Option to boycott elections

UNDENIABLY the political opposition does have the option to boycott the coming general elections, and the ongoing debate among various segments of the opposition over this option is not entirely irrelevant. As we move closer to the d-day, the debate on exercising this option is likely to intensify. In fact, with the announcement of election schedule the opposition parties are already faced with something of a dilemma, for they must collect nomination papers within the next couple of days if they finally decide to take part in the elections. Rightly then among the potential candidates are Makhdoom Amin Fahim, the number two in the Pakistan People’s Party, and many others. Meanwhile, reports suggest that Sharif brothers are poised to come back by November 26, which is the last date for filing the nomination papers. But the opposition can still decide to boycott elections, an option now on the table with much greater visibility. In the last two days not only were there telephonic parleys between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif but the leaders of the All-Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) too have discussed the option of boycotting the elections. If there is no clear indication as yet about the action the opposition parties, collectively or individually, would take on this crucial issue, it is because of the realisation that their decision would entail serious consequences for the country’s political future. Of course, the opposition is faced with this ‘to be or not to be’ choice. But a dispassionate study of the ground reality as it obtains today may help it arrive at a decision in line with the demands and dictates of realpolitik. There is no doubt about the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and its erstwhile coalition partners - who put together constituted the majority in the outgoing National Assembly - participating in the elections. Then there is Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman’s Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) that has not even once said that it would boycott the elections. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), led by Benazir Bhutto, which netted the highest number of votes in the last election, is ambivalent, with a clear yes or no to the elections yet to be spoken by its leader. So a boycott of elections by the APDM minus JUI-F - a scenario in the light of present facts - would not be taken as refusal by the masses to be part of the electoral exercise. Add to this the phenomenon of independent candidates and we would find the field fully occupied. Besides, howsoever august the cause that kept the PPP out of the 1985 elections was, average worker of the party still complains of surrendering the space to political adversaries.
The perception that the elections boycotted by the APDM would lack credibility in the eyes of international community is, therefore, debatable, low turnout and impartiality of polling being two separate aspects. For good or bad, things as they stand today give no indication whatsoever that the elections would be put off just because some of the opposition parties have threatened to boycott them. The elections are coming, and those who would opt out of them would be leaving the field open to their rivals. In the process, the boycotters would only be depriving their voters of the option to register their choice. No doubt, there are many voters who stood by their leaders in difficult times and would like to vote for them. But if their leaders opt for boycott, who will they vote for? Instead of exploring the option of boycott, the opposition should concentrate on securing conditions for free and fair elections. Take the case of re-enumeration of voters; just one letter from the PPP chairperson added another 20 millions to the voters’ list. In the meantime, lifting of the emergency, removal of media curbs and freezing the role of local government officials in elections should be the main concerns of the opposition parties.

Private fire, again

HOW worse can worse be, in Iraq? Everyone, it would seem, is taking pot shots, and more, at Iraqis these days. Or, look at the nationality of the people under detention following another instance of US-hired private security guards opening fire on people on the streets in Baghdad on Tuesday: 21 Sri Lankans, nine Nepalese, two Fijians and an Indian. What have they all got to do in Iraq, other than keeping the American juggernaut rolling? This, however, is only a part of the story. The whole story is beyond anyone’s imagination. On the one side, there are claims that the cases of bloodletting have come down, of late. But, there is no security to life as yet and limb anywhere in the war-torn country; its infrastructure is in a serious state of spoil; much of it having been damaged in the unprovoked, Bush-inspired war of 2003 and in its aftermath. Reconstruction, that was promised, has not been substantial. There is no water, no electricity, and no easy availability of essential supplies in many parts. Leave alone Saddam Hussein, not even the worst dictator could have visualised a situation as it exists in Iraq today. There were widespread protests when, in September last, members of the Blackwater private security guards, hired by the US military, opened fire and killed some Iraqis, including women, in what was allegedly a case of unprovoked attack based on pure suspicion of some individuals being terrorists. And, the same has happened again, on Tuesday. The script was somewhat the same, while the dramatis personae were different — both the perpetrators of the violence, and the victims.
There is no denying the fact that the situation in Iraq is extraordinary; or, rather, volatile. Yet, Iraqis require a respite from this kind of attacks by any Tom, Dick and Harry. They need to live a life, and live peacefully too. It will not do if Americans show the door to a president and his party at the next elections. For the Iraqis, this, per se, is immaterial. For them, the ground realities in Iraq must change; and Iraqis, in the least, must be able to live in their own land without fear for their lives. War or no war, it’s after all an ongoing military engagement in Iraq for reasons best known to America. Private security guards do not figure in the scheme of things, and they have no business opening fire on hapless citizens. The issue gets more aggravated when innocent citizens fall victim to such reckless release of fire power. What is important for the people is that the government of the Iraqis should wield power and be in control of things. The impression of it being a namesake, or of a weathercock drifting aimlessly and as dictated by the direction of the winds or of its American masters, should change. If Nour Al Maliki and his men could not deliver, they must step aside and leave the ground for a new dispensation that can be responsive to the needs and aspirations of Iraqis of all shades. Time is running out. The government must, in the least, govern, and lead from the front; and not allow recurrence of incidents like the one on Tuesday.

—Khaleej Times