Pakistan has a first-past-the-post voting system. In this system it is possible to get more seats but less votes. The other major system of election is the proportional representation system. In this the whole country is a single constituency and voters can vote for a party from anywhere. The proportion of votes determines which party gets how many seats.
Now the number of votes the
religions parties (MMA) have obtained is 10 per.cent (2.9 million of 29.5 million
votes cast). In 1993 the votes cast were 20.3 million and the religious parties
obtained 1.4 million votes i.e. 7 per.cent of the total. In 1979 the
Jamat-i-Islami boycotted the polls so this election need not be counted. This
means the increase in the number of votes in 3 per.cent. Now consider the
growth in population and the reduction in the voting age from 21 to 18. This
means that the total number of voters were more so some of this apparent
increase is because of natural growth in numbers.
Add to this the fact that there are many madrassa
students between 18 to 21 and that the madrassas are residential institutions
which were open during the elections (they close for holidays during Ramazan). Their students must have been
persuaded to vote for MMA candidates. Add to it also the very significant fact
that the military regime had created many small constituencies. This means that
if one wins from small constituencies the total number of one’s votes may be
less but the seats may be more. To give an extreme example, three
constituencies with 10,000 voters each make only 30,000 votes. On the other
hand there can be a constituency with 60,000 voters. To win all three seats in
the smaller constituencies a candidate need only 5001 votes from each. On the
other hand somebody with 29,999 votes may lose from the bigger constituency. If
one books at the number of votes then the loser has more but they do not
translate into seats. In short, increasing the constituencies makes it
theoretically possible for parties with less votes to get more seats.
Now look at the fact that the military government had
ousted both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. BB has dynastic charisma being the
daughter of a father who once promised much to the masses. She also has
personal charisma because she was jailed by Zia-ul-Haq and her party has
suffered under all regimes. The IJI was created by the establishment and her
first government was dismissed, as we all know by now, by the establishment.
So, the anti-establishment vote goes to the PPP but it also goes to BB
personally. This personal vote was probably not cast at all or went to others.
Similarly, if Nawaz Sharif himself had been present, he
would have brought out a groundswell of sympathy for himself. He might have
given a different explanation for the events of October 1999 and so on. He
might also have said that he was against General Musharraf’s pro-America
policy. Had he played his cards well, he would certainly have got more votes.
But the vacuum created by his absence, and that of BB, gave a chance to the
religious right to step in.
Ad to this also the fact that the MMA won in NWFP and
Balochistan where the voter turnout was 29.5 per.cent whereas in the Punjab and
Sindh, where they did not win, it was 42.3 per.cent. This means that the voters
voted also by staying away from the polls. Remember that the liberal,
urbanized, educated voter in any case does mostly stay away. This means that
the MMA has won, to some extent, by default.
I have, of course, said before that the MMA vote is as
much an anti-America vote as it may be said to be a pro-Islamic parties vote.
Let me also add that it is also the result of the creation of a political
vacuum. If the public starts considering politicians as basically corrupt and
crooked, this perception deligitimizes the whole election process. Democracy,
after all, depends ultimately on trusting the will of the people and the idea
that their chosen people are fit to rule. But from Ayub Khan, Iskander Mirza,
Ghulam Mohammad onwards we hear abuse for politicians. Interviews of military
officers show how much they mistrust politicians. T.V dramas portray
politicians, bureaucrats, feudal lords and businessmen as corrupt but never the
military. The military also denies the fact that it is in politics (i.e. it
pursues power) even when it is actually ruling the country. Thus only civilian,
professional politicians are seen as ‘politicians’ while military men, even
when in power, are not.
This is probably the most harmful thing which could have
happened to Pakistani politics. It is harmful because the political vacuum
threatens to be permanent. If we are inclined not to trust the politicians, we
are undermining the cardinal principles of democracy: civilian supremacy; adult
franchise (the will of the people); trust in the process of election itself etc.
In the end, I would like to conclude that the way to deal
with the MMA victory is not to deny it; not to suppress the MMA; not to dismiss
their governments; not to act unjustly towards them. The way is to build up
trust in politicians in general and never, on any account, to manipulate the
electoral process. The way is also to give good governance and economic
stability because only frustrated and miserable people turn to extremism.
Democracy has not been allowed to take root in Pakistan. If the establishment
lets it flourish on its own we shall see different results in due course.