General Pervez Musharraf is determined to stay in power despite the costs in doing so. His plans to continue as army chief in case he is not re-elected as president, quoted in recent reports, reflect very clearly the fear and insecurity he feels toward his future. In fact, the presidential polls scheduled for October 6th this year, are just an exercise to legitimize his post. Neither these polls nor the subsequent general polls for that matter are likely to make any real difference to the people of Pakistan. Political stability and the restoration of democracy remains a distant dream for Pakistan due to the entrenchment of military dictatorship and the influence of extremist groups over the country�€™s socio-political scene.

While there is no instatement of emergency or martial law, the situation on the ground is not much better. It is only due to the judicial system, keeping a watch and taking action over issues of national concern that Pakistan�€™s military is not able to takeover every aspect of life in the country. Musharraf�€™s intolerance of dissidents, protests or criticism in any form is evident by recent arrests of opposition leaders (APDM), when they protested against the General filing for nomination at the presidential polls. It was only due to the intervention of the Supreme Court that these leaders were released. However this is not enough.

Despite Iftikhar Chaudhary�€™s re-instatement as Chief Justice, the inability of the Supreme Court to take a definite stance on petitions that challenged Musharraf�€™s dual posts has jolted the expectations of the public. In addition, ongoing proceedings suggest that the judiciary resents being looked up to, to make such decisions instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Election Commission. Whatever little opposition is expected arrives only from the legal quarters and, much depends now on how the advocates and the bench react in the days preceding the election on October 6th.

Regardless, political and social analysts speculate that the military establishment will come out in its true element, once all the polls are over. The deportation of Nawaz Sharif despite Supreme Court orders, the Election Commission�€™s amendment of rules to allegedly clear obstacles for Musharraf�€™s return to power, coupled with the announcement to hold presidential polls on October 6th in the midst of court cases regarding Musharraf�€™s dual posts, are clear messages that the military-dominated establishment still does not take much cognizance of the courts.

Even though the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan has announced to field former justice Wajihuddin Ahmed against Musharraf in the coming polls and the lawyer�€™s stir on September 29th is bound to cause some waves, chances for the restoration of democracy or stability in Pakistan look bleak and there are reasons to make such a deduction - The major players being brought up for power-sharing, have a deep-rooted mistrust against each other and the recent shake-up in military is so well-planned that it will ensure their interference in future political affairs.

Musharraf had hitherto managed to survive all these years with support from two conflicting quarters: American authorities and the body of religious parties at home, the MMA. But when terrorist networks in the region began to gain a stronger foothold and US pressure to resist these forces began to mount, he had no choice but to look up to what is seen as a comparatively secular and moderate party, Benazir Bhutto�€™s PPP. Yet despite US�€™s active role behind the curtain to bring the factions together the mistrust between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto is too deep-rooted to allow them to share power smoothly for long.

Several rounds of talks have been held in Abu Dhabi, UK and USA with little result. In her address early this week in the US, Benazir Bhutto said, �€œtalks have stalled because "extremist sympathizers" in the General�€™s party refuse to accept a return to democracy.�€ Musharraf�€™s party ML (Q) is against the power-sharing deal with the PPP. Differences exist not only between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto but between Shujaat Chaudhary, the president of Musharraf�€™s party ML (Q) and Ms. Bhutto as well. Both represent traditionally rival provinces of Punjab and Sindh respectively and hence there is deep-rooted mistrust between them that will never allow them to share power in the same government.

In addition, the recent shake-up by Musharraf in his run-up to the presidential polls can prove to be a substantial road-block. Knowing fully well that any civilian head of the country has to rely on the military for smooth and uninterrupted governance in Pakistan, Musharraf has seen to it that he posts not only very reliable but also very capable people at the top rungs of military who can be at his beck and call while he is at the helm of affairs. The recent shake-up made last week has placed his most trusted men at ISI and Military Intelligence in positions of power.

Musharraf�€™s manipulation over military and subsequently civilian control is bound to pose a problem. Benazir has made it amply clear that she does not want to be a rubber-stamp Prime Minister. Apart from the struggle between Benazir and Musharraf there are other players vying for a position of power as well. Religious parties command about 10% vote bank in Pakistan which is enough to create a nuisance, as evidenced by MMA�€™s clout in Pakistan. Politically ambitious, Fazlur Rehman visited the deported Nawaz Sharif in Saudi Arabia, reportedly to negotiate a deal that promised a mass resignation by MMA party members in return for Sharif�€™s party ML (N)�€™s support, if and when Rehman stands as Prime Minister.

Hence with such a varied and diverse power-play stalking the future of Pakistan, political stability and restoration of democracy seem miles away and America�€™s agenda to help Pakistan in general and Musharraf in particular, may fail to yield the desired results.

In light of recent events, the chances for political stability in Pakistan seem close to impossible. In this article, Prakash Chander discusses the nature of the presidential polls, the role of the Supreme Court, military control and the possibility for political alliance.