The private Geo TV network said the party of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and another group led by ex-premier Nawaz Sharif had so far won 153 seats, more than half of the 272-seat National Assembly.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Q party was a distant third with 38 seats. A ream of party stalwarts and former Cabinet ministers lost in their constituencies.
The latter is Musharraf's party.
The jihadi-friendly groups fared poorly:
Religious parties fared badly, and were set to lose their control of the North West Frontier province gained in the last parliamentary elections in 2002, when they benefited from Pakistani anger over the U.S.-led invasion to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan.
So, the election could solidify the home front for the war against jihadis.
First, it was apparently honest. It may have simply been because Musharraf's party couldn't think of a way to rig the elections in a believable manner rather than a commitment to democracy, but I'll take it. Many thug rulers would not shy away from blatant vote stealing.
Second, the party most committed to fighting the jihadis came in first.
Third, Musharraf may survive as a force of continuity until the next presidential election. Despite talk of resignation or impeachment, the opposition may actually decide it is good to have someone from the old regime to share blame and responsibility for the upcoming war on the frontier jihadis.
Fourth, the religious parties tanked. It was kind of fun for Pakistanis to cheer on suicide bombers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and terrorism elsewhere as a spectator sport, but when Pakistanis became the targets it stopped being a game.
I've long wanted elections in Pakistan to undermine popular support for the jihadi alternative to corrupt democracy or military rule. If the new leaders in parliament attempt to solve economic, social, and Islamist problems rather than use their time to steal from the public, we could yet see the last jihad defeated.
And given the political will of the governing parties, Pakistan can afford to focus their military on suppressing the jihadis on their western frontier. India is far from being able to implement its new Cold Start offensive doctrine. And with their own nukes, the conventional balance in India's favor is less decisive in keeping India at bay. Pakistan should have a nuclear deterrent sufficient to pull the troops needed for the west from the eastern front with India. If not, why bother being a nuclear power? Further, Pakistan will have American support for the jihadi fight if the Pakistanis have the nerve to ask for it and American and NATO support on the Afghan side of the border to be an anvil to Pakistan's hammer.
When will Pakistan have a better alignment of factors to take down the jihadis?
UPDATE: Musharraf won't step down:
Pakistan's president will not step down as head of state and intends to serve out his five-year term, his spokesman said, despite a sweeping victory by his opponents in an election that President Bush on Wednesday judged to be fair.
I hope it plays out this way. Musharraf has been a decent ally and he seems personally an honorable man trying his best. But he isn't exactly a prime example of democracy in action. On the other hand, he didn't steal the parliamentary elections. I hope he serves out his term. I think he can still do a lot of good in this transition to democracy and rule of law. After all, the newly empowered political parties have yet to prove that they view ballots as just a ticket to loot the public treasury for their personal gain.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal voices similar sentiments:
The results of Pakistan's parliamentary vote are being billed as a repudiation not only of Pervez Musharraf, but also of President Bush, who has mostly supported the Pakistani strongman over the past seven years. We're more inclined to see the elections as a vindication of both. ...
U.S. interests in Pakistan are best served by cultivating democratic institutions and a vibrant civil society with its own interests in fighting Islamic extremism. That's precisely the goal that seems to have been at least modestly advanced in Monday's election.
So after while being criticized for not installing a strongman in Iraq, President Bush is attacked for supporting Musharraf and is now attacked for the elections that weakened him?
I'm inclined to believe that President Bush will be attacke by our Left for doing A or anti-A.
