The end of Allama Dr Tahirul Qadri’s sit-in in Islamabad has almost inevitably raised the question of who gained, and who lost.
Perhaps, the most immediate gainer would be Dr Qadri himself, who had been seen as a fringe politician, even after his December 23 welcome in Lahore at the Minar-i-Pakistan. No longer. That the government had to send a team to dicker with him showed that he had to be taken seriously. That he was given a role where he had none before, in the selection of a caretaker Prime Minister, showed that he had arrived. That his demand for the reconstitution of the Election Commission deserved to have constitutional experts to explain why the government could not comply even if it was willing, showed how necessary it had become to make him happy.
Not bad going, for someone who had been his party’s only MNA in the 2002 election, and who had still not committed to a political comeback. However, now, after the long march, Dr Qadri might wish to make a comeback.
Irrespective of his claims, he knows how much support he has, and where, based on the people who came to Islamabad, and stayed from Monday night to Thursday, braving the winter cold and the squally weather that accompanied it. It is to be assumed that all of this suffering, which included a number of hospitalisations, was aimed at enabling Dr Qadri to achieve his objectives.
The participants did not want electoral reforms so much as the chance to have him in power. The corollary is that the present election system does not allow the election of the kind of people, who would support Dr Qadri.
Dr Qadri was not the only one with an agenda. The PPP burnished its democratic credentials, by allowing the sit-in. It could not have taken place if the government had been determined in its use of state machinery to stop it.
It also goes to the credit of the participants, which Dr Qadri did not hang back to claim, that Islamabad suffered no damage, and no sensitive area, neither government nor diplomatic, was attacked. While this credit was being taken by Dr Qadri, the government was showing the world, how it had allowed a mass demonstration which only ended when a negotiation took place.
The electoral reform negotiation demonstrated that the masses were in favour of the present system, and only wanted some changes in it. This was further strengthened by the gathering of opposition parties in Lahore, which supported a democratic solution, obliging Dr Qadri himself to declare repeatedly that the long march was not an excuse for extra-constitutional deviation.
If there was a loser, it was the armed forces. It seems that the political forces, including those that had supported their intervention in the past, were now opposed. Elections were seen as the path of choice, with reform if necessary, not a coup.
This was particularly pointed since it took place when there was heightened tension on the LoC and the armed forces had a greater need than before of support. Considering that electoral reform had been an important function of the armed forces, the long march was significant in that it provided an alternative mechanism for electoral reform.
Even those political forces, which have tried to align themselves to a reform, such as the government ally, the MQM, have found themselves sucked. The MQM at first wanted to be part of the long march, but pulled out at the last minute. Imran Khan’s Tehrik-i-Insaaf first promised a long march, then hedged when it opted to support the opposition parties in their stand against military rule.
The long march mobilised opinion along the GT Road, even though it is supposed to run through PML-N territory. Given Dr Qadri’s old disagreements with the Sharif brothers, it would, perhaps, have been asking too much of the PPP not to have given him some encouragement.
Another aspect of the long march has been whether it has led to meaningful electoral reform. That take as a given something that should be open for debate, but which cannot be questioned: the efficacy of democracy. That is the new orthodoxy.
It is, perhaps, paradoxical that while the restoration of democracy has not led to any improvement in the lives of ordinary people, the debate about what should be there instead cannot take place without those arguing against democracy being accused of supporting military rule.
This view elevates the constitution to what it never claims to be, a sacred book. It is worthwhile from this point of view to consider the gains and losses of the long march, particularly whether the effort expended was proportionate to the result.
One of the most important aspects of the agreement was that the Returning Officers were given the job of examining whether candidates were defaulters of any kind. Previously, such a challenge could only be made by another candidate. Now, ordinary voters can also make the challenge, while Returning Officers must also order a check. The parties will automatically act as enforcers, as they will not consider for tickets those who are not already qualified.
The Election Commission itself has taken a different tack, banning the diversion of development funds, and of recruitments other than by the public service commissions. This moves much of the advantage of incumbency, and has made the diversion of development funds, often distributed by official candidates in cash, illegal.
This strikes at the basis of democracy, indeed the modern, throughout the Third World, where the legislator is supposed to mediate between the citizen and the state, obtaining as much as possible of its resources (money and jobs) as possible. It is because of this that legislators are so bad at making laws, which they regard as a distraction, and why they are also ready to exploit their position by making laws which exempt them.
It must not be forgotten that legislators are only doing a job formerly done by colonial officers, who had come in from the home country, the DCs in first British India, and then Pakistan.
Under this paradigm, it does not matter if the mediator fulfils the conditions or not, so long as he is efficient in diverting state resources to his constituents. The popular demand for financial propriety, enshrined in the constitution is parallel to the Western demand for moral rectitude in its public officials, a morality their electorate does not observe.
Similarly, the desire that legislators pay their utility bills and taxes, reflects the average voter’s wish that he could escape.
However, it cannot have escaped Dr Qadri’s notice that elections are conducted by the caretakers, who promulgate ordinances that determine the legal framework of the general election. That would explain his interest in the caretaker government, for one committed to these reforms would not legislate them out of existence. It would also explain why there is to be a dissolution, allowing for elections in 90 days, rather than an expiry at the end of tenure, which mandates polls in 60.
Checking needs more time. Whether the extra-checking was worth braving the cold should be asked from sit-in participants, but the fact is that the political class will still use the polls to get in and protect their interests.

The writer is a veteran journalist and founding member as well as executive editor of TheNation. Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk