KARACHI, 25 October — Unlike in the conventional love triangle that gives life to romantic fiction, no two of the three large groups thrown up by Pakistan’s general elections earlier this month are bound together in tenderness. Two weeks after the votes were polled, they have not been able to hammer out a governing coalition and the dates for the summoning of the National Assembly and the four provincial legislatures have not been set. Apart from anxious speculation about who will join whom to form the next government, concern is mounting about the overall sense of direction of the country’s polity.

Though the numbers game is somewhat confusing and complex, it is hard to decipher the message conveyed by the electorate in its split verdict. The Pakistan Muslim League (Q) that is deemed as the King’s Party won the largest number of seats (76) out of 272 general seats contested on Oct. 10. Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) of Benazir Bhutto made a strong showing with 63 seats. But the great surprise was sprung by Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of six religious parties. It not only captured more than 50 seats in the National Assembly but also swept the elections in the Frontier province bordering Afghanistan.

Irrespective, however, of the deep bewilderment that would naturally emerge from an election that comes in the wake of army rule and extensive political engineering, the immediate focus rests on the choice of the new prime minister and the impact of this choice on the position of President Musharraf, who professes to be neutral in the present power game. Presiding over a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, he rejected the impression that government agencies were working to have the prime minister of his choice.

This, in any case, would not be easy without large compromises because the National Assembly is dominated by anti-Musharraf forces, mainly the PPP and MMA. That there is no ideological glue to hold these forces together is, however, an additional dimension. At the same time that they talk about national interest and put their faith in unity and in consensus, it is hard to see how the diverse stances can be welded together within the ambit of President Musharraf’s constitutional diktat.

Against this backdrop, the present crisis of power in Pakistan is fraught with unpredictable consequences. For many observers, the key dilemma is the surge of anti-American sentiment in the guise of MMA.

It has serious implications for both foreign and domestic policies of the Musharraf government. After all, continuity was the premise on which all political moves were made by the establishment and this continuity is under assault from the opposite camps of MMA and PPP.

It has been argued that MMA’s awesome strength in the legislatures is prompted largely by the official suppression of the mainstream political parties of the two former prime ministers. It also helped that the six religious parties, deeply divided on denominational issues, were able to come together in a joint campaign. Some observers feel that the establishment was not averse to an impressive showing by religious elements to be able to gain more support from the United States but it ended up getting much more than it had desired.

On its part, the religious alliance is now taking steps to allay fears that it is set to rock the boat. It invited foreign diplomats in Islamabad on Wednesday to reassure the international community that if it comes into power, it would adhere to agreements reached between Pakistan and other countries. The MMA leaders have also explained that Islamic measures would not be forced on the people. Incidentally, MMA’s candidate for the prime ministership is Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a leader who has had close links with the Taleban of Afghanistan.

In addition to misgivings about the polices of MMA in the context of America’s war against terrorism in which Pakistan is playing a prominent role, Pakistan’s civil society is also very apprehensive about the attitude of religious extremists toward, for instance, the role of women in society. Moderate elements also fear that a Parliament in which the religious parties are so dominant will not be able to pass progressive legislation. Already, the religious elements are campaigning against co-education and a banking system that operates on "interest".

Suddenly, it seems that the entire thrust of social change that was directed by President Musharraf’s pro-US administration has come under attack. But much more crucial is the manner in which power if finally transferred to an elected government and the constitution is restored. Both MMA and PPP are not willing to accept President Musharraf’s package of constitutional amendments.

In 1971, Pakistan was dismembered because the then military rulers were not willing to accept the results of general elections. In 2002, the establishment may find it difficult to fully understand and interpret the verdict of the people.