‘What elections? Army HQ has already decided who will win’

‘‘It is not a level playing field,’’ said Haq, a former religion minister and a leader of the party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who was ousted by Musharraf in a coup three years ago this month. ‘‘A kind of atmosphere has been created so that those who oppose the government have no chance to reach Parliament.’’

Such cynicism is a hallmark of elections in Pakistan, which for roughly half of its tumultuous 55-year history has been governed in some fashion by unelected men in army uniforms. In the view of many candidates and voters, Musharraf—aided by the Bush administration—is merely prolonging this dreary tradition, embracing the form of democracy but not its substance.

They note, for example, that whatever the outcome of Thursday’s voting, Musharraf will have the power to dismiss Parliament and sack the Prime Minister under constitutional amendments he imposed by fiat several months ago. The amendments also call for the creation of a new National Security Council that legitimises the Army’s role in governing.

The two biggest Opposition parties, meanwhile, have been crippled by the exile of their principal leaders—Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto of the Pakistan People’s Party—both of whom face arrest on corruption-related charges if they return.

Still other potential challengers have been barred from running because they do not hold four-year college degrees—a new requirement that disqualifies an estimated 98 per cent of the population—have defaulted on loans or have fallen behind on their utility bills.

‘‘Pakistan appears to be the only country in the world where candidates can be disqualified for unpaid utility bills,’’ said an interim report by the European Union, which has dispatched a large observer team to monitor the elections. ‘‘Several of the financial eligibility criteria are not only applicable to the potential candidates themselves, but also their spouses, dependents and business associates.’’

An afternoon in Rawalpindi, 10 miles southwest of Islamabad, suggests that many Pakistanis share the EU’s doubts. Despite high-profile races involving Haq and other prominent leaders, interviews with shoppers and store owners in the city’s old bazaar elicited little beyond expressions of disdain for the entire proceeding.

‘‘The General controls everything and he will engineer the results, for sure, for his benefit,’’ said Zamir Ahmad Shah, 50, looking up from his workbench in his closet-size goldsmith shop. ‘‘The lists of winners are already being prepared by army headquarters.’’

But the widespread view that the elections will change little in the way the country is governed does not seem to have seriously undermined Musharraf’s standing among ordinary Pakistanis.

Many Pakistanis appear to regard military rule as a necessary evil given the dismal track record of Pakistan’s civilian leaders, who are widely seen as corrupt and incompetent.

And although militant Muslim groups were angered by Musharraf’s embrace of the US war on terrorism and his subsequent cutoff of support for the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan, many Pakistanis appear to have accepted the policy as the price of restoring the country’s economy through closer ties with the West.

Last week, for example, an opinion poll commissioned by the BBC—based on interviews with 2,827 Pakistanis in 200 towns and cities—found that 69 % of Pakistanis thought Musharraf had done a ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘somewhat good’’ job since coming to power in October 1999.

Although few analysts expect an overwhelming turnout on Thursday, some hold out hope that the contests could produce an incremental improvement in the nation’s political life, providing at least a forum for discussion and some degree of accountability.

‘‘Even a sham, bogus democracy is better than a totalitarian regime,’’ said a Western-trained academic in Islamabad who asked not to be identified.

Musharraf, this person added, ‘‘will have to have consensus of some kind. He can’t be as arbitrary.’’ (Los Angeles Times-Washington Post)