Level playing field

FOR fuller participation in the coming elections all the decks have been cleared. The threat by the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) crumbled Sunday night when its component parties failed to clinch a pact to stay away from the polls on January 8. Minus the parties led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Mehmud Khan Achakzai and Imran Khan, others in the APDM have decided to be part of the electoral exercise, vindicating the position taken earlier by Benazir Bhutto and Maulana Fazlur Rehman that all opposition parties must take part in the elections. The argument they advanced that the field should not be left open to their political rivals is said to have finally prevailed at the APDM meeting. Given the dramatic shift that Nawaz Sharif’s PML injected in its stance on participation, much to the apparent disappointment of the legal fraternity, electioneering is expected to pick up pace, which was not so much in evidence so far. Already, not much of time is left with the candidates to campaign; a situation not likely to improve in view of the fact that Hajj, Eidul Azha and Quaid-e-Azam’s birthday fall in between now and the D-day. With the political dimension of participation in elections settled, the ball is now squarely in the Pakistan Election Commission’s court to make a success of this election exercise. Of what quality the level playing field is provided to the candidates, it is the responsibility of the commission. Over quite some time the opposition has been voicing concerns - ranging from doctored enumeration of voters to the Election Commission’s composition - over its capacity to hold fair and free elections. But not much progress has been seen in this, so much so that the opposition’s concerns continue to obtain, as is evident by the fact that this is the one subject on which both the ARD and APDM have identical perceptions. PPP has been persistently warning that it would be going to polls “under reservations”, which leaves open the possibility that if results do not conform to its liking it would try perpetrating the Ukraine-type Orange Revolution. PML (N) too is of the same mind as is reflected in the Sharif brothers’ assertion that rejection of their nomination papers is strongly indicative of a plan to pre-rig the polls. And the boycotting parties are no more in the field because they do not trust the Election Commission’s impartiality. The possibility that the opposition may reject the election results is very real, as was indicated by President Musharraf in his interview with CNN the other day. “Now when they lose, they will have a good rationale, that it is all rigged, that this is all fraud...In Pakistan, the loser always cries.”
Pakistan has a history of flawed elections, with dire consequences. In 1970, when the minority parties in West Pakistan refused to accept the right of the majority party from East Pakistan to form the government, the country broke up, leading to creation of independent Bangladesh. In 1977, alleging rigging by the Z.A. Bhutto government, the defeated parties kicked up a ferocious movement that ended with military takeover by General Zia-ul-Haq. Post-election turmoil has been recently witnessed in some of the former Soviet states where Stalinist leaders rigged elections in order to perpetuate their hold over power. Holding free, fair and transparent elections is indeed a formidable challenge for the Election Commission of Pakistan. Its foremost task should be to win the trust of the opposition parties by not only making its moves more transparent for them to see but also by involving them in the conduct of forthcoming polls. Knowing as it does that the opposition parties had not responded to be part of its exercise to evolve a consensual code of conduct for electioneering, the commission may, once again invite the opposition to secure the endorsement of the code.

Big step

THE EU has taken a big step toward speaking with a single voice in world affairs with the signing yesterday of the Lisbon Treaty. This provides not only for a single president of the Union but also, perhaps more importantly, a foreign affairs spokesman. It is widely agreed by both supporters and opponents of the new dispensation, that the Lisbon Treaty is effectively the original constitution that was rejected in 2005 by French and Dutch voters. The Poles and British have been allowed to opt out of certain provisions in the hope that their parliamentarians will ratify the deal. Only the Irish will be holding a referendum, because they are obliged to under their own constitution. Paris and The Hague have no intention of risking a second voter consultation. Meanwhile Britain’s new premier, Gordon Brown, whose party won office on the promise of a referendum over an EU constitution, says that since the Lisbon Treaty doesn’t have the word “Constitution” on its front page, no vote of approval (or more likely knowing the British, disapproval) will be sought. There are clearly political troubles ahead for many those government leaders who intend to drag their citizens, whatever they actually want, into an ever deeper union of the 27 EU member states. However an opportunity has presented itself, which may help convince doubting European citizens that a single united foreign policy will enable the EU to punch at or even above its weight.
In the soggy embers of his presidency, George W. Bush is edging toward reversing the very first of the many disastrous decisions of his incumbency. Within hours of occupying the Oval Office, he trashed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to which the outgoing President Clinton had committed his country. Now, as the major climate change talks in Bali enter their last day today, the EU is threatening to boycott a meeting called by Washington for next month in Hawaii. Bush wants the biggest polluters including China, India and the EU to get together and see what they can do to cut their carbon emissions. The EU rightly thinks any such meeting under US auspices will be useless unless Washington first signs up to the Kyoto Protocol. In short, to back the proposed Hawaii meeting would give George Bush climate change credentials he in no way deserves. This is just the sort of emotive issue around which European citizens, from whatever state, can get behind the nascent foreign policy machine in Brussels. Less popular unfortunately are the EU’s other international responsibilities including its membership of the Quartet over Palestine and the future of Kosovo. On the latter EU opinion is deeply divided. On Palestine, Brussels has never managed to speak with sufficient authority to earn respect and be listened to. At best the EU writes or at least promises to write big checks and can sometimes present itself as an honest broker. What the Arab world would rather see are strong European initiatives and far deeper and more independent involvement from Brussels. A single EU foreign policy voice will facilitate such developments.

—Arab News