In this land of uncertainty, conspiracies and chequered political history, people’s scepticism is understandable. Most people ask, “Do you really think elections will be held on time?” As one knows, actually people who raise such questions are itching to tell you what they think. Thus it is better to pose a counter question: “What do you think about it?” Most conversations I have had in the last few weeks go like this: Sceptic: I don’t think elections would be held on time. Me: Why? Sceptic: The Americans would like to have a one-window shop in Pakistan as the time of the NATO troops withdrawal from Afghanistan has started and they need to leave behind a comparatively stable Afghanistan. Therefore, they would like to deal with an army-backed, stable technocrat government in Pakistan. Me: Does the Pakistan army also want to postpone the elections once a caretaker government is in place? Sceptic: Indeed. The army wants a government with better governance, with an ability to handle the dwindling fiscal cliff of Pakistan and a government that is under its control on foreign policy. Me: Has the present government and parliament not provided political cover to the army when the chips were down, for example when it was humiliated by the US Seals’ intrusion to get Osama bin Laden? It was the army’s failure on two counts: intelligence failure that bin Laden was living right under their nose or an intelligence cover-up because they could not plead guilty of hiding bin Laden; and that they failed to check the intrusion by US helicopters with trained commandos, complete a one-hour operation and leave without being challenged. Or when 24 of our troops were killed at the Salala check post, Pakistan stopped NATO supplies, causing a loss of billions of dollars to the US and then opening up without getting much in return. Both the parliamentarians and the ultra-nationalist co-evolutionist media turned the wrath of the people against the US, detracting from the armed forces’ failure to debate the violation of sovereignty. Isn’t it true that all major foreign policy decisions are taken by the armed forces and the civilian government abdicated its power to decide such matters some four years ago when Mr Zardari was chided for talking in favour of normalisation of relations with India? Isn’t it a fact that Mr Zardari also agreed to appoint the finance minister recommended by the army? Isn’t it true that when the elections are just a few weeks away, the democratically elected government moved ahead with the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project and signed the transfer of Gwadar to China, much to the annoyance of the US? Both the projects are part of the military’s security policy. They couldn’t have moved on this and resisted the US pressure without the support of an elected government. So yes, while the US administration doesn’t like these moves and both projects were in the interests of Pakistan, the façade of an elected government suits the military establishment at present. They may have an institutional pathological aversion to politicians, but in times of crisis, they need the people’s support, which is only possible by letting the elections to go ahead. Sceptic: You have accepted that the elected government has defied the US and in Pakistan, nothing happens without their blessing. They can topple any government. Me: This is an oversimplification of US-Pakistan relations. Pakistan has defied the US dictates for the right or wrong reasons many times. To give you a few examples: it did not get involved in supporting the US war in Vietnam. It defies the US Israel policy, and it has not recognised Israel even though some of the Muslim Arab neighbours have diplomatic relations with Israel. It defied the US by using arms bought or received in aid from it against India. It defied the US by making the nuclear bomb and continues to do it. And it is defying the US by covertly supporting the Afghan Taliban in spite of immense pressure; and it is asking for its important role in the making of a post-2014 Afghanistan government set-up. And more recently, as said already, it has signed for the gas pipeline and Gwadar despite the US displeasure. Over the years, the US leverage in Pakistan has weakened as public opinion has gone against it. There is also some contribution of the Pakistan establishment in building a negative perception about the US, because it helps them to tell the US government they cannot go much against the people’s mood. For this, they have used the elected parliament and outfits like Difa-e-Pakistan to show that they cannot go beyond a certain point to oblige the US. They collaborate with the US where there is convergence of interests or where the US demands do not conflict with the armed forces security paradigm. In the fast changing regional scenario, the Pakistan establishment is apprehensive about the US policies in the region in general, and Pakistan in particular. There is a fear that the US would like to destablise Balochistan in view of its geo-strategic position vis-à-vis oil routes and Iran. Also that India would have more influence with Afghanistan after the US forces leave. So it is in the interests of the Pakistani establishment to have a democratically elected government to get the people’s support for the national security and foreign policy carved out by them. An elected government can serve better as a defensive sandbag between the people and the army and also between the army and US pressure. Remember the ruling classes, and the army is one of them, draw up policies that further their class interests. People’s benefits are only the by-products. Sceptic: What about the economic meltdown? Me: Indeed, we need a government that can take some tough decisions, but for that a national consensus is needed and more efficient economic management. The outgoing government is inefficient and corrupt, but whoever is elected would also be not much better in managing the economy. The present government, to be fair to them, also had some handicaps. They inherited a financial position where the previous government postponed all important financial decisions in the hope that their chosen one would be benefitted in the election. The government took the hit from the 2010 unprecedented floods; Swat operation and the rehabilitation of the IDPs; constant terrorist attacks that scare away investment and are bleeding the country; flight of capital because of political uncertainty created by terrorists and inter-institutional fighting for more space; weakness of a coalition government where tough taxation measures were stalled by the coalition partners and worthy opposition parties who are supported by the bazaar. Sceptic: The elections would be bloodier as society is highly weaponised and terrorists may disrupt it by killing some important leaders. Me: That’s where I agree with you, this danger would always be there. The state has to come with full power to hold free and fair elections with the support of the security agencies. And I think all the stakeholders agree to it. The postponement of elections would only go in favour of the militants, who want to bring an Islamic revolution through the bullet, and they despise the ballot, as they know they cannot come to power through elections. The writer can be reached at ayazbabar@gmail.com