Satiyesh Manoharajah: Vote, vote, vote for the General

It was 'vote early, vote often' in Pakistan, while the west caught a glimpse of China's coming man. Plus those exclusive Deep Throat revelations in full

There were few surprises in Pakistan's referendum last Tuesday, as the sole candidate General Musharaff romped to a clear victory. But there was plenty of criticism at what must once have seemed a clever ruse to legitimise the General's military coup, and widespread incredulity at just how flawed the electoral process had been.

In a bid to entice the voters, polling stations dispensed with the piffling minor details like proof of identification and constituency lists, while the voting age was specially lowered from 21 to 18. The supposedly indelible ink which marked the hands of those who had already cast their ballot apparently washed right off, enabling another ride at the democracy funfair. Voting booths sprang up everywhere, a ten-fold increase on previous years, while billions of rupees were spent on renting crowds for pro-Musharraf rallies and votes.

Najam Sethi's influential editorial in Pakistan's independent Friday Times declared it 'Disgraceful': 'Worse, much worse, tens of millions of low and middle level civil servants, factory workers, school teachers, peons, janitors, jail inmates, soldiers, paramilitary troops, policemen etc were ordered by private and public employers to shape up or ship out. This is unprecedented even in Pakistan's flawed electoral history'. Sethi's major concern was that the farcical elections could mean dangers ahead: 'An element of defiance could creep into the main opposition parties, forcing General Musharraf to adopt repressive policies, which in turn would hurt his benign image and undermine his credibility further. The fear is that in the ensuing tussle for the hearts and minds of Pakistanis in the run-up to the October elections, General Musharraf may be erroneously advised to postpone the elections on some pretext or the other or try and rig them massively to thwart his opponents. In the event, the loss won't be his only. It will be Pakistan's too.'

Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times recognised the dilemmas for democracy of the western position, yet asked 'What Is Democracy Anyway?': 'Mr. Bush's stance is hypocritical and threatens to undermine everything we stand for - except that, frankly, General Musharraf has done better in governing Pakistan than his democratic predecessors have' ...'I can't help thinking that Pakistan may be better off under him - if only he will use his power to build credible democratic institutions, starting with the parliamentary elections in October. If we are to wink at General Musharraf's charade, we must at least press him to promote not just the army but also an independent judiciary, press, Parliament and other pillars of a free society.'

But Ejaz Haider, in the Friday Times, doubted whether military rule could create democratic institutions when it had failed so often before, arguing that the broader society needed to shoulder more responsibility: 'The intelligentsia has to get out of its dilemma. Civil society has to face up to and address the many social and political issues but it has to do so within a democratic dispensation whose basic benchmark is that civilians have the absolute right to rule'.

The Financial Times noted that the General's post-September 11th alliance with the west would make official criticism muted, but argued that US patience is being tested as 'some in Washington are starting to question both his sincerity and his capacity to deliver what he has promised. Doubters point out that Gen Musharraf has already released an estimated 1,600 of the 2,000 Islamic militants who were arrested after his widely praised television address on January 12 in which he vowed to eliminate Islamic terrorism from Pakistan'.

Many commentators noted the continued dangers of more than 1 million Indian and Pakistani troops remaining fully mobilised on the Indo-Pakistan border- but, as ever, Indian and Pakistani commentators differed in their analysis of this threat. The Indian Express worried that a new political polarisation in Pakistan would be manifested in the disputed lands: 'With the army's credibility experiencing a severe blow, its jehadi elements, who have been chafing at the bit since September 11, could start to assert themselves as the only alternative to corrupt politicians and bungling military moderates'. Despite India's long-standing resistance to an internationalisation of the dispute, the editorial concluded that 'US presence, both physical as well as strategic, would no doubt act as a moderator for any irrational act'. But the Pakistani daily Dawn saw the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as the volatile party, again because of domestic political pressures: 'An uneasy calm prevails in South Asia. The need of the hour demands Pakistan to put its own house in order and unify its people against any direct or indirect threat from India, where the ruling coalition has recently suffered electoral defeats in four states and in New Delhi. The Vajpayee government is currently weak and wavering. To seek durable peace with Pakistan is remote on its political agenda'.

Tomorrow's man

The visit to the United States of the Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao - tipped to take over as leader of the world's most populous country this autumn - was hailed by The Times as 'one of the most significant diplomatic events of the year'. And yet, while bemoaning how little appreciated the occasion's importance was, The Times' leader writers could find only the tired old language of Chinese 'inscrutability', arguing that the west's difficulty in seeking to unpick 'the mystery shrouding Hu Jintao and to the opacity of Chinese politics is also a reminder that the Chinese Government has an unfair advantage in the contact sport that is diplomacy - China knows more about the West than the West can fathom about China', while warning that 'If the US treats China like an enemy, it will inevitably become more like one.'

Newsweek offered an exhaustive profile of the man himself, tracing his ancestry to a political dynasty of sorts from the 16th century, and comparing his 'meteoric'political rise (at 59 years old, he's a spring chicken in the Communist bureaucracy) to that of his forefathers: 'If clan history is any gauge, Hu Jintao will strive, discreetly, to fulfill his great expectations.'

The English-language edition of the Communist Party newspaper People Daily, did not comment on the visit directly, but ran an extended article on what it called the 'mistakes of Bush's policy towards Taiwan' arguing that the administration should place the issue far below economic cooperation: 'US right-wing forces again attempt to redefine the Taiwan issue as the geographical and political antagonistic focus of [the relationship between] China and the United States... This has not only shaken the most important cornerstone of bilateral relations since 1972, but has made the Taiwan issue more complicated'.

The Baltimore Sun also counselled restraint on Bush's part: 'Mr. Hu, coming to power amid a high level of domestic unrest in China as a result of economic reforms, cannot afford to appear weak at home in dealing with the United States - particularly as he seeks to build political support within the military. A sharp response from Mr. Bush today would more likely box in Mr. Hu rather than nudge him toward peaceful reconciliation of the Chinese problem across the Taiwan Strait', while The Guardian's East Asia correspondent John Gittings outlined how Taiwanese tensions were affecting relations between China and the US.

But a wide-ranging analysis from academic Yan Xuetong predicts that duality will continue to be the mark of Sino-US relations with economic co-operation continuing to develop while contradictory strategic and military concerns will intensify. His paper, reported in the China Daily, suggests that 'In the wake of its cold-war victory, the United States has regarded China as the top potential rival for its international status ...From this mentality, the United States can hardly alter its structural contradiction with China unless it can find another power that would pose a bigger challenge to its global strategy or itself decline into a less important power'.

A mystery solved

In the thirtieth anniversary year of the Watergate affair it seems that everyone vaguely connected with the scandal is stoking up their smoke-machines and polishing their mirrors in preparation for the big cash-in.

Seeing as the big secret was blown some years back (the President did it, apparently), interest is now focussed on the identity of the breathy informant who gave the game away, the mysterious Deep Throat. The best kept secret in American politics has inspired guesses ranging from Nixon himself to the cartoon dog Snoopy.

It has been frequently claimed that only four people know for certain who it is: the reporters Woodward and Bernstein, Ben Bradlee the former editor of the Washington Post, and Deep Throat him/herself. But the President's former legal advisor John Dean has claimed that he is going to unmask Deep Throat next month on the internet in a blaze of glory.

But why wait? After minutes of extensive research The Observer can exclusively reveal that Deep Throat was in fact the former Assistant Director of the FBI, Mark Felt - fingered this very week by investigative journalist Ronald Kessler, who, surprise surprise, has a book out soon on the very subject.

Yup, it was definitely Felt. Unless it was White House insider Leonard Garment, who also has a book out, in which he claims it was, er, Nixon advisor John Sears.

The other runners and riders include the CIA officials Cord Meyer and William E. Colby. And the FBI officials L. Patrick Gray, Charles W. Bates or Robert Kunkel.

Those looking for a long odds each-way bet might want to stake a very small wager on Nixon administration members Alexander Haig, or even Henry Kissinger, given, as the Washington Post so wisely pointed out, his 'proximity to the President and his appetite for media appearances'.

It may seem that the only way of knowing for sure is if Deep Throat, Woodward or Bernstein break their silence. But on the other hand, think about it - gravelly voice, portly appearance, with a fondness for midnight encounters in the dark... Blimey, it's Barry White.