Even after half a century after its creation, Pakistan’s quest for a stable and democratic political order remains elusive. The argument advanced by successive military rulers that democracy has failed in Pakistan and politicians have been proved unworthy of it, just does not wash. The truth is that the generals never gave democracy a fair chance to prove its worth in order to safeguard their vested interests. The process of establishing a genuine and truly representative democracy is gradual and long term, of which election is one component.

Political observers in Pakistan stand aghast at the spectacle of Gen. Musharraf unfolding his own version of democracy, governed by his own constitution and bound by the rules he himself has laid down. Politicians who somehow manage to get elected to Parliament during military rule face a very difficult choice. If they co-operate with the Army and function under an authoritarian constitution, they risk losing their credibility. But if they insist that the generals call it a day, restore full parliamentary democracy and return to the barracks, they risk being sent into oblivion. The future of democracy remains as clouded as it was six months ago. If the King’s Party, hastily put together through defections, is to continue its rule, the future of democracy in Pakistan is indeed gloomy.

Pakistan will remain an illiberal democracy of the Cromwellian type where the Army has effectively ousted the front-ranking politicians and replaced them with faceless puppets. As The Times, London, put it, the election "did no more than cloak continued military rule in democratic mufti". Gen. Musharraf denied the people even the right to elect their president. Elections in Pakistan have always been disputed and lacked credibility in varying degrees. Allegations have always been made of official interference, the nefarious role of the Army, rigging and manipulation. But the extent and depth of involvement of the civil administration and the blatant abuse of official machinery to ensure the victory of the King’s Party in the election was unprecedented, even by Pakistani standards, and broke all previous records.

The people’s expectation of a better future for themselves in a genuinely democratic Pakistan has been belied and their present has stretched out and their future shrunk. While Jamali may consider himself as the Prime Minister, the centre of gravity and the locus of ultimate power will shift from the National Assembly to the National Security Council, an un-elected body dominated by the generals, presided over by Gen. Musharraf himself and answerable to none. Creation of the real centre of power will perpetuate effective military rule, with the Prime Minister merely playing the puppet. Such cohabitation did not work well in France. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq tried it in Pakistan towards the end of his long military rule, but it did not work. He dismissed the Prime Minister and dissolved the National Assembly with disastrous consequences for democracy and the country. Military dictatorships, even though supported by the world’s most powerful democracy, are an anachronism in the present day world. There is no better alternative to genuine democracy. But a big question arises in the case of Pakistan whether democracy will retreat before Bonapartism.

Gen. Musharraf is unfolding his grand design of "democracy under the military boot" in Pakistan; but has denied even this version to the Northern Areas, including Gilgit-Baltistan, which are in revolt against the continued suppression of their fundamental, human and democratic rights. Islamabad has been accused of committing contempt of court by not implementing the judgement of the Supreme Court directing it to grant all fundamental and legal rights to the people of Northern Areas, as guaranteed to other citizens under the 1973 Constitution, which has been changed beyond recognition by Gen. Musharraf through Presidential decrees.

Gilgit-Baltistan remained a composite entity for centuries with a single identity until one Col. Hassan Khan of the former Maharaja’s Army revolted at the time of the Pakistani invasion of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947 and made it possible for Islamabad to take it over. But his son, Wajahat Hassan Khan, Chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan Thinkers’ Forum, rues the day and alleges that the condition of his people is worse than it was during Maharaja Hari Singh’s regime. The All Parties National Alliance (APNA) of over 13 political parties and organisations of Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan has expressed unity and solidarity with the long suffering people in their just struggle to gain their fundamental rights and demanded transfer of full power to them. It has organised demonstrations and protest meetings in places such as Rawalakot, Bagh, Muzaffarabad and Rawalpindi against violence of all sorts in Kashmir and grant of political, economic and civil rights to the people of the area. It vehemently opposes Islamabad’s authoritarian rule and condemns the military ruler of Pakistan and his local agents for the continued suffering of the people.

Adding insult to injury, Pakistan ceded part of the Northern Areas territory to China as part of the boundary settlement and, obviously in exchange for the armaments and nuclear material and technology it received from Beijing through the decades. Human rights groups, including those in Pakistan, have reported complete lack of civic amenities, medical and educational facilities and communications in the area which continues to languish in poverty. Pakistan appointed one Sardar Alam Khan as its political agent without obtaining even a letter from Raja Shah Rais Khan. The fact was noted by Gen. Gracy, the then Chief of Pakistan Army who, in a letter dated December 27, 1947, wrote to Defence Minister Iskandar Mirza asking whether the Political Agent has accepted the accession of Gilgit-Baltistan. Mirza said in reply: "The question of accession can only be decided when there is an overall settlement of the Kashmir dispute; but we must remain in de facto charge".