The strong opposition showing in the Pakistani elections should help prevent violence and lend credibility to the elections, but it foreshadows political instability, says a Duke University expert on international election monitoring.

 

"The U.S. administration would have preferred to see (President Pervez) Musharraf's party retain more power and thus keep Pakistan sufficiently stable to remain a reliable ally in the war on terrorism," says Judith Kelley, assistant professor of public policy studies and political science at Duke's Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.

 

"But stability rests on the elections being credible, which is why the U.S. government looked high and low to find American groups willing to monitor the polling process. Credibility depends on how well election results actually reflect the sentiment of the voters," she says.

 

Kelley is conducting comprehensive research into international election monitoring with grant funds from the National Science Foundation. The project is examining factors such as the strategic behavior of international monitors, violence during elections, the responses of governments to monitoring and the effect of monitors on the quality of elections.

 

"Although in theory monitors should apply uniform standards, in practice they often play a different role."

 

International monitors sent to observe the polling faced a dilemma, says Kelley, the author of "Ethnic Politics in Europe: The Power of Norms and Incentives." But Musharraf's decision to abandon further rigging and to accept the outcome has made their actions clearer.

 

"Pre-election violence and manipulation make it impossible for these elections to meet international standards," Kelley says, "but the opposition victory came in spite of rigging, not through it. Monitors must shore up the legitimacy of that outcome to prevent violence."