| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan/South Asia |
| Voters reverse MMA's rise in Pakistan |
| 2005-09-07 |
| Voters in Pakistan have dealt a surprising blow to religious extremists, bucking the rise in recent years of radical Islam in politics here. Countrywide elections for local governments, which were held on August 18 and 25 in over 100 districts, reversed the gains made by radical Islamists who came to power in two out of the country's four provinces in 2002. They had played a strong opposition role in the federal parliament and posed a formidable challenge to President Pervez Musharraf's vow to bring "enlightened moderation" to Pakistani society. The absence of full elections at the federal level has enhanced the importance of Pakistan's local and city government as a political bellwether. Observers here point to a number of reasons for the poor showing for the religious parties, including internal divisions; changes to the ballot; as well as a cooling off of tensions caused by the government's reorientation following Sept. 11, 2001. "It apparently seems that the establishment has laid their hands off the Islamists and radicals' influence has faded all over the country," says Jaffer Ahmed, chairman of the Pakistan Study Centre at the University of Karachi. "But we can't say that their downfall has started," he hastened to add. President Musharraf was jubilant the day after the polls closed. "Local body elections have resulted in the victory of moderates and defeat of extremists everywhere in Pakistan," he said. The unexpected defeat of the Islamists came in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP), which neighbors Afghanistan. The province had been ruled since 2002 by the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an umbrella group of six religious parties, including the vanguard radical party Jamaat-e-Islami. The MMA had emerged as a powerful political force in the October 2002 national elections, riding popular anger at Pakistan's support for the US ouster of the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. The alliance also used a book as its symbol on the ballot, telling voters that the book represented the Koran, and that a vote for the MMA was a vote for Islam. Once in office, the religious alliance continued to defy Musharraf's war on terror at home and abroad. Police began waging a Talibanesque antivice drive that included bans on music and attacks on billboard advertisements depicting women. However, heading into the August vote, differences cropped up in the MMA and the alliance subsequently broke down on the local government level. With some distance from Sept. 11 and without the benefit of the book as its ballot symbol, the religious parties lost their majority to the Awami National Party (ANP), a secular Pashtun party. "I am more than 100 percent satisfied, says Asfandyar Wali, chief of the ANP, which emerged as the single largest party in the province according to informal results. "We are very much able to head governments in all major cities including Peshawar [the provincial capital]." When the MMA splintered, intriguing and odd political alliances came to the fore to win over the city governments. Jamaat-e-Islami chose to join hands with ANP, though they have diametrically opposed ideological positions with the ANP, a party formed in 1986 by the merger of several left-leaning parties. "These are the dynamics of the politics and these are only election alliances not an ideological merger," says Mr. Wali, who pledged to carry on a secular vision of government in the cities. Waning influence of Islamists, who have given way to secular and moderate parties, makes many believe the wave of fundamentalism could be forestalled effectively in the frontier province and at the polls in the next national elections in 2007. But the MMA could yet regroup, especially if outside engagement with Pakistan wanes, says Mr. Ahmed. "It would all depend on the US and Western countries' attitude towards Pakistan, whose role seems to be diminishing now for them," he says. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #12 I trust PM's take - he's not disagreeing with youze guys. But....I'd like to see a Perv crackdown on the assholes if they really are so weak. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-09-07 22:32 |
| #11 I know of everything you mentioned, and dispute none of it, however the article I was commenting on was about the reversal in fortunes of the MMA and political Islamists in Pakistan - which I stated was no suprise given the lack of success the Jamaat-e-Islami, JUI and other groups have met with. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-09-07 21:57 |
| #10 Folks, it's called Pakistan -- "land of the pure" -- because it was founded as an Islamist state, not because it's peopled by virgins. How many people were murdered to make it the "land of the pure"? We're talking about a country in which "holy men" decree women should be gang-raped because they were seen with the wrong neighbor. A country that hands out the death penalty for saying Mo's momma and poppa weren't born Muslim. Where mobs attack a house cleaner because of a rumor she tossed a page from the Koran in the trash! Maybe the Islamists can't win at the ballot box, but, damn, maybe that's because they already won in the culture. Why vote for an Islamist when you effectively already have an Islamist government? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-07 21:50 |
| #9 RC: Nope. Never popular in the "land of the pure", in which after the constitution was revoked by one of the juntas, they immediately restored the bits making sharia and Islam the law of the land. Never popular at all. It's not clear that this is an indicator of national-level popularity. Islamists are determined, well-armed and violent. A military dictatorship may reflexively move to appease a minority of potentially violent rebels. Or it may choose to completely crush them. Pakistan's military leadership may have felt that the Islamists' influence was beyond their capability to crush. They may have sympathized personally with the Islamists. But the primary indicator of the Islamists' popularity is not what generals do, for reasons of survival or sympathy, but the number of votes the Islamists get. And that has generally fallen short of a majority. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-07 19:23 |
| #8 Never popular at all. So how many elections have the Islamists won in Pakistan? Are they not usually the forth of fifth most popular party even when they are in an alliance that crosses sectarian divides? Don't their rallies usually gather a few hundred or a few thousand people, whereas other political parties like the MQM and PPP can summon hundreds of thousands of supporters? |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-09-07 17:31 |
| #7 11A5S is right to a large degree. Most arabs back the winner, who is usually the strongest and badest. This pattern dates back from Alexander's time for self survival. Osama was huge, until he lost Afganistan and hasn't launched a large successful attack on the west since then. Sadam was huge, until he lost Iraq and was videoed cowering like a dog. Sadar was popular, until his forces got their asses kicked and bowed to US pressure. Arafat was hudge, because he stood up to the west and his successor is on crumbling ground since he doesn't. Al-Qada was big, until it lost Falluja and keeps getting its own people killed and it attacks the civilian population. The arab man on the street is watching the previously powerful getting stomped, on a regular basis and is looking at the new powerhouse in the region. Plus, now that free thought is coming into vogue in the arab world, who really wants to be ruled over and told what to think and do anyway? |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-09-07 09:53 |
| #6 The Islamists have never been popular in Pakistan. Nope. Never popular in the "land of the pure", in which after the constitution was revoked by one of the juntas, they immediately restored the bits making sharia and Islam the law of the land. Never popular at all. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-07 09:41 |
| #5 I dunno, Paul. Muslims like to bet on the strongest horse. At least that's what some Arab guy told me. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-09-07 09:01 |
| #4 The Muslim parties seem to poll around the same level as the Greens in the West and the similarities don't end there. There is a law of political behaviour here - In any population, 10% will support an extremist ideology promising future salvation through current sacrifice. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-09-07 02:06 |
| #3 Makes a lot of sense. A party whose platform is all sharia all the time is not one that can improve living conditions. And in this world, being able to deliver material improvements is what wins votes. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-07 01:57 |
| #2 I don't see what it has to do with Bush. The Islamists have never been popular in Pakistan. The elections before last was the best ever showing, and even then they only got 11% of the vote - meaning they came equal forth. And this was immediately after the invasion of Afghanistan and all the anger in Pakistan that went along with it. It was only due to careful rigging that the Islamists were able to do as well as they did, and since the Musharraf regime did not rig in their favour this time, the Islamists received their usual crushing defeat. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-09-07 01:39 |
| #1 More vindication for the Bush Doctrine. Has there ever been a president who was so successful who has been so reviled? Lincoln before Atlanta and Savannah? |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-09-07 00:22 |