Compared to your last visit in Pakistan, in what way this country has changed? Is Islamic fundamentalism more spread than before?

I found a lot of continuity from a social point of views in the sense that the social structure is almost the same apart from the urbanization. I’ve noticed thousands of people moving from the countryside to the bigger cities but still Pakistan is a divided land between Punjab, Balucistan, and the tribal areas. Whereas from a political point of view, there are many differences compared to 20 years ago: pluralism and a more balanced representation in the Parliament are for sure more rooted than in the past. There was fundamentalism too in the 80s. What it is new has to do with the political version of fundamentalism: while in the 80s, believe me, Pakistan was strongly pro-America against Soviet, now the majority is anti-America.

Since 1999, when Musharraf took over the control with a coup d’etat, how Pakistan has changed?

The situation is complicated and it’s not as simple as to say it’s a military dictatorship. He surely made a coup d’etat in 1999, I should say it’s a sort of enlightened dictatorship in the sense that he has been authoritarian but not in the brutal way or in the sort of indiscriminate way some of his predecessor were. He tried to have a better control but at the same time the outgoing Parliament still has a political representation of less than a dozen parties, the political representation of the 3 major parties is very balanced. On the other hand, he allowed the limited work in the Parliament as far as his role was not put at risk and, I think, he tried to restore some authority in the army and to reintegrate the control over the intelligence service. He did that for sure, but if, for instance, you look at the state of emergency – of course it was a state of emergency! – it was declared for limited scope. Yes, 2000 people were detained but released or they are close to it. He was looking for negotiating with Benazir Bhutto even with Nawar Sharif’s group, the former prime minister, and they were dealing in the period I was there, in may 2007. It is a very complicated situation and I think Musharraf was really in the dynamics of having elections and restoring some kind of institutional normalization. Being part of the deal, Benazir Bhutto, if she hadn’t been killed, would have had a good change of becoming Prime Minister.

So you have a positive opinion of Musharraf’s ruling?

No, it’s an authoritarian system, it’s a military dictatorship but, for instance, you should check the relatively openness of Pakistani media, Pakistan is a bi-lingual country, you have very good newspaper like “The Nation” or “Dawn”…

But the media has been muzzled by Musharraf.

But they have been freed again. When I went to Pakistan, there was a very open debate on the underground dealings between Musharraf and Bhutto and you could find that on the first pages of the newspapers. I think now Musharraf is trying to convince the world that he was not, and, I think, he was not at all behind Bhutto’s assassination…I don’t see any strategic interest behind this killing.

What about Musharraf’s decision to dismissed the country’s top judge, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry?

This is one of the major issue in Pakistan before Bhutto’s assassination. With the hostility of the lawyers’ corporation but with the support of part of the judiciary court, Musharraf carried out a military kind of approach to this crisis and Judge Chaudry is still under house arrest. This was certainly an authoritarian move.

According to you Musharraf is doing his best to fight terrorism?

Yes. In 2007 the Pakistani army has lost 800 soldiers in the tribal areas trying to control the Taliban area and at the same time they have been providing information on the Al-Qaeda group.

Do you think Pakistan has ever carried out at least one democratic election in its history?

No. In some countries in the world I interpret there are passing through a long sequence transition period. If you compare it to Indonesia, the election of 1999 have been very violent but they restore someway a political system which has been consolidated, with no doubt, in the 2004 election. I think the plan of Musharraf is quite similar.

Prof. Vilanova, these elections are going to be rigged?

The Pakistani government has accepted internationals observers in the next election to guarantee the regular course and, as I’ve worked in the past with them in other countries, I know they are particularly scrupulous, rigid and demanding. So, accepting observers from the UN and other international organizations, means that the government is aware of the severe monitoring they are going to face, excluding the tribal areas which are difficult for everybody to practically control. There is a possibility of what I call a social control of structures of tribes and loyalties: for instance, it’s sure that in some places Bhutto’s party will win in the Sind province, for example – whereas in the Punjab area Musharraf’s party and Sharif’s party are very popular.

What type of scenario do you foresee after the elections?

According to recent polls, more than 25% of the votes should be cast in favour of Bhutto’s party, 22-25% to Sharif’s group whereas 23-25% to the Muslim league, Musharraf’s political party, the rest of the votes will go to those radical Islamic parties which are very strong in the North-Western province and I think their presence in the Parliament is important due to the fact that if you want to restore some kind of public authority in that area, you must do it through these people.