons, invested all their sweat and blood in the public transport system of Karachi. At the same time, they started settling down and integrated into the urban fabric of the city. Around this time, a conspiracy was hatched and the peace-loving people of Karachi were polarised along ethnic lines.

The media controlled and operated by the Indian immigrant community launched a poisonous propaganda campaign against the Pakhtoons, followed by bloody clashes between the two communities. Given these circumstances, the Pakhtoons started withdrawing their investment from the public transport system and focussed on other areas, like the construction sector. As a result, the public transport system of Karachi is in a shambles today; while all the recently completed and ongoing mega projects in the city are a witness to the fact that the Pakhtoons are investing heavily in the construction sector.

Today Karachi seems to be reverting to the situation of the 1980s. But this time, the cost would be much higher, even beyond the imagination of many. Now the city can no longer afford a strike of even a single day. The Pakhtoons, in the current scenario, are faced with a dilemma -- considering the restive situation in their hometowns, they cannot even return there. The leadership of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) seems be following a confrontational path once again, by dubbing them as land grabbers and drug mafia.

Looking at the current trend of urban expansion in Karachi, it is obvious that a well thought out plan is being executed to marginalise the Pakhtoons and arrest their natural growth. This would not only limit the movement of the Pakhtoons in the city, but would also make them vulnerable to any conspiracy. The Pakhtoons based in Karachi, on their part, seem determined to protest if any injustice is meted out to them now. It appears that they have forgotten about their hometowns and have decided to stay in Karachi forever. In this scenario, a wrong move by any ethnic group would not only be disastrous for Karachi, but for the whole country.

Unfortunately, neither any political party nor any government policy-maker has thought about the integration of the Pakhtoon community into the fabric of Karachi. In the recent past, the foremost problem faced by the Pakhtoons has been that of acquiring the domicile certificate, the computerised national identity card and the passport. They were asked by the concerned authorities to go back to their hometowns to acquire these documents, despite having lived in Karachi for decades. This exercise disenfranchised most of them, but Pakhtoon leaders took no interest since registering them as voters was of no immediate benefit to them.

As a result, despite being in millions in densely populated areas of Karachi, the Pakhtoons never had any political representation in Sindh till recently. However, for the first time in history, two candidates of the Pakhtoon nationalist Awami National Party (ANP) managed to win seats of the Sindh Assembly in the recent elections -- mainly because of the support of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

In the recent past, Imran Khan, the chief of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf, has emerged as the most vocal person speaking on behalf of the Pakhtoons. He seems to be a beacon of hope for the Pakhtoon community and could provide a non-controversial leadership to them. If Imran chooses to focus on Karachi, he would certainly find the most dedicated voters here. On the other hand, the MQM leadership must realise that in order to solve the problems of Karachi, it would have to integrate the Pakhtoons into the mainstream, consider them as rightful residents of Karachi, and give them their due representation and share in managing the affairs of

the city.

Now that the elections are over, there is a sort of euphoria among the intelligentsia to dub their results as unprecedented, historic and revolutionary. In addition, a revived belief in populism is gaining strength. This needs to be clearly analysed and understood, because we as members of civil society ought to be aware of our responsibilities too. It is being argued by some political analysts that the mandate received by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Awami National Party (ANP) would have been weightier had the elections been held in a free and fair manner.

Sure it could have been so, but the fact remains that the very same people had voted the PML-Quaid to power in the 2002 elections. This must clear the fog of populism. As we know, and as many surveys and studies suggest, the people vote for this or that candidate or party in one election and then they change their loyalties for very different reasons. To lump them together and say it is this or that type of vote is a mistake. It is deliberate drifting into a populist rhetoric and amounts to self-delusion.

There is a consensus among political analysts that the people cast their votes against Musharraf in the recent elections. By extension, it can be said they rejected the military's interference in politics, dictatorship, the PML-Q, violence and terrorism through the power of their vote. Employing this line of reasoning, it can also be argued that the people cast their votes in the favour of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, though he was not even contesting the elections. The elections have also proved that the masses were discontent with the outgoing government and its policies.

But let me make my position clear! We do not know whether all the people who exercised their right to franchise on Feb 18 voted for a change in the system; or, for that matter, how many of those who voted on the election day want the system to be changed; or whether the number of people who voted for a change in the system is greater than those who voted for other reasons; or,

provided we had answers to the above questions, what is the nature of change the people want.

These are the complexities of a democratic system and they are multiplied by a host of factors specific to Pakistan, such as personality cult, party loyalty, and provincial, tribal, ethnic and other affinities. Another disturbing aspect of a democratic system is that once a party gets the mandate from the electorate to rule the country, it gets a free hand to do whatever it wishes to. Currently, there is no way to rein in a party that comes to power through the people's mandate. That it is to be judged by the people when the party again asks for votes after five years, provided its life is not cut short by the military's arbitrary actions.

Thus, we need to view the results of the recent elections in the backdrop of the lawyers' movement, which started on March 9 last year after the Chief Justice was unconstitutionally removed from the office. The movement has provided us with a rare opportunity to change the system in Pakistan. Regardless of the debate about the nature of the present mandate, we must not let go this moment without taking advantage of it. In other words, employing a proactive approach, we must turn this opportunity into something that is beneficial in the long run for the people of Pakistan -- the establishment of the rule of law in the country.

The powerful ruling elite in Pakistan, however, will never allow this to happen. In other words, it will never let the people enjoy security of person and property; freedom of trade, business and profession; freedom of movement, speech, assembly and association; freedom to profess and practice their faith; and, above all, equality before the law. However, the fate has it that the same ruling elite has been burdened with this very responsibility.

In this sense, the present vote has a negative side also. We all know how the PPP has been and is still dodging the issue of the judiciary's restoration; how cautious is the ANP's approach in this regard; how the PML-N is employing the 'rhetoric' of the judiciary's restoration; and how sincere is the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) with its stated cause, as it also includes the pro-establishment Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). We can never take these parties and alliances on their face value, as they are extremely unreliable.

We must, however, accept the election results as a first step towards our goal and keep exerting pressure for the judiciary's restoration. This will be the first step towards the dismantling of the rule of dictators and unrepresentative leaders. The next steps, supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, will follow on their own. It is these steps that will prove to be the greatest checks, not only against the overarching parliament and executive but also against irresponsible governance by the political parties.

If the new government restores the judiciary, well and good; but if it does not, we as members of civil society must continue our struggle to achieve this end. Though the path from the electoral to a real victory is strewn with all types of seen and unseen hazards, and ever newer forms of dangerous pro-establishment species, this struggle has to continue if Pakistan has to survive. The electoral triumph will transform into a real victory for the ordinary people of Pakistan only when the fundamental rights enshrined in the 1973 Constitution are made inviolable.