The morning after

THE votes have been cast and are now being counted. Whoever wins, we hope they are good for democracy, peace, the rule of law, growth and development: we hope they are good for Pakistan and Pakistanis.
This election had a number of features that should be borne in mind going forward and will need further analysis and understanding.
The election campaign was very violent. It was not the political opponents who were going after each other, it was the anti-democratic forces of the Taliban that made it very hard for some parties, the Awami National Party (ANP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the PPP, to run their campaigns on the same scale asothers.
Though the reasons were different and related more to nationalism, it was equally hard to campaign in Balochistan. Will and should there be questions about the legitimacy and acceptability of election results under these circumstances?Will what has happened in the campaign give impetus to all politicians to come together to address the menace posed by the Taliban? Will the winners take the lead in this? Or will the various parties remain as divided as ever on how to deal with the threat they have been witnessing? If they do remain as divided, the next five years and the next election will be even harder.
In Punjab, many `politicians` before an election try to gauge which way the establishment is leaning and which party has a greater chance of winning.
Then they try to get a ticket from that party. Party loyalty means little. Since parties also need `electables`, switching sides is encouraged. The idea is that one is able to get more done for oneself and for one`s supporters, if one is in power. And a lot of the time it is clear, before elections, which party has greater chances.
But this time, especially for Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it was harder to predict the outcome between the PML-N and the Pakistan Tehreek-iInsaf (PTI). Hence the higher demandfor party tickets from them. But interestingly a number of influential local politicians chose to contest elections as independent candidates. They have been promising supporters that if they win they will support the winning party and get benefits for their constituents that way.
Given that many people are predicting a `split` mandate with none of the parties winning a majority, these independents could wield a lot of power heaven for those who contested as independents with the specific purpose of getting a price for their support post-victory. But how will this impact the politics of ideology, loyalty and political commitment remains to be seen.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has strict and fairly stringent limits on how much a candidate can spend in an election. The idea of the limits is toreduce the role of money in politics and to make the playing field more even for candidates with different wealth and income levels and with varying abilities to elicit financial support. The limits were and are flouted, often quite flagrantly, but nonetheless there are limits and legal recourse is always available for aggrieved parties.
But this time it was the parties that went for massive advertising and not just individual candidates. The use of new and old media, and even mobile phones (I received three calls with recorded messages from Imran Khan twice and one from the PTI candidate from the constituency where I live), for communication with constituents was unprecedented.
The PTI took the lead and was more savvy but other parties learnt and caught up fairly quickly. Even parties that could not campaign in the normal manner because of security issues could use these means of reaching out to their supporters. How will this change the politics of the country? Will future campaigns be even more virtual? And are advertisements a substitute for directcontacts between potential representatives and their constituents? The ECP, judiciary as well as the next parliament will have to look at the advertising issue. If the objective was a level playing field, how can unlimited expenditure on advertising, even by parties, be allowed? Will smaller parties and/or more regional parties as well as independent candidates not be at a disadvantage? Appropriate legislation on campaign finance will be needed before the next election.
The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) has been giving Rs1,000 a month to millions of women across Pakistan. Opponents have accused the PPP of using BISP to win votes. But, in a way, almost any welfare programme, with specific beneficiaries, will have this issue. The same complaints have been aired against the laptopscheme of the PML-N. It will be worth seeing if there is an appreciable change in patterns of female vote if these are studied, especially in areas that have large numbers of BISP-supported households. If there is, what sort of a lesson willit be for incoming governments? Judging by the campaigning, it seemed that political parties are becoming more regionalised. The PML-N and PTI focused on campaigning in Punjab and KP; the PPP was more present in Sindh and the southern districts of Punjab; the MQM focused on Karachi and Sindh, and the ANP on Karachi and KP. If election results confirm this pattern, what will be the lessons for the politics of the federation? Have we become so fragmented that no political party can credibly appeal to voters from across the country? Whoever is announced the winner, all incoming representatives and legislators will have their work cut out for them: Pakistan faces very serious challenges and on numerous fronts. One hopes they are up to the challenge and the people are not disappointed, again, with the choices they have made.• The writer is senior adviser, Pakistan at Open Society Foundations, associate professor of economics, LUMS, and a visiting fellow at IDE AS, Lahore.

fbari@osipak.org