So THAT'S why he lost

This has got to be the best excuse for losing an election. From Leader (Karachi):

CANDIDATE BLAMES 'LOTA' FOR LOSING ELECTION

A candidate in the elections from NA constituency 79, Chaudhry Mohammed Naveed Iqbal from Samundri Tehsil in Faisalabad who lost in the elections, has said that he was defeated because his election symbol was a 'lota.'

He has urged upon the Pakistan Election Commission to remove the election symbol of 'Lota' from the list of election symbols that are given to the political parties and independents in the general elections. This is the first time that a defeated candidate has blamed his election symbol for his defeat. 'Lota' is used in day-to-day conversation in Pakistan to refer to turncoats.

Elections on February 18

Elections will now be held on February 18 (40 days from the original date - a coincidence?). The major parties have all said that they will participate, although they have also criticized the decision to postpone elections. The PPP loses most from the delay, since they would have gotten a massive sympathy vote and big turnout due to BB's death.

What frustrates me is the refusal of the major parties to ask for a real election - one that is held without Musharraf as president, and which is held under a restored judiciary. Otherwise this election will be as big a farce as the original one was meant to be.

Nawaz to contest elections

Nawaz has decided to contest the elections after all, proving that the political parties cannot be counted on to have any principle whatsoever. I don't understand why he would do this, frankly, even from just sheer pragmatism. What's the point of playing along in a sham election in which the result has already been predetermined, only to play the part of the loser? But in his infinite wisdom, Nawaz has decided that it's worth it. So he too has fallen victim to the arm-twisting of the Americans and the Saudis as well as the deals offered by Musharraf, not to mention his own sheer greed and stupidity.

More boycott news

Benazir and Nawaz met yesterday to discuss the boycott but there was no specific deal. Benazir is sticking to her "I'm contesting this election under protest" line, and Nawaz says he's for a boycott but also argues at the same time that boycotting elections will only make the pro-Musharraf government party PML(Q) stronger. Incidentally, there is a term in Pakistan for such parties as PML(Q) that will support whoever is in power: "lota" - so termed because the lota will turn whichever way you will turn it, without regard to principle.

So the lotas will get stronger, it is feared, if the opposition parties boycott the election. Of course at some level Nawaz's hand-wringing about the matter in particular is sort of pointless, since he doesn't have much of a chance anyway. The powers that be have decided that Benazir is their girl, and the rest will participate just for window-dressing. The parliament will, according to this plan, be fragmented and the PPP will have only a small majority so that governing will be difficult and therefore power will remain in Musharraf's hands even though he's changed clothes.

Today's front page of the Daily Times was a good visual reminder that Nawaz is basically irrelevant to this whole affair. One front-page story reported on the fact that Nawaz Sharif's nomination papers for the National Assembly have been rejected (because of objections arising from his actions in response to Musharraf's 1999 coup, believe it or not). Meanwhile, immediately below that, a story reported that the US ambassador, Anne Patterson, was exhorting Nawaz not to boycott the election. Well, honey, it's not as if he has a choice in the matter, really - not when you don't allow him to run in the election to begin with! Yes, of course, his party can still run, but how ridiculous will it be that the party will be participating in elections when its top leadership, Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif (also rejected by the Election Commission), are barred from doing so?

To boycott or not to boycott?

The latest debate raging within political circles is whether or not to boycott the upcoming sham elections on January 8. Here is how I feel about the whole election exercise:

To those who argue for participating in the sham election, this is what I have to say: enough is enough. This is the least we can do, to not give legitimacy to this dictator and to fake elections engineered by the army, to produce an outcome that is desirable for the army, the general Pakistani establishment, and last but not least the USA.

Boycotting the Jan. 8 election is more than past due. We should have boycotted the 2002 elections, which were also engineered to produce a parliament that has helped enable every one of Musharraf's moves, as well as establish the bogeyman of fundamentalism, originally constructed to scare Westerners and Pakistani liberals but now real entities to themselves. Any new parliament emerging from Jan. 8 will be an even bigger joke. We can expect nothing from such a parliament, and we should demand nothing less than a real election in which there is meaningful choice and true debate. Nothing less.

Terrorism to be finished by December 16

Good news, folks. Terrorism will be vanquished, erased, defeated, eliminated, and stamped out in Pakistan by December 16. That's because that is the day that General... er, I mean Mister... Musharraf has vowed to end the "emergency" by. And of course the great rationale for imposing "emergency" was to combat terrorism. So we can deduce that the fight against terrorism will be over by December 16. Only about two more weeks. Cool.

Now, there are those who might cynically think that Musharraf's timing has more to do with his sham of an election on January 8. See, the thing is that December 15 is the last date for candidates to withdraw their nomination papers from the Fake Election Commission. So by ending martial law a day later, he's keeping the parties guessing, and even if they did want to boycott any elections held under martial law, they won't be able to do so anymore since they will be officially on the ballot by then. Psyche! Who's the clever one now?!? Wow, Mush, no one can see through this one. You've fooled everyone.

Elections to be held on time, apparently

Musharraf is apparently now agreeing to elections on the original date, i.e., mid-January. This is obviously the result of pressure from the West, especially the US. They are extremely frustrated that, having agreed to the previous farce of "transition to democracy" under which elections would be held and Benazir would be essentially anointed prime minister, they have been betrayed and Musharraf has reneged on the deal. My guess is that the West hopes that the same setup can still be installed - Musharraf as "civilian" president and Benazir as PM providing the veneer of popular legitimacy to the whole sick farce. Of course, things have changed since the entire setup was arranged, and I'm not sure all will go as the West wants. Meanwhile, of course, the "war on terror" becomes less and less likely to succeed. And the civil wars that are raging in Pakistan won't go away, Benazir or not.

Interestingly, Mush's latest announcement goes against his earlier defense of delayed elections. Ostensibly, elections had been delayed because the various assembly sessions were ending on different dates, and the Supreme Court too had been "dragging its feet" in giving a decision. Now that Mush is planning for January elections, the earlier problems have mysteriously gone away.

Elections not before February 15

Musharraf has just announced that elections will definitely not be held before February 15th. This announcement must surely be the result of George Bush's personal phone call today. At least it's better than the year's delay we were informed of earlier. My guess is that he will be forced to schedule elections for sometime in late February or perhaps March (a year from the judicial crisis). So I think my prediction earlier this year, that he won't last more than 12 months, will probably come true. Whether he leaves of his own volition, or is forced out through constitutional means, or a counter-coup of sorts, or some violent means, is anyone's guess.

Elections on or not?

There have been conflicting reports on the upcoming elections. Yesterday it seemed pretty clear that elections were postponed indefinitely. Then Shaukat Aziz said that they could be postponed for up to a year.

The latest statement from both Shaukat Aziz and Attorney General Malik Abdul Qayyum says that elections will be held as scheduled on January 15. The current assemblies will be dissolved on November 15 (as previously scheduled and required under the constitution which no longer governs us). Perhaps having secured a compliant judiciary, Musharraf feels he has finally secured his next presidential term, and Benazir must have agreed to it as well.