Iran vs Israel

 

Why Are Iran and Israel Enemies?

Iran and Israel, once allies, have become fierce adversaries, particularly since Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian consulates in Syria and Iran’s counterattacks with drones and missiles exemplify this ongoing rivalry, which has intensified over recent decades. Iran openly expresses its desire to erase Israel from the map, while Israel considers Iran its greatest adversary.

A Historical Shift

Before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel and Iran shared a cooperative alliance. Iran was one of the first nations to recognize Israel in 1948, viewing Israel as a counterbalance against Arab nations. In exchange for oil, Israel provided Iran with technical expertise, training Iranian agricultural specialists and supporting its armed forces.

Changing Relations After 1979

The 1979 revolution marked a turning point, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his religious regime dissolved previous treaties with Israel. Iran began vocally opposing Israel’s control over Palestinian territories, with its increasingly severe rhetoric aimed at gaining support from regional Arab populations and expanding its own influence.

When Israel intervened in Lebanon’s civil conflict in 1982, Khomeini sent the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to Beirut to back local Shia militias. The Hezbollah militia, which grew from this support, is now a key Iranian proxy in Lebanon.

Present-Day Relations

Iran's current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues the anti-Israel stance, frequently questioning the Holocaust’s narrative and opposing any form of compromise with Israel.

• Is the war between Iran and Israel a war of religion and ideology or is it a struggle for dominance in the region?

The complex relationship between Iran and Israel encompasses a blend of religious, ideological, and geopolitical factors, though many analysts view the conflict as fundamentally rooted in a struggle for regional dominance with religion as a powerful but secondary component.

1. Ideological and Religious Dimensions

• Religious Rhetoric: The animosity includes religious undertones, particularly from Iran's leadership, which often frames Israel as an “illegitimate Zionist entity.” This aligns with Iran's role as a Shia Muslim theocracy, positioning itself against Israel, which it portrays as a Western-backed, secular state in the heart of the Islamic Middle East​.
• Ideological Rivalry: Iran’s revolutionary ideology, which opposes Western influence and promotes a model of Islamic governance, is fundamentally at odds with Israel's democratic system and its alliances with the West, particularly the United States​.

2. Geopolitical and Strategic Motivations

• Regional Dominance: Both nations are vying for influence in the Middle East. Iran has expanded its presence in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen through proxy groups like Hezbollah, which is a key part of its “Axis of Resistance” against Israel. Israel, in turn, seeks to curb Iranian influence by countering these proxies and limiting Iran’s reach, particularly near its own borders​.
• Nuclear Ambitions: Iran’s nuclear program adds another layer, as Israel perceives a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat. Israel’s preventive measures against this—such as alleged cyber attacks and airstrikes on Iranian assets—reflect a strategic attempt to maintain military superiority in the region​.

3. National Security and Existential Threats

• Mutual Perception as a Threat: Both states view each other as significant threats to their national security. Iran views Israel’s alliance with Western powers, particularly the United States, as a containment strategy aimed at Iran’s isolation. Conversely, Israel sees Iran's support for anti-Israel groups and its military expansion as efforts to encircle and threaten Israel​.

While religion and ideology amplify the tension, the core of the Iran-Israel conflict lies in regional dominance and security concerns. Iran’s support for armed groups in opposition to Israel and its nuclear ambitions challenge Israel’s position, while Israel actively works to counterbalance Iran’s influence. Thus, though religious rhetoric is evident, this rivalry is driven largely by geopolitical strategies and power struggles.

 

Debates Within Iran

Not all Iranians support the government’s antagonistic approach toward Israel. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, suggested in a 2021 interview that Iran reconsider its relationship with Israel, highlighting that alliances with Russia and China overlook the treatment of Muslims in Chechnya and Xinjiang.

There are still more than 20,000 Jewish residents living in Iran

Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University, criticized Iran’s policy on Israel, stating it isolates the country on the international stage.

• Do the Iranian people want war or is this a strategy of the ruling Iranian political party to hold on to power?

The general sentiment among the Iranian people tends to be against war, particularly with Israel or the West. Many Iranians prioritize economic stability, improved living standards, and greater social freedoms, rather than conflict. Polls and studies, while sometimes limited in scope due to restrictions within Iran, indicate that a significant portion of the population seeks reform and wishes for normalized relations with other nations, including the West and neighboring countries, rather than confrontational policies​.

Strategy of the Iranian Political Leadership

Iran’s ruling authorities, particularly hardline factions within the government, use anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric strategically. This approach serves multiple purposes:

• Maintaining Unity and Control: By emphasizing external threats, Iranian leaders are able to promote a narrative of national solidarity against foreign "enemies," which can help divert attention from domestic issues such as inflation, unemployment, and political repression.
• Legitimizing Their Rule: Iran’s Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard Corps often portray themselves as protectors of Islamic and Iranian values against Western influence, justifying their power and strict policies as necessary for national security.

Public Sentiment vs. Government Stance

The Iranian public's views frequently contrast with those of their government. For example, during major protests, such as those in 2009 (the Green Movement) and 2019 (economic protests), many Iranians voiced dissatisfaction with their government’s foreign policies, especially its involvement in regional conflicts like those in Syria and Yemen. Economic hardships stemming from sanctions and the government’s military expenditures abroad have also fueled domestic discontent​.

The Iranian government’s stance on regional conflicts and its anti-Israel rhetoric are more likely strategies to consolidate internal control and assert regional influence. Meanwhile, the Iranian populace generally favors peace and economic reform over war. This divide highlights the complexity of Iran's internal politics, where the government’s foreign policy often does not reflect popular opinion.

 

Power Dynamics

Though Iran possesses a vast missile arsenal, including the Shihab series and Zolfaghar missiles, Israel’s advanced technology, missile systems, and defense capabilities (such as the Iron Dome) offer it a robust defense against missile and drone threats.

In terms of conventional military forces, Israel’s technological superiority in air and missile defense surpasses Iran’s, despite Iran's greater population and larger standing army.

The rivalry also extends into cyber warfare, where Israel’s sophisticated digital infrastructure makes it vulnerable to Iran’s increasing cyber capabilities. However, Iran’s defense systems remain less advanced, making its own networks susceptible to counterattacks.

This complex, decades-long enmity continues to shape regional alliances and tensions across the Middle East.

Who Holds More Military Power: Iran or Israel?

The military power dynamics between Iran and Israel are complex, influenced by distance, technological capabilities, and differing defense strategies. Despite the 2,152-kilometer gap, Iran has demonstrated the reach of its missiles, proving significant progress in its missile program.

Iran is home to the Middle East’s largest and most diverse missile program, reportedly possessing over 3,000 ballistic missiles, according to U.S. Central Command’s General Kenneth McKenzie in 2022. On the other hand, Israel’s missile capabilities remain less public, though it is widely recognized as having the most advanced missile stockpile in the region. Over the last six decades, Israel has developed missiles, both domestically and through collaboration with allies, notably the United States, and even exports them. Notable missiles in Israel’s arsenal include the Delilah, Gabriel, Jericho series, and Popeye, among others. Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system, however, stands as a unique asset, effectively intercepting a range of incoming threats, including rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to Israeli missile defense engineer Uzi Rubin, the Iron Dome is unmatched worldwide, serving as a reliable short-range defense system. Conversely, Iran, a larger nation by both land and population, presents its own advantages. However, comparing these factors alone doesn't directly translate to greater military power. Israel allocates substantial funds to its defense budget—nearly $24 billion compared to Iran's $10 billion—enhancing its technological and defensive superiority.

While Iran has approximately 610,000 active military personnel, significantly more than Israel's 170,000, Israel excels in advanced technology and air force capabilities, boasting 241 fighter jets and 48 attack helicopters compared to Iran's 186 jets and 13 helicopters. Iran has focused heavily on missile and drone capabilities, producing both short- and long-range options. These have occasionally appeared in regional conflicts, including missile strikes attributed to Iranian support in Yemen.

Key missiles in Iran's inventory include the Shihab series, capable of up to 2,000 kilometers, and the Zolfaghar, which can target at ranges up to 700 kilometers. Recently, Iran added the Fateh-110 hypersonic missile with a range of 300-500 kilometers, marking advancements in its missile technology. Yet, while Iran has launched hundreds of missiles, Israel’s history of guerrilla operations on foreign soil showcases a tactical edge.

In terms of cyber warfare, both nations engage heavily, though Israel’s advanced digital infrastructure presents vulnerabilities against Iran's cyber capabilities, balancing the technological disparities with cyber strategies. This sophisticated and multifaceted rivalry between Iran and Israel thus spans missile technology, military budgets, and the shadowy domain of cyber defense, shaping their regional standoff.

 

Can Watching a Film Change Political Beliefs?

We forget what we read in books.

But!
We are often reminded of movies.
The screams are remembered,
Does the movie leave such a deep impression On the us?

Brief History of Film-making

Film making began in the late 19th century with inventors like Thomas Edison and the Lumière brothers, who created early motion picture cameras and projectors. In 1895, the Lumières presented some of the first public screenings of short films in Paris, an event considered the birth of cinema. As technology evolved, so did film techniques, with the introduction of sound in the 1920s, color in the 1930s, and, much later, digital cinematography in the 21st century. Today, films range from blockbusters to indie productions, shaping culture and storytelling across the world.

A Brief on Film’s Story, Characters, and Emotions

A film's story generally follows a narrative arc, presenting conflicts and resolutions that reveal characters’ depth and growth. Characters are designed to engage audiences on an emotional level, often embodying relatable struggles, virtues, and flaws. Films typically evoke a range of emotions—joy, sorrow, fear, anticipation—that connect viewers to the story, helping them experience different lives, cultures, and perspectives. Emotional connections with characters often enhance the impact of the storyline, making viewers feel more engaged and invested.

Role of Emotions in Film

Emotions are a film’s primary tool for connecting with the audience. They help communicate themes, build tension, and deliver meaningful messages. For instance, a well-crafted drama may evoke empathy, while a thriller may stir suspense or fear. By carefully controlling the emotional flow through lighting, music, dialogue, and cinematography, filmmakers can guide viewers’ feelings and attitudes. This emotional journey is central to a film's impact, as it shapes how audiences interpret the story and respond to its message.

How Does a Film Affect a Person?

Films can impact people psychologically and emotionally, sometimes even altering their views and attitudes. Emotional experiences in film allow viewers to "live" the story, fostering empathy or challenging beliefs. This can lead to shifts in personal attitudes, especially regarding societal issues, justice, and interpersonal relationships. By immersing people in scenarios outside their own experiences, films can promote greater understanding, empathy, and sometimes even action.

 

Can Watching a Film Change Political Beliefs?

A recent scientific study suggests that viewing a documentary about a wrongfully convicted individual can foster empathy toward prisoners and increase support for reforms in the U.S. criminal justice system.

The documentary, Just Mercy, recounts the story of Walter McMillian, a 45-year-old African American man from Alabama who was arrested in 1986 for a murder he did not commit. Although McMillian was innocent—he was at a family gathering during the crime—he was sentenced based on false testimony from an eyewitness. Before his conviction was overturned, McMillian spent six years on death row. This true story was adapted into a documentary in 2019 under the title Just Mercy, with Academy Award-winning actor Jamie Foxx portraying McMillian.

Since the 1890s, when the first moving images were introduced, filmmakers have sought to shift public perceptions and moral values through cinema. Now, American scientists have studied the effects of film on empathy and attitudes toward the justice system, exploring how watching a movie can alter an individual's emotional intelligence and ethical stance on criminal justice.

This study, published in the journal PNAS on October 21, revealed that viewing a documentary about the wrongful sentencing and eventual release of an inmate heightened viewers' empathy toward prisoners and increased support for justice system reforms.

Marianne Reddan, a professor at Stanford University and co-author of the study, noted, "[Our study] shows that the film allowed participants to see the world from another’s perspective, even when that individual faced societal stigma. This shift in perspective wasn’t just a fleeting reaction."

Reddan further explained, "This research highlights the importance of exposing people to experiences vastly different from their own, as it contributes to building healthier communities and fostering a robust political framework."

The study recorded an increase in empathy for incarcerated men among viewers of the film, an effect observed across participants with varying political affiliations, whether leaning left or right.

Film, Emotions, and Societal Polarization

Jussi Knaus-Bajow, a film studies researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, remarked, "The novelty of this study lies in its exploration of how films can alter viewers' perceptions and behaviors—especially how a film like Just Mercy can act as a ‘call to action.’"

The idea that a film can change minds isn’t new. According to Knaus-Bajow, "Filmmakers are like wizards; they have been experimenting with the impact of editing and cinematic techniques on viewers’ perceptions and emotions since the early days of cinema."

British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock conducted a famous experiment that illustrates this effect: in one scene, a woman with a child is shown, followed by a man smiling, conveying a sense of kindness. In another scene, the same man is shown smiling after a shot of a woman in a bikini, which instead suggests lust.

Knaus-Bajow explains that filmmakers frequently play with this knowledge because films offer a unique, safe environment where viewers can experience unfamiliar emotions. However, this power also places a responsibility on filmmakers regarding their influence over audiences.

Using Just Mercy as an example, Knaus-Bajow describes how it was deployed as a tool to inspire progressive change in the justice system.

On the other hand, he warns, filmmakers can also incite antagonism or hatred, as propaganda films have long been used to dehumanize groups, justify violence or war, and promote false narratives or pseudoscience.

 

Has Film Been Used for Ideological or Political Propaganda?

Yes, film has frequently been used as a medium for ideological and political propaganda. Governments, organizations, and filmmakers have often used film to influence public opinion, from the early days of cinema up to the present. For example, during World War II, both Allied and Axis powers created propaganda films to bolster patriotism and demonize enemies. In more modern times, films still reflect and sometimes promote political agendas or ideologies, shaping how audiences view various social and political issues.

 

Iran versus Pakistan, Economic, Local and Military Review

Iran vs. Pakistan: An Examination of Tensions

Historical Background of the Border Dispute

The 900-kilometer border between Pakistan and Iran, known as the Goldsmith Line, was demarcated by Goldsmith in 1871. Along this border live Baloch tribes who do not recognize the boundary, carrying out insurgent activities in both countries. On the Iranian side, a Sunni Baloch minority resides, feeling marginalized by the central government, which they accuse of religious discrimination. The U.S. Counterterrorism Agency notes that groups like Jaish al-Adl advocate for these Baloch rights, further straining relations.

Before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran and Pakistan were both aligned with the Western bloc. In the 1970s, Iran’s Shah even assisted Pakistan in curbing separatist activities in Balochistan. However, after the revolution, Iran became adversarial to the West, while Pakistan remained aligned with it. Although both countries opposed the Soviet Union during the Afghan jihad, Iran supported the Northern Alliance (predominantly Shiite Hazara) while Pakistan backed the Mujahideen.

Military Capabilities and Economic Strengths

According to the Global Fire Index, Pakistan ranks 9th in military strength while Iran ranks 14th. However, neighboring conflicts are rarely won through military prowess alone. Factors like economic stability, natural resources, technological dependency, strategic location, religious identity, ethnic diversity, and population dynamics also play a crucial role.

Geographically, Iran is twice as large as Pakistan, yet Pakistan has triple the population. Economically, Iran holds an advantage with a robust oil and gas reserve (the world’s second-largest natural gas and third-largest oil reserves), while Pakistan relies heavily on imported oil, spending around $17 billion annually. Iran’s export and import revenues are $107 billion and $54 billion, respectively, allowing for financial independence, whereas Pakistan’s trade deficit and external debt create ongoing dependency on international aid from the IMF, the U.S., and Gulf states.

Iran’s identity is rooted in religious zeal and ancient pride. Its 3,200-year-old history saw it as a superpower, rivaling ancient Greece. Notably, Cyrus the Great (550 BCE) and Darius I (who ruled after seizing power in 522 BCE) led Persia as the world’s largest empire, until Alexander the Great defeated King Darius III in 323 BCE.

Iran's Religious Transformation and Influence

Iran’s religious identity evolved significantly over centuries. Before Islam, it was the birthplace of Zoroastrianism, a state religion from the 15th to the 10th century BCE. Following the arrival of Islam, Khalid ibn al-Walid’s victory over the Persian province of Mesopotamia in 633 CE marked the beginning of Islamic influence. In 636 CE, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas achieved a decisive victory at the Battle of Qadisiyyah, and by 642, under Caliph Umar’s orders, Muslim forces gradually gained control of Persia.

Currently, 99% of Iran’s population is Muslim, with around 90% identifying as Shia and 9% as Sunni. Iran’s shift to Shiism occurred in the 16th century when Shah Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty enforced Shia Islam, giving Sunnis the ultimatum to convert or face death. His actions led to conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and established a strong Shia identity in Iran.

Modern Iran as a Religious State

The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked Iran’s emergence as a theocratic state. Iran has since engaged in regional ideological influence, including an eight-year war with Iraq. Despite facing Western and Arab support for Iraq, Iran emerged resilient. In contrast, Pakistan, with its Sunni majority (85-90%) and Shia minority (10-15%), experiences sectarian divides, with frequent religious and political tensions. Globally, Pakistan has the second-largest Shia population after Iran, and sectarian violence, notably in the 1990s, highlighted the internal challenges intensified by Iran’s growing influence.

Ethnic Composition in Iran and Pakistan

Iran’s population is composed of various ethnic groups: Persian speakers make up 60-65%, Azeris 15-17%, Kurds 7-10%, Baloch 2%, and Turks 1%. Pakistan, although Punjabi-majority, has an ethnically diverse landscape, creating additional challenges in maintaining national unity.

Current Tensions at the Border

The Baloch region spans both Pakistan (Balochistan) and Iran (Sistan), leading to cross-border accusations. Iran alleges attacks from Pakistani territory, and Pakistan holds similar views. Recently, Iran conducted operations within Pakistani territory, prompting Pakistan to retaliate. Without diplomatic intervention, these events risk escalating into sustained cross-border hostilities, which neither country desires.

Iran's Broader Ambitions

Iran’s recent regional confrontations—such as strikes on Iraq and Syria—raise questions. Some speculate that domestic pressures to support Gaza amidst the Israel conflict have contributed to Iran’s aggression. Additionally, Iran faces strained relations with the U.S. under Biden, who recently issued a warning of potential conflict. The timing of Iran’s actions against Pakistan appears puzzling, suggesting either a miscalculated step or an overreach influenced by internal or regional pressures.

Global Implications

Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels, who target ships in the Red Sea, poses risks to one of the world’s key maritime routes. This path is crucial for trade between East and West, connecting through the Suez Canal. If blocked, ships would need to detour around South Africa, increasing transport time, insurance costs, and, consequently, the price of goods globally.

With inflation already heightened by the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, this instability could further strain economies worldwide. Countries like Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, China, and Japan are particularly keen to avoid further disruptions. The U.S. and the UK have deployed a multinational task force in the Red Sea, reinforcing their naval presence. Western powers, including Israel, could leverage Iran’s unprovoked attack on Pakistan to shift public opinion against Iran, potentially setting the stage for action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Pakistan's Stance

While Pakistan is reluctant to worsen ties with Iran, ignoring such an incursion could invite further attacks. Unlike Syria, Yemen, or Iraq, Pakistan has previously demonstrated resilience against similar challenges from India, making a strong response likely.

As of recent reports, Pakistan has conducted retaliatory strikes against anti-state elements in Iran’s Sistan region. In military strength, Pakistan remains better positioned than Iran, though it has no desire for prolonged conflict. Diplomacy remains the most viable solution, as an armed escalation would only fuel tensions and external interventions, risking a broader regional conflict.

The History and Methods of Electoral Manipulation in Pakistan

Dirty Elections

Whether we speak of democracy or elections, the roots of both concepts trace back to ancient Greece and Rome. The word “democracy” itself is derived from two Greek words: "demos," meaning people, and "kratos," meaning power—thus, "the power of the people." It is widely acknowledged that the early model of democracy originated from the Greek civilization.

Elections also find their earliest expression in ancient Greece and Rome. Athens, for instance, was a democratic state, where electoral reforms were established on democratic principles. Much of this credit goes to Cleisthenes, a lawmaker from ancient Athens, who laid the foundation of Athenian democracy around the 5th century BCE. Under his reforms, all male citizens of the state were granted the right to vote. For this reason, historians have bestowed Cleisthenes with the title of "The Father of Democracy."

Similarly, in medieval Bengal, during the Pala dynasty, Emperor Gopala was elected through a formal voting process in the 8th century CE. The 17th century saw the rise of elections in Europe, followed by North America in the 18th century. However, even within these democratic systems, women were denied the right to vote until the 20th century. Women fought long and hard to secure this fundamental human right.

The Evolution of Voting in the Indian Subcontinent

In the Indian subcontinent, the concept of governance by consensus predates formal voting systems. The Panchayat system, prevalent from around 500 BCE during the Mauryan era, functioned without formal voting, but the community’s acceptance was crucial for the Panchayat's legitimacy.

For thousands of years, the subcontinent was governed by monarchies, feudal states, and princely systems. Afterward, the East India Company ruled, and following the 1857 War of Independence, Britain formally made India its colony.

It wasn’t until 1909, with the introduction of the Indian Councils Act, that the British Parliament granted limited electoral rights to the local population. This Act is known as the "Minto-Morley Reforms," named after Lord Minto, the Governor-General of India, and Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for India. The democratic systems we see today in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have their roots in these British reforms. The elections held in 1920 were the first where limited voting rights were granted to the Indian people, but suffrage was restricted to property owners and tax-paying citizens.

The Birth of Pakistan and Early Electoral History

When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, it did not have a constitution of its own. To address this, the Government of India Act 1935 was amended and adopted as the interim constitution. Before Pakistan’s independence, Lord Mountbatten issued an order on July 26, 1947, establishing the new Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. This assembly, composed of members elected in 1945 from areas becoming part of Pakistan, became responsible for drafting the nation's constitution.

The assembly's inaugural session took place on August 10, 1947, in Karachi, and Jogendra Nath Mandal was elected as the temporary president. This assembly was tasked with drafting Pakistan’s new constitution, while the 1935 Act served as the provisional legal framework.

On March 12, 1949, Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly adopted the Objectives Resolution, a foundational document for the future constitution. It laid the groundwork for an Islamic democratic state, diverging from the European-style democratic systems. In 1985, under General Zia-ul-Haq's rule, the Objectives Resolution was incorporated into the Pakistani Constitution through the 8th Amendment, giving it formal legal status.

Electoral Fraud in Pakistan: A Recurring Theme

Historically, electoral fraud has occurred at various levels in Pakistan, often involving state institutions, the establishment, polling officers, and political parties. In fact, allegations of election manipulation surfaced soon after the creation of Pakistan. One notable case occurred in Sindh’s Dadu district, where the electoral contest between G.M. Syed and Qazi Muhammad Akbar was marred by accusations of rigging.

Between 1947 and 1958, Pakistan did not hold direct national elections, though sporadic provincial elections were held, but their credibility was often called into question. For instance, in 1951, Punjab held its first elections, but with voter turnout below 30%, the legitimacy of the process was dubious.

In the same year, Major General Akbar Khan attempted a failed coup against the elected government, marking the first conspiracy against civilian rule. These early years were marked by political engineering, leading to manipulated outcomes in both provincial and national assemblies.

The Ayub Era: Controlled Democracy

In 1958, General Ayub Khan seized power, suspending the constitution and imposing martial law. Ayub Khan’s regime is infamous for introducing "controlled democracy." In 1960, he held a national referendum, receiving 95.6% approval, which paved the way for his continued rule. He introduced a new constitution in 1962, establishing a presidential system of governance.

During his tenure, elections were held in 1962 and 1965, but voters did not directly elect members of parliament. Instead, representatives of local councils were responsible for electing parliamentarians. In the 1965 elections, Ayub Khan faced opposition from Fatima Jinnah, but allegations of electoral manipulation marred the process. The opposition accused the government of widespread intimidation, manipulation, and control over the election process.

The 1970 Elections: A Moment of Transparency

The first general elections based on direct adult suffrage in Pakistan were held in 1970. Intelligence agencies had assured General Yahya Khan that no single political party would win a majority, ensuring that he would remain the central figure of power. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of the Awami League could only field seven candidates from West Pakistan, while Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan People's Party (PPP) could not secure even a single candidate in East Pakistan. The 1970 elections are widely regarded as the most transparent and impartial elections in Pakistan’s history. However, the post-election manipulation became evident when the majority-winning Awami League was denied the transfer of power, leading to the country’s eventual disintegration. Despite the tragic outcome—the division of Pakistan—no one has ever questioned the fairness of those elections, which are still considered the most transparent in the nation's history.

The third Constitution of Pakistan was promulgated on August 14, 1973, and on the same day, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took oath as Prime Minister under this new framework. The Constitution introduced a bicameral system, establishing the Parliament with an upper house (Senate) and a lower house (National Assembly). It declared Islam as the state religion and officially named the country the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

After the fall of Dhaka, the newly formed National Assembly was scheduled to complete its term by 1978. However, consumed by his growing popularity, Bhutto dissolved the assembly a year early and called for general elections in 1977. While he likely would have won even without interference, the elections were marred by allegations of severe rigging. The term "jharloo" (meaning rigged or fraudulent) became synonymous with the 1977 elections. The Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) refused to participate in elections in Balochistan, citing the ongoing military operations in the province, and later boycotted the provincial elections, accusing the government of massive electoral fraud. This led to widespread protests, particularly in urban areas, with violence escalating rapidly. By early July, a compromise between the PNA and Bhutto's government had been reached, agreeing to fresh elections under a neutral caretaker government in October. But on July 5, 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law.

In September 1977, Bhutto was arrested on charges of ordering the murder of Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan. On March 18, 1978, the Lahore High Court sentenced him to death, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court on February 6, 1979. On April 4, 1979, Bhutto was executed in Rawalpindi Jail.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto served as Prime Minister for 3 years, 10 months, and 21 days.

Reflecting on the 1977 elections, the then-Chief Election Commissioner, Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan (father of Wasim Sajjad), remarked that the ruling party's candidates had severely undermined the electoral process through the reckless use of their authority and state machinery.

General Zia-ul-Haq:

In 1979, General Zia-ul-Haq imposed a ban on all political parties, marking the beginning of an era in which he wielded unchecked authority. By 1981, he had established the Majlis-e-Shura, becoming the ultimate decision-maker in Pakistan’s political landscape.

That same year, local elections were conducted under the supervision of the military, but the political climate was already tense following the controversial execution of Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, on April 4, 1979. Despite Bhutto’s death, the PPP's underground leadership formed groups under the name "Awami Dost" to resist Zia's autocratic rule and his skewed vision of democracy. Surprisingly, candidates aligned with Zia suffered a humiliating defeat in the local elections, prompting him to nullify the results under a special Martial Law order.

In the 1983 local elections, Zia tightened his control by scrutinizing each candidate. Under direct orders, returning officers disqualified any nominee suspected of having ties to the PPP, ensuring that opposition voices were systematically silenced.

Zia had initially promised to transfer power to the people within 90 days, but he repeatedly postponed general elections, citing the need to create an electoral environment that would yield "positive" results and produce compliant representatives. In December 1984, he extended his presidency for five more years through a controversial referendum, which opposition alliances like the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) urged the public to boycott. As poet Habib Jalib famously remarked about the eerie stillness on the day of the referendum:
"The city was silent—was it the jinn or the referendum?"

Despite widespread calls for a boycott, the Election Commission in Islamabad reported that over 90% of the votes cast were in Zia’s favor.

In February 1985, under Zia's directives, non-party-based elections were held, and despite the opposition boycott, the elections were relatively transparent. These elections laid the groundwork for Pakistan’s "electables" and the culture of clan-based politics, which would continue to shape the country’s political landscape. However, by May 29, 1988, Zia dissolved the National Assembly and dismissed the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo.

Zia remained in power for 11 years, and his legacy is marked by the rise of extremist ideologies that overshadowed Pakistan’s previous commitment to tolerance and pluralism. His reign ended abruptly when he died in a mysterious plane crash on August 17, 1988.

Following Zia's death, Pakistan's political landscape shifted. The 1988 general elections, initially planned as non-party elections by Zia, instead restored the country to the path of democracy. On November 16 and 19, 1988, elections were held for the National and Provincial Assemblies, respectively. Benazir Bhutto, who had returned to Pakistan in April 1986, dominated the political scene and led the PPP to victory, reversing Zia’s 11 years of authoritarian policies. The electoral campaign was relatively peaceful, and on December 4, 1988, Benazir became the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim-majority country, after forming a coalition government with smaller parties and independent groups.

The 1990s and the Rise of Political Manipulation:

By 1990, systematic efforts were made to prevent the PPP from returning to power. General Aslam Beg and General Asad Durrani distributed 140 million rupees from Mehran Bank to PPP’s opposition candidates. As a result, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) won 106 seats, while the PPP and its allies in the Pakistan Democratic Alliance (PDA) secured only 44 seats.

In early 1993, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attempted to revoke the President's authority to dissolve the National Assembly. In response, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the assembly. Fresh elections were held in October 1993, where the PPP won the most seats but fell short of a majority, securing 86 seats compared to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), which won 73 seats.

The 1997 general elections are remembered for giving Nawaz Sharif an overwhelming mandate, which many claim was pre-determined. President Farooq Leghari appointed an interim government under Meraj Khalid, consisting largely of Benazir Bhutto’s adversaries. As journalist Najam Sethi later admitted in a televised interview, the interim government’s task was to ensure Sharif's victory. These elections, held on February 3, 1997, saw the PPP reduced to a mere 18 seats.

General Pervez Musharraf and the 2000s:

In 1998, Nawaz Sharif bypassed senior military officials to appoint Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff. On October 12, 1999, Musharraf overthrew Sharif’s government and established a technocratic administration. Following a controversial referendum in June 2002, Musharraf extended his presidency for five years.

The general elections of October 10, 2002, were conducted under Musharraf’s military regime. The elections introduced a condition requiring candidates to hold a bachelor’s degree, effectively barring many seasoned politicians from contesting. Both the PPP and PML-N faced significant restrictions, with their leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in exile. To navigate these constraints, the PPP ran under the banner of the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), led by Amin Fahim. Meanwhile, the PML-N splintered into factions, with one side remaining loyal to Sharif, while another aligned with Musharraf, forming the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), known as the "King’s Party." The emergence of PML-Q ended the dominance of the traditional two-party system between the PPP and PML-N.

In the 2008 elections, although only partially free, the victorious party was not allowed to assume power until they guaranteed Musharraf a safe exit. A report by the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) revealed that in 61 constituencies, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters, with some areas recording voter turnouts as high as 112%.

Electoral Corruption and the Rise of "Electables":

Over time, "electables" became central to Pakistan’s electoral politics. These candidates, often wealthy landlords or individuals with strong community ties, wielded substantial influence within their constituencies, regardless of party affiliation. Their personal vote banks allowed them to switch political loyalties as needed, undermining party-based politics. Zia’s non-party elections and Musharraf’s policies further entrenched this culture, shifting the focus away from ideological politics toward power dynamics dominated by electables.

With such candidates dominating the scene, political parties were forced to nominate electables, who, once elected, pursued personal interests rather than party agendas. As a result, ideological politics faded, giving way to power politics, where the real selection of candidates often rested with non-political forces rather than the electorate.

The Road Ahead – Elections in 2024:

The upcoming 2024 elections appear to be a repeat of past electoral manipulations, albeit with new tools and strategies suited to the modern era. While attempts to stifle dissent seem strong, the growing influence of social media, with over 126 million broadband users, presents a challenge to traditional control mechanisms. Shutting down dissent in an open-source digital environment will be difficult, forcing authorities to rethink their methods of influence.

As new voters register and younger generations become politically active, the shifting dynamics may impact the outcome. In the 2018 elections, for instance, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) saw its vote share rise by 9.2 million, while the PML-N’s votes decreased by 2 million. The impact of these changes will be critical as Pakistan approaches its next general election, where the role of social media and the participation of a young electorate may shape the country’s political future.

In Pakistan’s turbulent political history, no Prime Minister has completed a full five-year term, while four military dictators ruled for an average of eight years each. The constant alternation between democracy and dictatorship has hindered the development of a stable political system, and the upcoming elections will once again test the resilience of Pakistan’s democracy.

Reference 

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY 

Pakistan and Afghanistan Cricket War

How Did Cricket Become Politicized in the Subcontinent?

Cricket, often referred to as the "gentleman's game," has taken on an entirely different identity in the subcontinent, morphing into a battleground of politics and diplomacy. What once symbolized sportsmanship has, over time, been weaponized by India against Pakistan, and now, Afghanistan has become embroiled in this complex rivalry. Tensions between these nations are no longer confined to political arenas—they are playing out visibly on cricket pitches across the region. 

When we think of Afghanistan, certain stereotypical images often come to mind, largely shaped by the media: a woman in a burqa, a bearded man with a Kalashnikov, and barren landscapes. Rarely do we view Afghanistan in its full complexity, with its rich ethnic and religious diversity. The country, with its layered history, is far more than these limiting representations.

For decades, Pakistan and India were the traditional cricketing rivals in the subcontinent. But in recent years, this rivalry has extended to include Afghanistan, which has emerged as a new contender. The question arises: how did Afghanistan, a nation whose cricket program was once nurtured by Pakistan, become its adversary on the field?

The irony is unmistakable. Many of Afghanistan's star cricketers were born in Pakistan, raised there, and learned to play the sport in its fields and stadiums. Pakistan played a crucial role in building Afghan cricket from the ground up—supporting its infrastructure, providing financial aid, and even supplying its first coach.

However, as Kabul's political alignment shifted, so did its cricket board's loyalties. India, seeking to expand its influence in Afghanistan, built cricket stadiums there and began financially backing the Afghan cricket board. The lure of the Indian Premier League (IPL) also pulled Afghan players toward India. This geopolitical maneuvering caused a rift between the cricket boards and administrations of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There’s an Afghan proverb that sums up the harsh realities of history: "May God save you from the venom of a cobra, the teeth of a lion, and the vengeance of an Afghan." 

Afghanistan's historical legacy is steeped in tales of plunder, and for centuries, its tribes survived by raiding wealthier lands. In fact, every time a tribal army set out for Punjab, countless Afghan tribes joined in, driven by the necessity of survival, as their barren lands offered little by way of agriculture.

کھادا پیتا لاہے داتے باقی احمد شاھے دا 

In modern times, the game of cricket became another front in this regional struggle. The turning point in recent Afghan-Pakistan relations came when the Soviet Union raised the red flag over Kabul, marking the beginning of a new era. The winds of history blew in a new direction, one that sought to rewrite old narratives and forge new alliances. Anti-Pakistan movements took root, and now, some in Kabul seek to reignite these hostile winds from the West toward the East.

Afghanistan's geographic location—rugged, mountainous, and perilous—has earned it the moniker "graveyard of empires." British forces learned this the hard way in the Anglo-Afghan wars, and the Russians and Americans faced similar fates. While the region may have seemed unconquerable at times, historical conquerors like the Persians, Mongols, and Alexander the Great managed to subdue it briefly. Yet, in the end, it was conflict and chaos that endured, as locals resisted both foreign invaders and their own rulers, preventing any one faction from holding power for long.

A Brief Timeline of Afghanistan's History:

• Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timur, and the Mughals: Afghanistan's strategic location made it a crossroads for some of history's greatest empires. Alexander spent three years leading his army and elephants through its treacherous terrain.
• 1219: Genghis Khan's forces ravaged Balkh and Herat, erecting towers made of human skulls.
• 1500: Babur left the Ferghana Valley to conquer Kabul, laying the groundwork for the Mughal Empire.
• 1747: Ahmad Shah Durrani, appointed Afghanistan's first king at the Loya Jirga, would go on to defeat the Marathas and capture Delhi and Kashmir.
• 1880–1901: Amir Abdur Rahman, known as the "Iron Amir," ruled Kabul, negotiating the infamous Durand Line with the British.
• 1926: Amanullah declared himself king and introduced progressive reforms, but his efforts were met with resistance, leading to his eventual ouster.
• 1979: The Soviet invasion triggered decades of war, displacing millions and setting the stage for the rise of the Mujahideen.
• 1989: The withdrawal of Soviet forces marked a victory for the Mujahideen but also left Afghanistan in chaos, as competing factions vied for power.

1989-1992: Aftermath of Soviet Withdrawal

• February 15, 1989: The Soviet Union completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan after nearly a decade of military involvement, leaving a power vacuum and escalating civil conflict among various factions
• April 1992: The Mujahideen, a coalition of anti-communist factions, oust President Mohammad Najibullah, leading to the establishment of a transitional government. However, internal rivalries soon erupt into civil war1992-1996: Rise of the Taliban

• 1994: The Taliban emerge as a significant force, gaining control over Kandahar and promising to restore peace and security through strict Islamic law
• September 1996: The Taliban capture Kabul, imposing a harsh interpretation of Sharia law and significantly restricting women's rights and freedoms2001: U.S. Invasion

• October 7, 2001: Following the September 11 attacks, the U.S. launches Operation Enduring Freedom, targeting the Taliban regime for harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Taliban are quickly ousted from power2001-2014: Reconstruction and Ongoing Conflict

• December 2001: A new interim government led by Hamid Karzai is established with international support
• 2004: Afghanistan adopts a new constitution, establishing itself as an Islamic republic with democratic elections
• 2014: NATO formally ends its combat mission in Afghanistan, transitioning security responsibilities to Afghan forces amid ongoing insurgency challenges from the Taliban and other groups2020-2021: U.S. Withdrawal and Taliban Resurgence

• February 29, 2020: The U.S. and Taliban sign the Doha Agreement, stipulating the withdrawal of U.S. troops in exchange for Taliban commitments to prevent terrorist activities
• August 15, 2021: The Taliban recapture Kabul as U.S. forces complete their withdrawal, marking a dramatic return to power after two decades of conflictPost-2021 Developments

• 2021-Present: Following the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan faces significant humanitarian crises, with reports of human rights violations and resistance movements emerging against the new regime. The situation remains unstable as international recognition and aid are heavily debated

Throughout its history, Afghanistan has been a land where empires rise and fall, often at the mercy of the forces that sweep through its mountainous terrain. Today, it remains a focal point of geopolitical tension, and cricket has become an unlikely stage for this ongoing saga. The game is no longer just a sport but a reflection of the broader struggles for influence and power in the region.

Afghanistan’s Dual Ideological Divide: A Struggle Between Religion and Nationalism

In recent events, Afghanistan's ideological landscape is often seen as divided into two distinct schools of thought. On one side is the religious ideology, which has been nurtured and cultivated over the years. On the other side is nationalism, which, at various points in history, has been promoted as a counterbalance to religious dominance. Despite the political influence of religious groups that has grown since the Afghan Jihad, the nationalist faction seizes any opportunity to challenge this dominance and attempt to reshape Afghanistan’s national narrative. Figures like Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani are recent examples of leaders who tried to push this nationalist agenda. However, the religious faction, significantly supported by Saudi money over the decades, remains the more dominant force. This dominance persists because U.S. dollars have largely failed to influence the broader Afghan population, being funneled instead toward the elite, who rarely have the people's interests at heart. The elite and the masses, as is often the case, have conflicting interests.

Throughout the 20th century, Afghanistan has been a battleground for the world's superpowers. Yet, due to its unique geography, economic structure, and social fabric, the country has always resisted foreign invaders. In times of war, the Afghan people have little to lose, while the invading forces stand to gain almost nothing. This imbalance has made Afghanistan an exceptionally challenging adversary.

Given these realities, Afghanistan has always been a difficult partner in any relationship. For Pakistan, navigating its relationship with Afghanistan requires careful, deliberate steps.