FACT SHEET

 

Referendum: Testimony to Illegitimate Rule of Musharraf

 

In the words of Financial Times, the referendum to extend General Pervez Musharraf's presidency by five years “has succeeded only in advertising the illegitimacy of his rule to the world”.  This assessment by an esteemed newspaper coincides with the conclusions of Pakistan Muslim League (N) and other political parties of Pakistan.

 

Notwithstanding the questionable verdict of the Supreme Court, which was only expected from a judicial forum already hamstrung by oath under PCO, a dictatorial decree of General Musharraf, all major political parties, the entire legal community and prominent newspapers of the country had declared that the referendum was an unconstitutional and uncalled for exercise.

 

Now that the way this drama has been conducted and its results, both official and real, have come to light, it will be proper to review the entire episode that some analysts have called “a farce” and some “a big joke”.  The PML had discussed the constitutional aspects of the so-called referendum, and the pre-poll rigging going on since Musharraf made the announcement on April 5 in its fact sheet released on April 25.  The facts witnessed by the people of Pakistan as well as national and international media have amply proved that the military government has embarked on a course that would lead not only to its own undoing but also to an unprecedented crisis for the country. 

 

The Operational Plan

 

General Musharraf announced his decision to hold a referendum for the extension of his rule on April 5, 2002.  But it was not a sudden decision.  It had been on his mind for at least four months.  The London Times, in an interview with General Musharraf published on January 27, 2002, reported that Musharraf was thinking of having five more years in power through a referendum, which he would have later ratified by the parliament to be elected in October.

 

Pro-government columnists promptly picked up the idea and started supporting its advisability, while the National Construction Bureau began drawing a road map towards making the referendum a success.  The operational plan thus having been completed, and a monitoring cell set up in the Chief Executive’s Secretariat, the General took his political loyalists, going by the name of PML (QA), into confidence in a meeting on March 20.  He briefed them on the measures to ensure an “overwhelming vote” in his favor, and then got a go ahead signal from a joint meeting of the National Security Council and the Federal cabinet on April 3.

 

The operational plan included setting up of an Election Commission with no independence or autonomy, and headed by a former Chief Justice of dubious reputation.  There were to be no electoral rolls, no identity cards to check validity of the voters, whose constitutional minimum age of 21 years had been reduced to 18 years, and the whole country was declared to be one constituency.

 

The Eyewash Campaign

 

The campaign that general Musharraf launched to win public support was mere eyewash, because he told a Japanese newspaper, “Nikie” on April 6 that “he wouldn’t have called for referendum if he was to lose.”  The result was not awaited, but had already been determined! Musharraf’s rallies in major towns of the country were aptly described by the world media as “rent-a-crowd” meetings, where government employees, schoolteachers and workers of public enterprises were forced to attend at the peril of losing their jobs, and public vehicles were commandeered to transport the docile audience. Provincial governors, cabinet ministers rootless political leaders, and government-control media, particularly Pakistan Television – all of them played the “me-too” role in this eyewash drama.

 

Use of police and the army was part of the operational plan. Army personnel were seen stuffing the ballot boxes at many places in Punjab, and particularly in Sindh and Balochistan.

 

According to cautious estimates, around 5 billion rupees were spent on the referendum drama.  Most of the amount was illegally used for huge colored hoardings, life-size portraits of Musharraf, banners, posters and full-page newspaper ads.  Since economic activity and revenue collection came to a standstill during the drama, the total negative impact on the national exchequer has been estimated at approximately 20 billion rupees.  Given that electing a president through referendum is a violation of the Constitution, the entire spending on this dram is a criminal act.

 

The outcome was already determined. PML (N) sources in the NRB had full knowledge of the predetermined results of polling, and PML had disclosed it in a press release on April 29 saying that the official results would show 60% plus turnout and 90% plus YES votes.  The announcement of the Election Commission on May 1 confirmed our information.

 

The way these results were achieved is now an open secret.  All genuine political parties and the entire legal community of the country have rejected the referendum and its outcome as a farce, a sham, a charade.  Government spokesmen have tried to dismiss this criticism as biased view of political opponents of the regime.  But unfortunately for the regime, the national and international media that always protects its credibility with strict adherence to truth, is recognized as such the world over and cannot be accused of political bias. That media has freely reported what actually happened on April 30.  Let us examine these factual reports:

 

Lack of Response

 

Before looking at the eyewitness accounts by the media, it is interesting to note the contradictory official statements about the turnout of voters.

 

Ninety minutes after the commencement of polling, General Musharraf declared in Rawalpindi that he had received reports of “a very good turnout”, reported Nawa-I-Waqt.

 

A little later, Punjab Governor General Khalid Maqbool admitted to Nawa-i-Waqt the turnout was low, but was certain it would increase in the afternoon.

 

Information Minister Nisar Memon claimed at a press conference “the turnout was 45 to 50 percent.” – Nation, May 02, 2002

 

Next day, Chief Election Commissioner Irshad Hasan Khan claimed 43.9 million voters had participated in polling. He declined to give a percentage because electoral lists were not used.  But observers noted that the claimed numbers were 71 percent of the total number of registered voters. – Nation, May 02, 2002

 

Contrary to these conflicting claims of official sources, impartial observers, relying on independent eyewitness accounts, reported that vast majority of polling centers in the country remained deserted, and the average turnout ranged between 5 and 10 percent, including minors and multiple voting.

 

National Media Reports

 

1. In Pakistan’s largest city Karachi, with a population of over 13 million, “low turn out was witnessed... Total vote cast according to the independent observers was much less than votes cast in the local bodies elections held last year. – The Nation, May 01, 2002
2. In the second largest city of Lahore, where about 4000 polling centers were set up, “Apart from those polling stations visited by the governor or the District Nazim, ministers and officials, the other remained deserted for most of the time during the polling hours between 9am to 7pm.” – Dawn, May 01, 2002.  However, the turnout of the people was far more in certain areas, which had been earmarked by the political parties either for the Press or TV cameras. – The Nation, May 01, 2002
   
   
3. “The visits by Dawn's correspondents to polling stations in Peshawar, Nowshera, Dera Ismail Khan, Hangu, Mardan, Mingora, Swabi, Charsadda, Kohat revealed that small number of people turn up to cast their votes at all these places.” – Dawn, May 01, 2002
4. In Quetta, provincial capital of Balochistan, “Low turnout was witnessed at the polling stations, despite all relaxations of identity for voters, amidst complete strike in the provincial capital on Tuesday, on the appeal of opposition political parties against Presidential referendum.” – The Nation, May 01, 2002
5. “In interior Sindh the voter turnout remained low as expected. Polling stations gave a deserted look. The same was the situation in NWFP.” – The Nation, May 01, 2002
6. “The voters turnout remained low in twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad during the presidential referendum as people showed little enthusiasm in casting their votes on Tuesday. In Islamabad, only a few people were seen casting their votes during the visits paid by this reporter at various polling stations.” – Dawn, May 01, 2002
7. “In Punjab, the only signs of life were at stations where the governor of Punjab, Khalid Maqbool, was accompanied by a group of foreign correspondents. More than 80 per cent of centers were said to be deserted. Even in Gujrat, a stronghold of pro-Musharraf group, a turnout of just 20 per cent was reported.” – Dawn, May 01, 2002
8. In Sambrial, a lady councilor stamped a full copy of ballot papers. Polling station in Mandy Bahauddin and Lalamusa gave a deserted look while Kharian Cantonment, Kathiala Sheikhan and Phalia reported to have a brisk voting. The residents of Pasrur did not take any interest in referendum. Ding and Jalalpur Jattan polling stations also gave a deserted look. – The Nation, May 01, 2002
9. The turnout at the polling stations was quite thin in Multan city and other parts of district as well as other districts of South Punjab including Khanewal, Lodhran. Vehari, Pakpattan, Sahiwal, Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar, Rahimyar Khan, Muzaffargarh, Layyah and Rajanpur. – The Nation, May 01, 2002
10. The turnout at the polling stations was quite thin in Multan city and other parts of district as well as other districts of South Punjab including Khanewal, Lodhran. Vehari, Pakpattan, Sahiwal, Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar, Rahimyar Khan, Muzaffargarh, Layyah and Rajanpur. – The Nation, May 01, 2002

11.The overall national scene could be different. But cities, towns and villages of the two districts of upper Sindh, Shikarpur and Jacobabad, which this correspondent wandered about on Tuesday, have let the referendum day pass with virtual indifference. Most polling stations remained yawning under the scorching sun. There also were some booths, especially the ones reserved for women, where not a single voter came to stamp the ballot, at least till fairly late in the afternoon. The official spin doctors get very upset if journalists try to quantify the trends they witness. Yet, this scribe is compelled to state that best of the rosy counts may not be able to stretch the percentage of voters beyond 15 per cent in these two districts of upper Sindh. – Renowned columnist Nusrat Javeed in The News, May 01, 2002

12. According to news agency reports from around the country said the polling stations were deserted except government offices, where voter lines were seen.  Quetta observed a complete strike.  There was no strike in other towns, but no extraordinary traffic was observed.  Vehicles hired by pro-Musharraf politicians were running empty.  In Sahiwal, policemen were active in rounding up pedestrians and forcing them to cast votes. – Nawa-I-Waqt, May 01, 2002
13. Punjab Governor, Gen. Khalid Maqbool, visiting a polling station in Multan, asked a man standing there how the polling was going. “Everything is all right, sir,” came the reply.  Asked for his identity, the man told the governor he was an army major.  The governor said, “you were right to say that.” – Nawa-I-Waqt, May 01, 2002

14. Less than 400 Pakistanis living in the greater Washington area bothered to vote in the referendum on Tuesday. The area is generally believed to be home to about 50,000 Pakistanis, but it is unclear how many of them are still Pakistani citizens.
The Pakistan embassy here was declared as a polling station, and when daylong voting ended, 269 people had cast their votes. In addition, 120 postal ballots were received, and the yes vote was said to total 353. Four ballot papers were declared invalid.
The number of votes cast should be seen as including embassy personnel, believed to number nearly 80, most of who were said to have taken part in the balloting… The Pakistan Consulate in Los Angeles reported an extremely poor turnout in the referendum on whether to give military ruler Gen Musharraf five more years as president, writes Our Correspondent from Los Angeles.
The consulate, which handles 17 states, including California and Texas, where around 100,000 Pakistanis live, had reported a total of just 363 votes, including 91 through postal ballots and 272 from polling booths, official sources told Dawn... Gen Pervez Musharraf has scored a landslide victory in his referendum in Greater Toronto Area (GTA) on Wednesday, writes Our Correspondent from Toronto. Though the turnout was very low, the percentage of yes vote was high. Out of the population of nearly 100,000 Pakistani Canadians in GTA and adjoining areas, only 926 people turned out to take part in the referendum. Of the total votes cast, 901 favored Musharraf to stay in power and 22 voted against him, a polling agent said after the counting on Tuesday night. He said three votes were rejected. – Dawn, May 02, 2002

15. In Lahore, where General Pervez Musharraf launched his referendum campaign, people showed little interest.  Baring government offices, only a few person appeared at the polling stations.  Punjab’s second largest city, Faisalabad, presented the same scenes.  In small towns, people had no time for the polling. They were busy in looking after their crops… A report from Islamabad says that wives of Farooq Leghari, Imran Khan and Tahiru Qadri – ardent supporters of Pervez Musharraf – did not bother to cast their votes…. According to independent surveys, voter turn out was 3.53% in Hyderabad division, 5% in Sukker division, 3.77% in Larkana and 5.71% in the Mirpur Khas division. – Daily Kawish (sindhi), Hyderabad, May 01, 2002.
16. 80 percent polling stations throughout the country remained deserted.  The government expected 25 percent turnout, but independent observers say not more than 10 percent votes were cast.  Five million government employees were ordered to cast YES votes.  In Jacobabad, people caught polling staff stuffing the ballot boxes. – Daily Koshish (sindhi), Hyderabad, May 01, 2002
17. People of Sindh did not take any interest in the referendum.  The turnout was between 10 and 15 percent. In many towns policemen stopped vehicles and forced the passengers to cast votes. – Daily Tameer (sindhi), Hyderabad, May 01, 2002

 

International Media Reports

 

1.      As far as reporters around Pakistan could tell, almost nobody voted no. Instead, Pakistanis stayed away from the polls in protest or apathy — as many as 75 percent of them, according to the information minister, Nisar Memon…In three weeks of campaigning and on voting day today, General Musharraf and his men have been cranking their pump mightily, but the well of support and enthusiasm has seemed shallow.

It appeared that people who turned out in heaviest numbers were those who felt they had little choice: soldiers, government employees and civil servants who cast their ballots in boxes that had been set up conspicuously at their work places. In Hyderabad, according to a local report, the only crowded polling station was at the Nara Prison, where 3,500 votes were cast. – New York Times, May 01, 2002

2.      Early returns showed Musharraf assured of a lopsided victory, which was never in doubt. With just over 1 million votes counted early this morning, 98 percent were for Musharraf's continued tenure in office.

Less clear was the crucial question of voter turnout. Opposition groups had urged a boycott, hoping for a replay of the feebly attended 1984 plebiscite that embarrassed another military ruler.

Musharraf, who overthrew a democratically elected government in 1999 in a bloodless coup d'etat, has said he would be pleased with a turnout near 30 percent, just below the participation rate in Pakistan's most recent parliamentary elections.

Before counting began Tuesday night, Information Minister Nisar Memon lowered the target, saying "turnout of 25 percent and above will represent widespread public support for the president's economic and political reforms in the interests of the country." – Washington Post, May 01, 2002

      3.   Hussain Naqi of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, which carried out      the most comprehensive independent monitoring of the polling, said voluntary participation was no more than five per cent of eligible voters in Lahore, and three per cent and five per cent in Karachi. There were no international monitors. -- Wall Street Journal, May 01, 2002

 

Ballot Box Stuffing

 

The regime was already aware of the fact that, in addition to “vocal minority”, the “silent majority” of the Pakistani citizens would follow the opposition’s call for boycott of the sham referendum due to the regime’s record poor performance in all fields. Arrangements, therefore, had been made to stuff the ballot boxes with bogus votes after the polling.  Incontrovertible evidence of this practice continues to come to light.

 

1. “At several places the councilors and chosen supervisors of election stamped ballots. At one station an assistant professor (presiding officer) was beaten up for resisting stuffing of ballot boxes.” – Dawn, May 01, 2002
2. One presiding officer in Lahore reported only 31 votes had been polled at his center, but in the evening “a police officer ordered the polling staff to stuff the boxes with 50 ballots each.”  Another presiding officer wrote in his letter to the editor that only 149 voters had turned up to cast vote, but  “under police pressure, we had to raise the number of votes to 1228.” Both declined to reveal their identity “for fear of losing government job.” – Daily Nawa-I-Waqt, May 03, 2002
3. In the tribal areas of Landi Kotal, Bara and Jamrud, where women strictly follow the tradition of remaining at home during elections, official results were cited saying: “In all, 12,014 women voters used their right to franchise in the Landi Kotal tehsil. In Bara and Jamrud areas, more than 10,000 women cast their votes.” – Dawn, May 03, 2002
4. At a polling station at Sanda, a councilor was seen issuing identification certificates (required for casting of vote if ID card is not available) even to the children of 10/12 year. It was witnessed by The Nation that some children were buying Kulfis and Ice balls from the vendors standing near the polling station at Sanda. The children came to the Councilor and desired to cast their votes. The Councilor issued them attested identification certificates and moved them towards the polling station. All of them returned happy after casting their votes in support of General Pervez Musharraf. 
   It was also witnessed on the same time that Presiding Officer of that polling station came out and requested the Councilor not to issue the attested certificates to all the children but only to those who give an apparent look at least of a student of matric class. – The Nation, May 01, 2002
5. Lahore traffic police set up polling booths at road crossings, and forced passengers of every passing vehicle to cast votes.  Similar arrangements were made at Bahawalpur, Faisalabad and Gujranwala. At one check post in Gujranwala, the traffic cops had collected 1200 votes by 2 p.m. – Insaf, May 01, 2002
6. While total inmate population of the 29 prisons in Punjab province stands at 75,913, the official vote count in these institutions has been 80,827. –Daily Pakistan, May 02, 2002
7. In Karachi, staff at most of the polling stations openly marked the ballots with YES and stuffed the boxes.  Identity check of voters was dropped at dozens of stations, while pro-Musharraf political workers indulged in multiple voting.  Many polling stations were not supplied with indelible ink to mark the voters to prevent multiple voting. – Daily Ummat, May 01, 2002
8. Reuters journalists saw evidence of public sector workers being pressured to vote          in an apparent effort to bolster the turnout, and, in one instance, saw ballot boxes being stuffed by officials and local government officers. – Financial Times, May 01, 2002

 

Multiple Voting

 

In the absence of electoral rolls and proper procedure to check identity of the voters, there was no way to prevent multiple voting.

 

1. Opposition feared that the lack of an electoral roll would lead to multiple voting or ballot stuffing appeared to be justified as many voters openly queued up time and again to make their marks.
   At one station a woman claimed to have cast her vote no less than 60 times, while schoolgirls aged well under the qualifying 18 years were seen voting at another.
   Student Javed Ahmed, 17, said he cast his ballot twice at two different stations in the southwestern province of Balochistan. "I took the risk just for fun and they did not even ask for my National Identity Card or any other document," he said.
   Nawaz Bhutto said he paid several visits to different polling centers in the Lyari district, despite "indelible" ink marks made on his fingers to stop multiple voting. "I voted eight times as it was not very difficult to remove the ink. It was really fun," he said. AFP/Reuters – Dawn, May 01, 2002
2. In Islamabad, “This reporter witnessed around 80 women voters casting multiple votes at different polling stations before they were served with Biryani and finally dropped at their residences.” – Dawn, May 01, 2002
3. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan: “The voters marshaled by local councilors enjoyed the freedom to vote as many times as they wished. In one compound there were 11 polling stations and many cast their voters at each of them. The polling stations were arranged in clusters obviously to facilitate multiple voting. At many places ink was not applied to voters' thumbs and in any event the dye did not prove to be indelible.”  – Dawn, May 01, 2002
4. Under the directives of the higher authorities, employees of different departments have cast their votes twice or thrice during the presidential referendum which received a poor public response in Gujrat.  Sources said intelligence agencies had already informed the government that political parties, including PML (Q) leaders, had failed to mobilize the people for referendum. Local heads of several departments directed their subordinates to cast multiple votes as the agencies had hinted at low turnout, they said. – Dawn, May 02, 2002
5. The BBC correspondent said he also saw some irregularities in Lahore. He said he saw some people voting twice and there were indications this also happened elsewhere in the country as well. – The Nation, May 01, 2002

 

Comment & Analysis

 

1. Renowned columnist M. A. Niazi writes under the title “Anticlimax after hoopla” in The Nation, May 01, 2002: “After all the hoopla, the President’s 21 days of hectic campaigning, addressing public rallies and councillors’ gatherings, receiving delegations, addressing the nation twice and holding one press conference, the 2002 referendum ended in an anticlimax of deserted polling booths.
The result is a foregone conclusion, that President Pervez Musharraf will win big, and therefore, as a consequence, become President until October/November 2007, but the credibility of the exercise is dubious. This is not to say that the election was rigged in any organized way, but the balloting was so loosely controlled by the polling staff, who were voter-friendly to the extent of allowing multiple voting and without asking any embarrassing questions about identification, that any count they make, in the absence of independent observers, cannot be taken seriously.”

 

2. HRCP director I. A. Rehman in Dawn, May 01, 2002: “The freedom to vote wherever you are - near the home, at workplace, at bus stand or at the railway station - is a great experience. A contingent came in two buses from Okara to cast their votes at a Mozang Chungi polling station in Lahore, because the local Nazim wanted to show how popular he was in his tribe. The enterprise yielded other benefits too. The folks had a free ride to Lahore, plus a meal and opportunities of seeing more than one polling station. The turnout in Lahore city also went up. All glory to the provincial capital.
However, in this polling questions about turnout are irrelevant. Since those entitled to vote included many whose names do not appear on the voting list, nobody has a clear idea of the size of electorate. Which means you cannot figure out what percentage of voters came to the polling station. The number of voters assigned to a polling station did not matter, whatever the number of people turning up there, the figure could be assumed to be high.”  

 

3. From editorial titled ‘Beyond the Referendum’ in The Nation, May 02, 2002: “Estimates on voter turnout differ from five per cent to the Election Commission's unofficial result showing close to 50 per cent, but independent observers who visited polling stations in major cities generally described participation as dismal. This should make the government ponder the capacity of its allies to rally the voters. Many stalls set up by political organizations supporting General Musharraf remained empty. The Councillors and Nazims also did not exert themselves as much as they had to win their own seats.
This should also make the government realize that the mainstream parties, which had boycotted can rightfully claim that the elections still have large vote banks despite the prolonged and vehement propaganda campaign against their leaders. The unusual discrepancy between what many independent observers saw with their own eyes on Tuesday and the official turnout figures would lend credence to reports in local newspapers and foreign electronic media of widespread bogus voting. The perception building is that this referendum was no more credible than that of Zia's. It should also dispel the impression that the President has any large vote bank at his disposal.”

 

4. From editorial titled ‘After Referendum’ in Dawn, May 02, 2002: The effects of Tuesday's referendum will cast their shadow across Pakistan's political landscape for quite some time. The task before President Musharraf now is to prove by his actions that his victory would tend to strengthen democracy and lead Pakistan towards political stability and economic growth. With so many powers already in his hands, and more to be acquired through the proposed constitutional amendments, there is a danger that, instead of checks and balances, we may have a situation in which the president will have all the powers for himself.
In such a scenario there is no guarantee that the interests of civil society will be upheld, since the National Security Council, too, will be heavily dominated by the military. There is, thus, the possibility that the elected civilian leadership, instead of being responsive to the people's urges, may succumb to pressures from the military, which may tend to see a given issue in a different light.

5. Commentator Mayed Ali in The News, May 02, 2002: “The lifeless election process on April 30 must have given the Musharraf government some food for thought on what it lacks in changing the political anatomy of the country through October general elections.

It was, perhaps, the last clear warning to "not-so-political" minded rulers, suggesting some soul-searching exercise vis-à-vis the political base they need for politicizing themselves. It was a most important and crucial event to transform a general into a popularly elected leader. Whatever the reason, it was awful and embarrassing for the government. The managers of the referendum campaign and the visionaries of the Musharraf's political career, who have been toying with weird ideas for fetching the much-desired political base for the president, have been given another chance to come up with a workable solution in this regard.

If President Pervez Musharraf aspires to rule over hearts of the people through his work and performance rather than the government machinery and the so-called "popular" political leadership, orbiting around him at the moment, he compulsively needs for rethinking a political strategy to win real political support.

It must have dawned on the president that his self-styled political configuration, having some role in future politics of this country, will always lack a real base.”

 

6. From the editorial titled ‘Tasks for President’ in The News, May 02, 2002: … the result of this referendum must not be taken for granted as representing the vast will of the people because the manner in which the exercise was held does not provide any accuracy as to the percentage of votes involved. Although the single constituency without voters lists and a very large number of polling stations facilitated the voters, it affected the basic norms that ensured the reliability of polls. Another interesting point to note is that just as the political parties failed to fulfill the promises they have made, similarly military governments have proved unsuccessful in completing the task they had vowed to undertake when they acquired power. At times they undid whatever little good work they had done before returning to barracks or failed to structure their reforms on firm foundations, which resulted in creating more instability. In this respect, this government too departed from the principles it had set during the referendum campaign, which distracted it from its agenda. There was unnecessary official expenditure on the referendum, complaints were received of impounding of public vehicles which harassed commuters, important meetings were postponed, etc, all of which worked against the credibility of the government.  

 

7. Contributing editor Farhan Bokhari writes under the title, ‘Musharraf's indefensibility’ in The News, May 02, 2002: “Notwithstanding the official claims of a large turnout on referendum day as the 'silent majority' stepped out of their homes to vote for Pervez Musharraf, the General president, the outcome of the latest controversial exercise in the country's chequered political history appears to have become mired in some disrepute.

In sharp contrast to the visibly thin appearances at a number of polling stations, official claims of a larger turnout with some claiming up to 60 per cent in Islamabad, appear to be already suspect… the worst of the unsavory regime surrounding the campaign trail must have occurred on the D-day, when the government backed 'Nazim' promptly used public transport to carry supporters to vote. Who eventually paid the bills for the substantial referendum expense ranging from the suspect faces on posters, including some previous guests of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), to other costs of the campaign, remains a matter shrouded in mystery.

The eventual lesson for General Musharraf is only and significantly one. He must acutely confront the question of his own indefensibility in dealing with the growing controversy surrounding his campaign, not only essential to stop his image from further tarnish but also to respond to his opponents who are capable of eventually stirring up a storm if their activism continues unabated.

 

8. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at his regular afternoon briefing that the US had seen the figures released about the polling and the voter turnout in the referendum, but there really was no means of independent verification of the figures. – Dawn, May 02, 2002

 

9. CNN's Mike Chinoy reports that low voter turnout may taint the Pakistan president's overwhelming victory in a referendum that keeps him in power for five more years. – CNN, May 02, 2002

 

10. From editorial titled ‘Pakistan’s Dubious Referendum’ in New York Times, May 01, 2002: “To no one's surprise, Gen. Pervez Musharraf almost certainly won a rigged referendum in Pakistan yesterday awarding him another five years as president. Even less surprising, the general's aides proclaimed the results a vote of confidence. But either out of indifference or protest, most Pakistanis declined to participate in an election that was preceded by curbs on dissent. The balloting has actually diminished General Musharraf's stature and he must now take aggressive steps to restore democracy with a vigorously contested parliamentary election, due in October.”  

 

11. Karl Vick reports from Islamabad for Washington Post, May 02, 2002: “…legions of skeptics said the reported turnout was inflated by widespread coercion, vote rigging and the stifling of opposition. Some expressed fear that Musharraf would view the outcome as a strong mandate when, in their view, the opposite was true.

Analysts described the referendum as the worst political mistake of Musharraf's tenure, saying the heavy-handed campaign cost the straight-talking, gentlemanly career officer much of the goodwill he has accumulated during 30 months in office, especially from his efforts to reform Pakistan's bloated government and to reduce endemic corruption.

"This was not even a litmus test -- one never expected him to do things like this [referendum]," said Najam Sethi, editor of the Friday Times, a popular weekly. "He's gone and done it, and done it in such a bad way.

"If this is a taste of what is to come, then I think we are headed for trouble." –

 

12. From editorial titled ‘No, Sir’ in Financial Times, May 02, 2002: “This week's referendum in Pakistan to extend General Pervez Musharraf's presidency by five years has succeeded only in advertising the illegitimacy of his rule to the world. Gen Musharraf came to power by a military coup in October 1999 and grabbed the presidency last year by elbowing aside the constitutionally elected incumbent.

Tuesday's vote on what must surely rank as one of the most loaded questions in electoral history was a sham made even worse by widespread allegations of vote-rigging… Gen Musharraf intends to change the constitution to give himself the power to dismiss the government. He will also set up a supervisory national security council - in effect institutionalizing the role of the military before a civilian government takes office.

In any event, the October elections are likely only to throw up a fragmented government that will be easily manipulated by means of the general's patronage. Pakistan's institutional development will be stunted once again… if Pakistan's history of military rule is any guide, Gen Musharraf's regime will grow steadily more corrupt and irresponsible, unchecked by any real mechanisms of accountability. The general would have been better advised to put his constitutional changes to a referendum before standing in a contested presidential election himself.”

 

            13. From Time Magazine: “The low turnout for Tuesday’s referendum is a thunderous slap on the face of Pervez Musharraf… By definition, dictators have no shame, so it would be unreasonable to expect Musharraf to recognize that he has been hoist by his own petard.  Indeed, even before the votes were in, his spin-doctors, anticipating the outcome, were scrambling to make excuses.  Referendums “always” yield low turnouts, they said, disingenuously, and the fact that most Pakistanis didn’t vote only meant that they were happy with the status quo.  That is the dictator’s definition of democracy: people show their approval by NOT voting for you!”

 

            14. From editorial titled ‘A Loss in Win’ in Los Angeles Times: “One of the better photographs to emerge from what Pakistan is trying to pass off a legitimate referendum was of a billboard drawing of President Pervez Musharraf on a horseback. Ah yes, the age-old portrait of the man on horse, riding in to save the nation.  The image may be heroic, but the campaign for his self-called referendum on his pres9dency was not.  Gen. Musharraf diminished himself in this effort to gain five more years as president… Only Musharraf appeared on the ballot in a yes or no vote he was certain to win.  Even so, ballots were by all accounts rigged to inflate the turnout and margin of approval.”

 

            15. From The Economist under the title ‘An Empty Victory’: “As bogus political exercises go, this one was a corker.  The poll was conducted without the benefit of an electoral register, identity cards were not obligatory and the usual polling stations were supplemented by tens of thousands of makeshift extra ones: in railway stations, offices, on street corners, in hotels.  Business and government outfits were leant on heavily to ensure that all their employees voted.  Oodles of government money was lavished on plastering the country with posters of the general in a startling variety of outfits and on festooning the main streets with bearing such sentiments as “We love Pakistan.  We love Pervez Musharraf”… The government was claiming a figure of more than 50%, which no one outside it fids remotely credible.  Reporters found polling station after polling station all but deserted.  At one, in a junior school in Lahore, only one woman and seven men had voted by late afternoon.”

 

            16. From the Economist Intelligence Unit under the title ‘Musharraf’s Rigged Election’: “Pakistan’s president, General Musharraf, won a new five-year term of office on April 30 in a referendum that was by most accounts massively fraudulent.  The victory enhances general Musharraf’s control of Pakistan’s institutions, but the level of manipulation reveals a growing weakness in his government and diminishes, rather than enhances, his legitimacy as president…. Indeed, the referendum itself was clearly unconstitutional.  Under Pakistani law, presidents are selected by parliament after a general election.  Pakistan’s next election is set for October, but the Economist Intelligence Unit believes General Musharraf was not confident that he would win another term from members of parliament.  To pre-empt that vote, he staged the April 30^th referendum.”

 

            17. From Wall Street Journal under the title ‘Redefining the Regime’: “If official results are to be believed, Pakistan’s military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf won a respectable mandate in Tuesday’s stage-managed referendum.  But he lost a lot more in the bargain.  The results, including figures of voter turnout, are mired in controversy.  Instead of conferring legitimacy on him, the referendum has increased instability in a country considered a key ally in the war against terrorism…. Before the referendum, Gen. Musharraf presented himself as a military ruler with a difference.  But by seeking a five-year term through the discredited device of an uncontested referendum, he invites comparison with previous military regimes.  Each of Pakistan’s military rulers has befriended U.S. in the hope of maintaining power at home and balancing India’s military superiority.  Their repressive domestic policies have been accompanied by a belligerent anti-India posture, often couched in Islamic terms.  In his referendum campaign, Gen. Musharraf let it be known he is not going to be an exception.”

 

            18. From editorial titled ‘People Show Interest in Referendum’ in Daily Ausaf: “Reports about polling around the country indicate that the people did not show any interest in the polling.  The polling stations remained deserted, yet the PTV continued to report that the voters were very enthusiastic. While the PTV commentator repeated the news like a parrot, the camera shots showed the people standing in lines with boredom writ large on their faces, strengthening the impression that they forced to participate.”

 

            19. From an analytical report in Daily Jasarat: “At 4 p.m. the election commission announced that 45 million votes had been cast in favor of General Musharraf at the 84 thousand polling stations, but at the same moment, PTV was announcing that the General had got 37 million votes. Why the difference of 8 million votes? No one had the answer.”