Pakistan Vote: Against Musharraf Or For Opposition?

Many commentators in Pakistan and the World are in overdrive talking about mandates and profound meanings of the February 18 vote in Pakistan. Some are claiming it is a mandate to restore an independent judiciary, media and democracy while others are talking about it as rejection Musharraf's pro-US policies, "extremism" and "war on terror" etc.
In my humble opinion, there is a far simpler explanation for it: People voted in a predictable way based on the issues that affect them directly on a daily basis. These issues are the basic bread and butter issues such as the availability of cheap atta (wheat flour), more reliable supply of fuel and electricity and improved sense of security. Overall macro-economic improvements, significant growth in GDP, per capita income, explosion in mass media etc over the last 8 years did not count for much as people voted.
The reason I call it "predictable" is because all humans want their basic physiological and safety needs met before they turn their attention to higher level issues of civil society, liberty and realization of full potential. In fact, this is something all managers dealing with people routinely learn as "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" in management training so they can get better at motivating the people they manage.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology that Abraham Maslow proposed in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation", which he subsequently extended to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity. The diagram above shows that most Pakistani voters were operating at the two lower levels of the pyramid in their decision to punish the ruling party. This conclusion is further re-enforced when you look at how the results of the IRI (International Republican Institute) opinion polls changed from September 2006 to January 2008. According to an IRI poll in September 2006, Musharraf had a 63 percent approval rating. But last October 11, IRI released a poll showing him at 21 percent. By late January 2008, Musharraf's approval rating plummeted to 14%. What happened in this intervening period that affected people directly: It was increase in suicide bombings following Lal Masjid, the wheat flour price hike and shortage, serious electricity load-shedding and brown-outs, the firing of the chief justice, his restoration and then re-firing, and Benazir Bhutto's assassination. While each contributed to the drop in Musharraf's approval, the biggest drop came between November 2007 and January 2008 with the food, fuel, electricity crises intensifying and Benazir Bhutto assassination. The final straw came when people directly felt the full impact of the food, the fuel, the power and the security issues. In the end, it was clearly a vote to punish the ruling party of PML-Q and Musharraf rather than to give any mandate to the PPP and and the PML(N).
The fact that MMA, who ruled NWFP and Baluchistan, suffered the same fate further illustrates the fact that the people voted to punish those in charge. It was "Throw The Rascals Out" votes cast in anger and protest all over the country.
The winners will probably get a very short honeymoon period before people start demanding quick resolution to their basic concerns with food and fuel prices and security. Given the worldwide commodity price inflation and the worsening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan's FATA region, the new government faces very difficult challenges as soon as it takes charge. If the winners choose to focus on settling scores with Musharraf and other political opponents rather than attend to the real bread, butter and security issues, they will quickly lose the support of the people who have elected them.

Musharraf Delivers Free, Fair, Peaceful Polls

People of Pakistan have spoken and handed a resounding defeat to the ruling coalition. The results of Pakistan Elections 2008 indicate that President Pervez Musharraf has delivered on his promise of free, fair and peaceful polls. Sen Tariq Azim and Mr. Shujaat Chaudhry of PML(Q) have both graciously accepted the outcome and indicated their readiness to sit in the Opposition. Musharraf has indicated he is ready to work with the winners. These are history making events for Pakistan.

Another important development is the lackluster performance of religious parties in sharp contrast to the 2002 election held in the aftermath of the US bombing in Afghanistan. There is clearly "Mullah Fatigue" in the NWFP which was until recently ruled by the MMA, the religious party alliance. This vote should set to rest any fears of pro-Taleban, Pro- Al-Qaeda religious extremists taking control of Pakistan.

The leaders of PPP and PML(N), the victorious parties, deserve to be congratulated. However, as they celebrate these wins, they must prepare for the serious challenges ahead. They must not be vengeful. They must show grace in accepting the responsibilities the nation has placed on them. They should reassure all Pakistanis, their supporters and those who voted against them, that they will work for the benefit of the entire nation. They must demonstrate they have learned from their past mistakes when each got a chance to run the country twice. They must not engage in corruption that marred their previous terms in office. They should not seek confrontation with Musharraf, the military and their opposition parties in Parliament. They must sincerely pursue building democratic institutions without derailing the economy that has experienced robust growth for the last five years.
I sincerely hope the PPP and the PML(N) will set aside their differences and not throw a third chance to help build Pakistan into a powerful, democratic and prosperous nation.

Illegal Immigration From India Jumps 125 Percent

There are an estimated 270,000 illegal Indian immigrants in the United States, according to 2006 figures from the US Department of Homeland Security. With 125% percent increase from 2000 to 2006, India represents the fastest growing source of illegal immigrants to the United States, reports San Jose Mercury News, a major Silicon Valley newspaper. In absolute numbers, Central and South American nations account for the bulk of the estimated 11.5 million illegals, with India a distant second with 270,000 in 2006.



The vast majority of the estimated 2.5m Indians in the United States are legal immigrants with about a half of them with citizenship status. Highly educated with many in professionals such as doctors and engineers, Indians are a very affluent ethnic group whose median household income is 62% higher than the national average.

The top three geographies with the highest concentrations of Indians in the US are San Francisco Bay Area at number 1, New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area at number 2 and Chicago at number 3.

As the demand for high-tech workers in Silicon Valley has grown, so has the influx of Indians on H-1B visas. At 44%, Indians accounted for the lion's shares of H1B visas in 2005-06, five times the number from the second-place Chinese.

The estimated number of people of Pakistani origin in the United States is about 500,000. The top three geographies are NY/NJ/CT tri-state area, Chicago metropolitan area and Southern California. Pakistani Americans are the sixth largest Asian American ethnic group after Chinese, Filipinos, Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans, and Japanese communities. The demographics and socio-economic status of Pakistanis in the United States are quite similar to Indians'. Pakistan does not show up in the list of top 10 countries of origin for legal or illegal immigration to the United States.

New York Times estimate of 109,000 Pakistani-born American workers' occupations include salesmen, managers or administrators, drivers, doctors and accountants as the top five categories.

Kosovo: A New Muslim State Is Born In Europe

As Kosovo-a small, pro-West, secular and mostly Muslim state of 2 million people dominated by ethnic Albanians- declared its independence on February 18, the moment was pregnant with history. It reminded the world, in particular the Serbs and the Turks, of the Battle of Kosovo fought here in 1389, which pitted Prince Lazar of Serbia against Sultan Murad I of the Ottoman Empire both of whom lost their lives in this epic battle. Prince Lazar

In the end, the Turks prevailed and thus began five centuries of Turkish domination of the Serbs. While the Serbs claim Kosovo as the birthplace of the Serbian identity, the ethnic Albanians claim they are descendants of Ilyrians, Kosovo's first known inhabitants.
As the Kosovars celebrate their independence, they face many challenges beyond the weight of history.

Sultan Murad I


While they enjoy the backing of the United States and European Union, the Russians and the Serbs are irrevocably opposed to their unilateral declaration of independence. Kosovo suffered greatly under the Serb rule and it remains the poorest region of the former Yugoslavia, it inherits a shoddy infrastructure; a population of about two million, half under the age of 25; an unemployment rate above 50 percent; and a tax system that depends on custom duties for 60 percent of receipts. From roads and housing to schools, you name it and Kosovo needs it. Electricity production is so erratic, lights go out in the capital several times a day, while some villages have no electricity at all.

The good news for Kosovo is that the US and the major EU nations have recognized the new nation and indicated their willingness to help in rebuilding it. The World Bank has sponsored plans for a new power station fueled by Kosovo's plentiful lignite coal deposits. Four U.S. and European companies have submitted bids. The new plant, which will cost as much as $4 billion, won't be operational until 2014, however. The project's second phase, which would generate revenue by selling energy to neighboring countries, isn't scheduled to come on line until 2018.

While Kosovars have made great sacrifices to achieve independence, the hard work has just begun for them to build their nation's institutions and economy to emerge as a viable nation. Given their determination as demonstrated recently, I believe the Kosovars, with some help from the world, are quite capable of dealing with these challenges.

All Hell Will Break Loose

On the eve of the voting in Pakistan, someone responded on Facebook to my post Pakistan Election Rigging 101 as follows: "All Hell Will Break Loose" tomorrow. As much as I would like to disagree with this comment, the history of elections in Pakistan makes me pause and ponder on it. Regardless of whether the elections are free and fair, there is usually trouble in the aftermath. The general elections of 1970, held under the military regime of General Yahya Khan, were widely believed as free and fair. However, there was serious trouble and Pakistan lost its eastern wing resulting in the creation of Bangladesh. The elections organized by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 were generally accepted as flawed and caused widespread rioting leading to military takeover by General Ziaul Haq who executed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. So the lesson is that Pakistan has a checkered history of general elections. And there is mounting concern, given the opposition leaders' threats of mass protests if the results are not favorable to them. Such protests invariably descend into major rioting, widespread chaos and violence on the streets. Recently, I wrote a blog post titled "What If Pakistan Opinion Polls Are Wrong?". This post outlined the possibility that the opinion polls like the IRI's may be wrong based on the limitations and the history of such polls. But the key reason was to warn my readers and Pakistanis at large to use caution in assuming that the results of the general elections would just exactly reflect the findings of the latest IRI poll. I felt it is particularly important to point to the flaws because the potential for widespread violence and mass casualties in the aftermath of the February 18 elections is so great that anything anyone can do to minimize it is worthwhile. Since I wrote this piece, Wall Street Journal has published the details of the recent flawed polls in the US Presidential primaries. I reproduce this Wall Street Journal article by Carl Bialik as follows:

In the month leading up to last week's delegate-rich California primary, at least a dozen polling firms canvassed the state, collectively calling tens of thousands of households.

Political junkies tracking television, newspaper and online coverage of the voting also heard the names of two main providers of polling data that didn't place a single call: Real Clear Politics and Pollster.com. Both are mashing up surveys from various sources this election year to produce composite numbers meant to smooth out aberrant results. Their methods are criticized by statisticians, but their numbers are embraced by news organizations eager for a way to make sense of conflicting polls.

Numbers from Real Clear Politics, which has been averaging polls since the 2002 congressional races, are used regularly on Fox News, MSNBC's "Hardball," and the Web sites of CBS News and the Washington Post. Pollster, which started combining polls in 2006 and attempts a more complicated mix than a straight average, is featured on Slate and the political Web site, Talking Points Memo.

Stirring disparate pollsters in one pot has its critics. "That's dangerous." says Michael Traugott, professor at the University of Michigan, and author of a recent guide to election polls. "I don't believe in this technique."

Among the pitfalls: Polls have different sample sizes, yet in the composite, those with more respondents are weighted the same. They are fielded at different times, some before respondents have absorbed the results from other states' primaries. They cover different populations, especially during primaries when turnout is traditionally lower. It's expensive to reach the target number of likely voters, so some pollsters apply looser screens. Also, pollsters apply different weights to adjust for voters they've missed. And wording of questions can differ, which makes it especially tricky to count undecided voters. Even identifying these differences isn't easy, as some of the included polls aren't adequately footnoted.

Mark Blumenthal, a former Democratic pollster and co-founder of Pollster.com, admits that combining different polls violates "a rule we were taught at pollster school." The site attempts to address concerns over using older polls by giving more weight to the latest ones.

John McIntyre, co-founder of Real Clear Politics, says that averaging polls is better than cherry-picking individual ones, which is what campaigns might do to highlight numbers favoring their candidate, or journalists might do to create the impression of a close race. He requires at least three polls before producing an average. His site's numbers, he says, provide "a clearer picture of where things truly stand."

Combining polls isn't perfect, adds Mr. Blumenthal, but "let's hope that by combining them we're getting some better version of the truth."

A case in point is the Reuters/Zogby poll completed a day before last week's California primary showing Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state, 49% to 36%. That day, SurveyUSA had Sen. Clinton ahead by 10 points -- her eventual winning margin. (Zogby blames an underestimate of the Hispanic vote and an overestimate of the African-American vote.) Still, the composite numbers produced by Pollster and Real Clear Politics showed a close race where one didn't exist.

But then, SurveyUSA had Sen. Clinton ahead by 11 points in Missouri, a state Sen. Obama narrowly won. Zogby had Sen. Obama up by three points. Noting that the Associated Press initially called Missouri for Sen. Clinton as election results came in, SurveyUSA President Jay Leve says, "Missouri is a tough state." The Pollster and Real Clear Politics combined polls did correctly depict a close race.

Jeff Jones, managing editor of the Gallup Poll, complains that some of his competitors use more-careful methodologies than others. "So, the firms that attempt to do things the right way are treated as no better than the ones that use less-accepted methods," he says.

The problem is identifying that best poll. Pollsters tend to do well here, badly there. "There are 50 almost uniquely different state systems," says Mack Shelley, an Iowa State University political scientist. "You almost have to have a poll that's right for each particular state or region."

"There's no single best pollster who always gets all the races right," says Charles Franklin, professor at the University of Wisconsin and co-developer of Pollster.com. He says even the best poll occasionally misses the result by a few points or more, thanks to statistical sampling error. Pollster and Real Clear Politics could bolster their case by comparing their numbers directly against those from individual polling firms in terms of election accuracy, a step neither has taken.

Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, embodies the conflict many pollsters feel about the averages. "The average of good and bad polls could be worse than just looking at the best available single poll," he says. However, Mr. Keeter adds, "I confess to looking at the averages myself."

Mr. Blumenthal says visitors to his site don't necessarily share the concerns of statisticians. "Asking political junkies to stop paying attention to a horse race is like asking them to stop blinking," he says.

Karachi Investors Shrug Off Election Jitters

Stock Investors Bullish
As the world holds its breath for the February 18 voting in Pakistan, the stocks continue to surge with major Pakistani companies posting record profits. The KSE-100 rose for the fourth day closing up 70 points at 14,353. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, the largest state owned oil marketing company in the country has achieved a record profit before tax of Rs 8.2 billion and profit after tax of Rs 5.5 billion in the first half of financial year 2007-08 with 13% increase in sales volume. Shares buyback by a number of listed companies including Ahmad Spinning Mills, Sarhad Cigarettes and Noon Textiles inspires confidence that the share prices are likely to continue the uptrend.

External Debt Rises
Pakistan's external debt rose by US$2.4b to reach a new high of US$42.9 during July-Dec 2007. As a percentage of GDP, however, it declined to 26% from 27% at the end of FY2007 ending June 2007. The total debt-to-GDP ratio is 57%, helping Pakistan maintain its Moody's and S&P credit ratings of B1 and B+, the same as Indonesia's but a notch below India's debt rating of BBB. Pakistan current debt rating is about 5 levels below the top investment grade of AAA but it is the best Pakistan has ever achieved.

Post-Election Scenarios
"Formation of a stable democratic government will be the most important event to consider," said Mark Mobius, executive chairman at Templeton Asset Management Ltd talking with Reuters. "Investors are still keen on Pakistan and there has been no sharp withdrawal of capital from Pakistan despite the recent events as well as the financial turmoil across the world," Mobius said. "In fact, markets in Pakistan have been fairly resilient."
I believe investor confidence, company profits, and debt ratings can change dramatically based on the realities on the ground. If the February elections go well, and there's little or no violence in the aftermath, then we can hope for a continuation of the current positive trends. Whoever wins will need to reassure investors on the continuity of economic policies to retain investor interest in Pakistan. If there is post-election violence and it gets out of hand and there is prolonged uncertainty as to the new government, then all bets are off.

Bush's Lessons In Secularism, Human Rights, Free Media

As George W. Bush makes his faith-based appointments, buys news media, blocks anti-torture legislation at home and spies on telephone conversations, the US continues the policy of supporting secularism, democracy, human rights and media freedom in the Islamic world. The following is an interesting story, a little dated but still very relevant in 2008:

Column By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 19, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Iraq News Agency) - A delegation of Iraqi judges and journalists abruptly left the U.S. today, cutting short its visit to study the workings of American democracy. A delegation spokesman said the Iraqis were "bewildered" by some of the behavior of the Bush administration and felt it was best to limit their exposure to the U.S. system at this time, when Iraq is taking its first baby steps toward democracy.

The lead Iraqi delegate, Muhammad Mithaqi, a noted secular Sunni judge who had recently survived an assassination attempt by Islamist radicals, said that he was stunned when he heard President Bush telling Republicans that one reason they should support Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court was because of "her religion." She is described as a devout evangelical Christian.

Mithaqi said that after two years of being lectured to by U.S. diplomats in Baghdad about the need to separate "mosque from state" in the new Iraq, he was also floored to read that the former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, now a law school dean, said on the radio show of the conservative James Dobson that Miers deserved support because she was "a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country."

"Now let me get this straight," Judge Mithaqi said. "You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court justice because she is an evangelical Christian.

"How would you feel if you picked up your newspapers next week and read that the president of Iraq justified the appointment of an Iraqi Supreme Court justice by telling Iraqis: 'Don't pay attention to his lack of legal expertise. Pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosque.' Is that the Iraq you sent your sons to build and to die for? I don't think so. We can't have our people exposed to such talk."

A fellow delegation member, Abdul Wahab al-Unfi, a Shiite lawyer who walks with a limp today as a result of torture in a Saddam prison, said he did not want to spend another day in Washington after listening to the Bush team defend its right to use torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfi said he was heartened by the fact that the Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban U.S. torture of military prisoners. But he said he was depressed by reports that the White House might veto the bill because of that amendment, which would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of P.O.W.'s.

"I survived eight years of torture under Saddam," Unfi said. "Virtually every extended family in Iraq has someone who was tortured or killed in a Baathist prison. Yet, already, more than 100 prisoners of war have died in U.S. custody. How is that possible from the greatest democracy in the world? There must be no place for torture in the future Iraq. We are going home now because I don't want our delegation corrupted by all this American right-to-torture talk."

Finally, the delegation member Sahaf al-Sahafi, editor of one of Iraq's new newspapers, said he wanted to go home after watching a televised videoconference last Thursday between soldiers in Iraq and President Bush. The soldiers, 10 Americans and an Iraqi, were coached by a Pentagon aide on how to respond to Mr. Bush.

"I had nightmares watching this," Sahafi said. "It was right from the Saddam playbook. I was particularly upset to hear the Iraqi sergeant major, Akeel Shakir Nasser, tell Mr. Bush: 'Thank you very much for everything. I like you.' It was exactly the kind of staged encounter that Saddam used to have with his troops."

Sahafi said he was also floored to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, declare that a Bush administration contract that paid Armstrong Williams, a supposedly independent commentator, to promote Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind policy constituted illegal propaganda - an attempt by the government to buy good press.

"Saddam bought and paid journalists all over the Arab world," Sahafi said. "It makes me sick to see even a drop of that in America."

By coincidence, the Iraqi delegates departed Washington just as the Bush aide Karen Hughes returned from the Middle East. Her trip was aimed at improving America's image among Muslims by giving them a more accurate view of America and President Bush. She said, "The more they know about us, the more they will like us."

(Yes, all of this is a fake news story. I just wish that it weren't so true.)

Pakistan Questions Safety of US Nukes

Pakistani nuclear weapons safety has been in the news lately. There are widespread concerns being expressed in the Western media about the possibility of Pakistani nukes falling in to the hands of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or their alleged sympathizers. Even Mohamed El-Baradie of IAEA has chimed in on this issue. However, the Pakistani nukes are not the only ones making the news recently. The US nuclear weapons safety and handling procedures have also raised concerns, especially since the news of of a US Air Force B52 bomber loaded up with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles by mistake. What is even more alarming is the fact that the American B52 crew was not aware they were carrying nuclear weapons. This may sound like a "Man Bites Dog Story" but the Pakistanis have seized on this news and they are questioning the US right to raise alarm about Pakistani nuclear weapons safety, when in fact, it is the US whose procedures are more lax than Pakistan's. For example, the Pakistani nuclear warheads are kept separate from the missiles but the US nuclear warheads and missiles are always kept ready to launch at any moment, even though the Cold War has now been over for about two decades. Furthermore, it takes two levels of approval in the US versus three levels required in Pakistan. Pakistan's Gen Iqhman offered to provide technical advice and assistance to the United States on improving its nuclear weapons handling procedures. Here's the story from The Bulletin Online, a non-profit specializing in global security news and analysis:

A Pakistani view of U.S. nuclear weapons
By Hugh Gusterson | 5 February 2008
"The [U.S.] Air Force has made substantial changes in its handling of nuclear weapons in the wake of a B-52 flight last August during which the pilots and crew were unaware they were carrying six air-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads."
-- "Air Force Alters Rules for Handling of Nuclear Arms," Washington Post January 25, 2008.

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN, JANUARY 25--At a press conference in Islamabad today, Pakistani Brig. Gen. Atta M. Iqhman expressed concern about U.S. procedures for handling nuclear weapons. Iqhman, who oversees the safety and security of the Pakistani nuclear force, said that U.S. protocols for storing and handling nuclear weapons are inadequate. "In Pakistan, we store nuclear warheads separately from their delivery systems, and a nuclear warhead can only be activated if three separate officers agree," Iqhman said. "In the United States, almost 20 years after the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons still sit atop missiles, on hair-trigger alert, and it only takes two launch-control officers to activate a nuclear weapon. The U.S. government has persistently ignored arms control experts around the world who have said they should at least de-alert their weapons."
Iqhman also questioned the adequacy of U.S. procedures for handling nuclear weapons. He expressed particular concern about the August 29, 2007, incident in which six nuclear weapons were accidentally loaded under the wing of a B-52 by workers who did not observe routine inspection procedures and thought they were attaching conventional weapons to the B-52. The flight navigator should have caught their mistake, but he neglected to inspect the weapons as required. For several hours the nuclear weapons were in the air without anyone's knowledge. "The United States needs to develop new protocols for storing and loading nuclear weapons, and it needs to do a better job of recruiting and training the personnel who handle them," Iqhman said.
Iqhman added the Pakistani government would be willing to offer technical advice and assistance to the United States on improving its nuclear weapons handling procedures. Speaking anonymously because of the issue's sensitivity, senior Pentagon officials said it is Washington's role to give, not receive, advice on nuclear weapons safety and surety issues.
Iqhman pointed out that the August 29 event was not an isolated incident; there have been at least 24 accidents involving nuclear weapons on U.S. planes. He mentioned a 1966 incident in which four nuclear weapons fell to the ground when two planes collided over Spain, as well as a 1968 fire that caused a plane to crash in Greenland with four hydrogen bombs aboard. In 1980, a Titan II missile in Arkansas exploded during maintenance, sending a nuclear warhead flying 600 feet through the air. In a remark that visibly annoyed a U.S. official present at the briefing, Iqhman described the U.S. nuclear arsenal as "an accident waiting to happen."
Jay Keuse of MSNBC News asked Iqhman if Pakistan was in any position to be lecturing other countries given Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's record of selling nuclear technology to other countries. "All nuclear weapons states profess to oppose proliferation while helping select allies acquire nuclear weapons technology," Iqhman replied. "The United States helped Britain and France obtain the bomb; France helped the Israelis; and Russia helped China. And China," he added coyly, "is said by Western media sources to have helped Pakistan. So why can't Pakistan behave like everyone else?"
Iqhman's deputy, Col. Bom Zhalot also expressed concern about the temperament of the U.S. public, asking whether they had the maturity and self-restraint to be trusted with the ultimate weapon. "Their leaders lecture us on the sanctity of life, and their president believes that every embryo is sacred, but they are the only country to have used these terrible weapons--not just once, but twice. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the plane that bombed Hiroshima, said he never lost a night's sleep over killing 100,000 people, many of them women and children. That's scarcely human."
While Iqhman glared reproachfully at Zhalot for this rhetorical outburst, Zhalot continued: "We also worry that the U.S. commander-in-chief has confessed to having been an alcoholic. Here in Pakistan, alcohol is 'haram,' so this isn't a problem for us. Studies have also found that one-fifth of U.S. military personnel are heavy drinkers. How many of those have responsibility for nuclear weapons?"
John G. Libb of the Washington Times asked if Americans were wrong to be concerned about Pakistan's nuclear stockpile given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan. Colonel Zhalot replied: "Millions of Americans believe that these are the last days and that they will be raptured to heaven at the end of the world. You have a president who describes Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and one of the last remaining candidates in your presidential primaries is a preacher who doesn't believe in evolution. Many Pakistanis worry that the United States is being taken over by religious extremists who believe that a nuclear holocaust will just put the true believers on a fast track to heaven. We worry about a nutcase U.S. president destroying the world to save it."
U.S. diplomats in Pakistan declined comment.

NOTE: THIS "PAKISTANI VIEW OF US NUCLEAR WEAPONS" BY HUGH GUSTERSON IS A PARODY OF PAKISTANI POSITION, A VERY INTERESTING PARODY INDEED, BUT NOT FAR FROM THE TRUTH.
THE DETAILS OF US NUKES MISHANDLING INCIDENTS ARE ACCURATE AND WELL DOCUMENTED ELSEWHERE. THE NEWS CONFERENCE ITSELF IS FAKE AND THE UNUSUAL PAKISTANI NAMES ATTA M. IQHMAN (ATOMIC MAN) AND BOM ZHALOT (BOMBS A LOT) ARE FICTITIOUS AND FUNNY.

Ho-Hum Elections 2008

There are many reports from Pakistan indicating a general lack of visible enthusiasm on the streets in major cities with election 2008 only a few days away. This is in sharp contrast to prior elections when you could see a visible rise in mass rallies, big marches, personal outreach and candidate speeches on a daily basis in many parts of the big cities.

There could be several possible reasons for this absence of action and enthusiasm of previous elections. Here are a few:
1. Benazir Bhutto's assassination has had a chilling effect on street marches and rallies.
2. The multiplicity of public and private TV channels, a recent phenomenon since the last election in 2002, has moved the action from the street to the TV screen, more like the elections in the developed world. You can see quite a few political commercials and messages promoting various parties and their candidates.
3. The average people are just too disillusioned. They don’t believe anything will change for them regardless of who wins. They do not seem to feel they have a stake in the outcome.

I personally think it’s all of the above with #3 being the dominant reason.
Amidst all the cries for democracy, independent judiciary, human rights, and fair polls in Pakistan, most people believe nothing will change fundamentally on Feb 18. Regardless of the party labels and promises, the feudal power will endure in the name of democracy. The choices remain narrow for Pakistanis: Choose between military and the feudal class. There is no third choice as long as the middle class remains small and unable to exert any real influence. The only hope for real democracy lies in continued robust growth of the middle class over an extended period of time of another decade or two. There are no guarantees that feudal rulers will permit that.

What If Pakistan Opinion Polls Are Wrong ?

A recent International Republican Institutes's public opinion poll in Pakistan has made big headlines. The results of this poll do not augur well for President Musharraf and his allies in PML-Q. While the science behind such polls is sound, there are limitations as shown recently in the US primaries. Similar polls conducted at the start of the primaries did not see the Obama phenomenon and wrote off John McCain. So the question is: What if the polls are wrong? When polls go wrong in the US, most Americans just recognize the limitations of the methodology and move on. But, would that be the case in Pakistan? Would this poll not give the ammunition to those politicians and parties who are already threatening violence if they do not win? I think these questions are worth pondering, especially if the consequences of the inaccurate poll result in significant loss of life in an already troubled nation.

Just to try and prepare the people for such as possibility, let me suggest that we approach the IRI and other polls like it with caution. Here are some of the reasons why:

1. The sample size is small and not truly random. The sample is biased by those participants willing to respond who generally happen to be more interested AND more available. I personally rarely participate in these polls because the pollsters usually call when I am about to start dinner at about 7:30PM. They usually do not call back.
2. People do not always tell the truth. They say one thing and do another. The most famous case of this kind happened in California gubernatorial elections in 1982, when many white voters said they would vote for Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles who happened to be black but in fact voted for George Deukmejian, the white candidate for governor. This is now known as "Bradley Effect".
3. The national poll does not take into account regional, ethnic and class differences, the level of enthusiasm (likely voters) and multi-way races resulting in skewed seat allocation on constituency by constituency basis.
4. The way the questions are framed can change the outcome in significant ways. Asking someone "if you approve of XYZ?" is not the same as "Would you considering voting for XYZ? " As seen in this IRI survey, these two questions produced two different answers. While only 15% of respondents said they approve of Musharraf, 29% of respondents said they would vote for the coalition supporting Musharraf.

Let us all exercise caution in accepting these poll results as truly representative of the real vote scheduled for February 18. If these polls were representative of the general elections, there would be no need for holding large scale general elections in Pakistan or elsewhere.