Le Pen’s core message promises an end to open borders, multiculturalism and free-trade. She has promised to hold a referendum on France’s membership of the EU and vows to limit immigration to 10,000 people per year.

As centre-right candidate Francois Fillon battles a financial scandal, Le Pen could end up facing liberal former banker, Emmanuel Macron – who is running his first ever election campaign. With the first round of voting approaching in April, we will be discussing the significance of this election for France and the EU, and exploring who could come out on top.

Chaired by Jamie Coomarasamy, presenter on World Tonight on Radio 4, Newshour on the BBC World Service and BBC World News. Coomarasamy was formerly a BBC Correspondent in Paris, Warsaw, Moscow and Washington.

Speakers (full panel announced soon)

Natalie Nougayrède is a columnist, leader writer and foreign affairs commentator for The Guardian. She was previously executive editor and managing editor of Le Monde.

Charles Grant CMG is director of the Centre for European Reform (CER). He works on EU foreign and defence policy, Russia, China, the euro and Britain’s relationship with the EU. His biography of Commission President Jacques Delors (“Delors: Inside the House that Jacques Built”) was published by Nicolas Brealey in 1994. In 2004 he became a chevalier of France’s Ordre Nationale du Mérite, and in 2013 a Companion of St Michael and St George (CMG) “for services to European and wider international policy-making”. In 2015 he was awarded the Bene Merito medal by the Polish government and the Star of Italy medal by the Italian government. Charles is a regular contributor to the Financial Times, The Guardian, The New York Times International Edition and many other publications. He can be followed on twitter at @CER_Grant.

Philippe Marlière is a professor of French and European politics at University College London. His publications revolve around the French Left, European social democracy, questions of citizenship, integration and racism in France. He is writing a book on the shift to the right of the republican ideology in contemporary France. He contributes opinion articles to the media, notably The Guardian, openDemocracy, Le Monde and has a blog on Mediapart, the main on line publication in France.

This screening will be followed by a Q&A with director Dawn Porter via Skype.

At this very moment, a woman’s reproductive rights in the United States are not clear. Since 2010, state legislatures have passed more than 288 laws restricting abortion clinics and their doctors. From mandating the width of hallways to requiring physicians to have active admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, these measures are forcing clinics across the country to shut down in epidemic numbers.

Lawyer-turned-acclaimed-filmmaker Dawn Porter picks up the plight of the doctors and clinic operators along with the countless women relying on these facilities to uphold their legal right to safe abortion. As a landmark case against these laws brought by Texas clinics to the Supreme Court nears a verdict, the stakes on either side of the intractable divide have never been higher.

Winner of Sundance’s Special Jury Prize for Social Impact, this highly prescient study exposes the human cost of the war over choice.

Directed by: Dawn Porter
Country: United States
Year: 2016
Runtime: 80′
www.trappeddocumentary.com

When Barack Obama was elected, the world cheered. Not only was he the first African-American President, he inspired hope and trust – everywhere. His promises – to end the war in Iraq, close Guantanamo, fight climate change, reform American healthcare – seemed to mark a new era of civility and hope. What happened instead was the worst economic collapse in living memory, a Republican opposition that refused any sort of cooperation, and the rise of a populist anti-government Tea Party.

In this landmark series by Norma Percy, Brian Lapping and Paul Mitchell, four one-hour programmes look at how he brought America out of the Great Recession; how his triumphant reform of America’s healthcare system was followed by defeat at the polls at the hands of the Tea Party; the failure to close Guantanamo, the Arab Spring and the inside story of the secret nuclear negotiations with Iran; the struggle for gun control and his response to the racial unrest of Ferguson.

With unprecedented access and contribution from a number of key players within the administration, Inside Obama’s White House captures key moments when policy was made.

Jonathan Freedland is a weekly columnist and writer for the Guardian. A former Washington correspondent who has covered every US presidential election since 1992, he is also a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and presents BBC Radio 4’s contemporary history series, The Long View. In 2014 he was awarded the Orwell special prize for journalism. He has also published eight books including six bestselling thrillers, the latest being The 3rd Woman. He tweets @freedland.

Producer/Director: Paul Mitchell
Executive Producer: Brian Lapping
Series Producer: Norma Percy
Country: United Kingdom/USA
Runtime: 60′

Turkey’s prime minister Racep Tayyip Erdogan will win next month’s presidential elections and become the country’s first directly elected president, according to a panel of experts assembled at the Frontline Club on 22 July 2014.

The Frontline Club event was chaired by Murat Nisancioglu, the head of Turkish Service at BBC Global News and brought together Alexander Christie-Miller, an Istanbul-based freelance journalist and Turkey correspondent for Newsweek, The Times and Christian Science Monitor; Fadi Hakura, associate fellow at Chatham House; Sir David Reddaway, British ambassador to Turkey between 2009 and January 2014; and Karabekir Akkoyunlu, who recently completed a PhD about political change in Iran and Turkey at LSE.

The consensus of the panel was that Erdogan would win a convincing victory at the coming polls.

From left: Murat Nisancioglu, Karabekir Akkoyunlu, Sir David Reddaway, Alexander Christie-Miller and Fadi Hakura debate the prospects for Turkey’s forthcoming presidential poll. Photo by Richard Nield

“The elections are taking place at a critical time for Turkey, at a time of heightened socio-political tensions, and yet despite this fact it’s almost a dull election,” said Akkoyunlu.

“There’s very little excitement even compared to the local elections [earlier this year]. Perhaps it’s because the main opposition candidate hasn’t excited an opposition base. But probably the main reason is that Erdogan will prevail – the question is whether he wins in the first or the second round.”

According to Reddaway, Erdogan and the party machine of his Justice and Development Party (AKP) made him a likely winner in the first round.

“Whether you like them or not they’re an extremely effective organisation and Erdogan is a formidable leader,” he said.

Erdogan continues to dominate Turkish politics even after the crackdown on protestors demonstrating against the closure of Gezi Park in late May and early June 2013, resulted in up to 8,000 casualties and at least eight deaths and tarnished the reputation of his government irrevocably.

His reputation has even survived his spectacular mishandling of the Soma mining disaster in May.

“You couldn’t conceive of a government handling a crisis worse in PR terms,” said Christie-Miller. “It’s a measure of how Erdogan and his government is effectively bullet-proof.”

Erdogan has given a voice to a segment of Turkish society that had felt unrepresented, said Christie-Miller, and he has also delivered economic advances.

“The government is still perceived to be doing a very good job on the economy,” he said. “Compared to 10 or 11 years ago, Turks are much better off.”

But although Erdogan’s electoral success is assured, there may be tougher times ahead for Turkey, according to the panel.

Damaged brand

Erdogan’s domestic failings, coupled with the turn of external events, have already had an impact on Turkey’s standing overseas.

In 2011, the government was championing a policy of ‘zero problems’ with its neighbours, and Turkey was being held up as a possible model for regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt. But Egypt’s counter-revolution, the Gezi Park protests and Turkey’s powerlessness to influence the Syria crisis has meant that this is little more than a memory.

“It was an admirable aspiration, but you couldn’t pick a more difficult neighbourhood to have zero problems with,” said Reddaway. “The Turkish brand has taken a huge knock because of Gezi, and not being Arabs is a huge impediment. To be an active leader of the region was never going to work for a non-Arab country.”

“Each time Turkey has been held up as role model it has failed,” said Akkoyunlu. “There was popular support for Erdogan in the region, but with the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood and the turning of the tide in Syria that has pretty much lost its tinge.

“Since 2011 with the Arab Spring and [events] in Turkey, something changed. I would call it hubris. There was a feeling that its rise was unstoppable, but events really pulled the rug away and brought us to where we are now.”

Deteriorating media freedom

Media freedom is also being eroded, said Christie-Miller.

“It’s going to get worse. In recent months the government has passed several laws curtailing internet freedom and which indirectly affect media freedom,” he said. “The Turkish government doesn’t mind having a media criticising it, it just doesn’t want a media criticising it on certain issues.

“It is able to maintain the impression that it has a free press, but the freedom to carry out independent reporting is dramatically decreasing.”

Party political representation in the media in the run-up to elections has also been heavily biased towards the government.

“In the run-up to the local and general elections the amount of space and time dedicated to the ruling party was 89% in the local elections, with 11% for the other three parties,” said Akkoyunlu. “This time just two minutes [of air time] has been given to the main opposition party and no time at all for the pro-Kurdish opposition.”

Economy crucial

Reddaway warned that the economy will remain crucial to Erdogan’s success.

“The economy is the key to the AKP’s success,” he said. “It has to be careful not to alienate foreign investors and drive Turkish investment out of the country.”

But the economy may not be plain sailing in the coming years.

“Turkey has had growth of 5.2% a year which is relatively easy because it has moved from a low income to a middle income country,” said. Hakura. “But to go from middle income to high income is a whole different dimension. In the past 30 years only five countries [have done this] and they are all from Southeast Asia.

“Turkey has entered a long period of economic stagnation with 2–4% growth, which is quite slow for the current phase of Turkey’s development.”

Erdogan’s legacy

Asked how he would advise the government of Turkey, Reddaway warned that the dominance of Erdogan and the AKP, which is expected to continue in the general elections in 2015, is itself something that the president apparent must guard against.

“One of the problems of successful politicians is that if you’ve won a series of elections it becomes harder and harder for people to give you advice you don’t want to hear.

“I would appeal to his sense of history. As we go towards 2023 [the 100-year anniversary of Turkey’s independence], I would want Erdogan to install a model that means that the baby doesn’t get chucked out with the bathwater when the AKP runs out of steam as it eventually will.”

Watch and listen back here:

‘What next for Afghanistan?’ asked a panel of experts at the Frontline Club on 2 April, in an event in partnership with BBC World Service, that looked at the possible outcomes of the upcoming election.

There was a certain measured optimism in the response to this question from the panel and a general feeling that this election is one to get excited about. Chaired by BBC Broadcasting House’s Paddy O’Connell, the panel of experts were grilled on the candidates, the election process, the possibility of a second round and the challenges ahead.

Straight off the plane from Afghanistan, Amnesty International’s Afghan researcher, Horia Mosadiq, told the audience what the feeling on the ground about the election was:

“Despite a series of violent attacks by the Taliban and other insurgent groups, Afghans are looking forward to these elections,” she said. “I spoke to many people from different places and they are saying, ‘Nothing can hold us back from going [to vote]’.”

Michael Semple, who is a visiting professor at the Centre for Conflict Transformation at Queen’s University, Belfast, hoped the panel would clarify some of the main assumptions surrounding the election:

“The myths that the Americans pull all the strings, that there is a great power inside the palace that can manipulate the election and that the Taliban can determine the event, will all be shattered. A rather messy process of alliance building and a popular mobilisation is going to determine events.”

The BBC World Service’s Emal Pasarly, who edits the BBC Pashto-Persian Service, said that as an Afghan, he is very excited about this election because “people are thinking there is a new hope, a new person to guide us ahead”.

Former UN secretary general’s personal representative Francesc Vendrell, who has has worked in Afghanistan since 2000, pointed out what he thought were two key factors:

“Firstly, to what degree is this election credible, and the result acceptable, to most of the Afghans. And secondly, will these elections be accepted [by] about 150 key players in Afghanistan [on] whom it really depends if it is going to be a peaceful succession from President Karzai.”

Discussing the candidates, the whole panel agreed that there are only really three frontrunners: former finance minister Ashraf Ghani, Dr Abdullah Abdullah and Dr Zalmay Rassoul.

Describing the difference between this election and past elections, Pasarly said:

“Ashraf Ghani mentioned a lot of stuff you would hear in other parts of the world. He promised to create one million jobs, which is something unheard of in Afghan politics to hear someone come and talk about jobs.”

Semple said many supporters believe Ashraf Ghani can bring what he preached because he has track record of actually trying to do it in the cabinet already:

“People have focused over the last few years on all the things the Afghans didn’t do, but if you look [Ghani’s] track record from the early part of the process, it is delivering the first stages of state building. He has changed the currency, overturned the customs regime to regain control of revenues and he played a pivotal role pushing through the disbandment of the militias.”

O’Connell asked the panel what role the Taliban has in this election and if it is a fourth candidate in an empty chair. Vendrell replied, stating that he wasn’t surprised that the Taliban weren’t even bothering to be involved in the election, “I think their main wish is to disrupt elections”.

Semple added that:

“The Taliban have the capacity to inflict large-scale casualties . . . but I believe they are frightened to do so because they concluded that would be counter-productive.”

Mosadiq pointed out that a security concern still did exist for voters, but “the level of the killings are not the same level as 2009”.

“Despite the insecurities that still exist, what I was amazed at was the level courage that Afghan men and women were having that they still wanted to cast their vote,” she added.

Another major issue of the election is the prospect of election fraud. Pasarly pointed out that for this election the presence of social media and smart phones means that the people can hold the government more accountable than before.

“You will see from the first hour of the election, a lot of videos on Facebook and Twitter. These observers are more important and you will get a lot of the corruption and the fraud cases through there.”

Watch and listen to the event here:

After a tense five year coalition between Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Zimbabwe is back at the ballot box. On the eve of the polls closing on 31 July, the Frontline Club hosted a debate with four experts to discuss what this election will mean for the future of Zimbabwe.

Simukai Tinhu (left), Dr Sue Onslow (centre), Wilf Mbanga (right). Photo: Dan Tookey

Dr Sue Onslow, currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, began by asking whether the panel believed there to be any ‘vital conditioning before the start of today?’ and commenting:

‘It’s often said that elections are stolen well before anyone actually puts a cross on a piece of paper’

Wilf Mbanga, the founder, publisher and editor of The Zimbabwean newspaper, said:

‘At the last election the African Union condemned him [Mugabe] for the 400 people who were killed. . . . There were people with broken bones, people in hospitals and there was evidence of violence which you couldn’t deny. This time around he has decided he’s not going to do that. People will vote peacefully, there are no dead bodies, no broken bones, but they’re manipulating the figures.’

Mbanga continued by explaining in detail how the electoral role has been doctored. ‘They will do it  and win the election with the figures, not beating up people’’.

Chofamba Innocent Sithole, a Zimbabwean journalist and current assistant editor of NewsAfrica magazine, argued that there was a positive element to the current election in that the violent wings of all the parties have been demobilised:

‘It is true that all the parties engage in violence; Zanu-PF perhaps just has a bigger capacity for violence.’

He continued that although Zanu-PF seem to have retreated from violence, they still have other things in their arsenal:

‘They control the institutions that register voters, that delineate constituencies and that has pretty much been in evidence at this election.’

Simukai Tinhu, an African Affairs Analyst based in London, pointed out that in the first round of the 2008 elections there was very limited violence:

‘It was only in the second round when Mugabe had realised that there was a potential that he might actually lose the presidency. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is surge in violence if there is to be a run-off.’

According to Dr Onslow the electoral rules for the election are baffling, making her ‘quite cross-eyed trying to work out what was going on.’

Mbanga agreed but argued that this confusion had been quite deliberate:

‘They’ve actually criminalised voter education. A number of people have been arrested who were found educating people how to vote; where to put their x. They will be going to court after the elections. People have gone in to this election ignorant of whether their names are even on the electoral rolls.’

Sithole argued that the ‘Mugabe factor’ is not going to have as much sway in this election as it has in previous ones:

‘It is ludicrous for young Zimbabweans looking to the future to be seized with this zeal to go and thrust this old man back in to power. Because of this I think Tsvangirai is going to swing it.’

However, Tinhu disagreed with this analysis arguing that to the contrary Mugabe does appeal to the youth though it not seen to be ‘trendy.’

Mbanga argued that Mugabe has great appeal for those who remember Zimbabwe pre 1980 – and Mugabe is still acting like he is fighting that war.

Sithole made it clear that he thought that Mugabe as an individual was not prepossessing to the Zimbabwean people – but that his ideas still resonated with a lot of people:

 ‘Even among young people there is an admiration for a leader who is seen to be strong. Someone who can stand up to powerful countries, and powerful interests. This is something that not only resonates in Zimbabwe but also across Africa.’

https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/will-2013-see-the-end-of

With just over a week to go until Iranians go to the polls to vote for a new president, the Frontline Club’s First Wednesday panel on 5 June discussed the question: who will be the next president of Iran and why does it matter?

The chair of the discussion, former assistant editor and foreign editor of The Times Martin Fletcher started off by saying:

“Eight hundred and sixty-eight Iranians, mostly men – a few of them women – applied to run in next week’s election. Eight were selected by the Guardian Council . . . a body of people loyal to the Supreme Leader, and only those deemed ideologically sound were allowed to run. . . . So as an exercise in true democracy, as an expression of popular will, I think it’s clear that next week’s vote is pretty much a charade.”

Saeed Barzin, an Iran analyst with BBC Persian Service and the BBC Monitoring service since 2006 added:

“It is not fair in any sense of the word in terms of the access to media, political meetings, coverage of television et cetera. It is not fair.”

Analysing how the votes will be divided in the forthcoming Iranian election @bbcpersian pic.twitter.com/HG4qqjFBvI

— Frontline Club (@frontlineclub) June 5, 2013

Kelly Golnoush Niknejad, founder and editor-in-chief of the award-winning Tehran Bureau, said that censorship has been unprecedented:

“Even if they were to take off all the filters there’s really not much going on in terms of campaigning. Posters aren’t there, rallies aren’t there, the headquarters aren’t in the same way that they were in 2009. . . .The regime probably has more faith in the opposition than the opposition has in itself. Even the smallest openings, whether it’s the death of Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri . . . you can see any tiny opening creating a space.”

On whether he thought the election would be a significant one, Barzin said that it would probably not be free or fair and that there would be some cheating but it could still instigate change:

“They could make changes – you don’t have to be democratic country to change; you don’t have to have free elections to change; Iran has lived in the modern period for over a hundred years under dictatorships. . . . It has changed as a society . . . as a political entity . . . as an international element. So these elections are significant in the sense that they could bring change. I feel there is something in the wind.”

Fletcher questioned the panel on who they thought would be the eventual winner? Would it be Saeed Jalili, Iran’s nuclear negotiator?

Golnoush Niknejad said:

“I think he’s the least popular . . . someone said that Jalili is more like a scarecrow; he’s probably brought out to scare people to come to the polls to vote against him.”

Roger Cohen, one of the last journalists to leave Iran after the 2009 elections and op-ed columnist for The New York Times, continued:

“The need to try and get a crowd out is a very important one, [but] I don’t know how they will engineer that . . . I think they have a real problem after 2009.”

Does it really matter who is president? Fletcher asked. To which Roberto Toscano, Italian Ambassador to Iran for five years (2003-2008) replied:

“The difference between national interest and regime interest is glaring. There are certain things that the country has to do, for instance getting economy on a more healthy ground . . . and secondly, international relations. Everybody knows in Iran that in order to become a normal country you have to reach a modus operandi with the United States. Anybody who can deliver that will become unbeatable.”

New insights thanks to the great panelists at the @frontlineclub on #Iran's election tonight

— كريسطوف (@SheikhCJ) June 5, 2013

On whether the Iranian people want change and to be part of the Arab Spring Barzin said:

“The Iranian middle class is afraid of the Arab Spring, they don’t want cars burnt, they don’t want houses being smashed up, they don’t want violence, they’re afraid of it . . . the Iranian middle class want change but it has to make sure that it is not a violent one. It is not prepared to take that risk.”

Cohen continued:

“In few places on the face of the Earth is there a society that is so out of sync with the regime governing it. Iranians are highly educated, sophisticated people. Because there is an extreme dichotomy between the people and their government… and one day it will happen.”

Watch the full event here:

https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/sets/archive-first-wednesday

Throughout June, in association with BBC Persian, we will be joined by experts, journalists and commentators to make sure you are up to date with events in the country. We will be offering a portrait of outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, analysing the candidates and, following the election, we will be asking what the result means for the future of the country.

Sneak Preview BBC Persian screening: Ahmadinejad – The Populist and the Pariah

Monday 3 June 2013, 7:00 PM
The screening is organised by BBC Persian Service.
Since his election in 2005, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has become the most well-known Iranian since the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini. Produced by the BBC Persian Service, this documentary looks at the rise of Ahmadinejad and explains how this provincial politician with a PhD in traffic management became a personality to be reckoned with.
Followed by a panel discussion with: Sadeq Saba, head of BBC Persian; Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, filmmaker and journalist and Kasra Naji, special correspondent for BBC Persian TV.

First Wednesday: Who will be the next president of Iran and why does it matter?

Wednesday 5 June 2013, 7:00 PM
On 14 June Iranians will go to to the polls to vote for a president to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but what significance does this election hold? Join us to analyse the approaching election, the main players and what the result will mean for the future of Iran. With: Kelly Golnoush Niknejad, founder and editor-in-chief of the award-winning Tehran Bureau; Roberto Toscano, Italian Ambassador to Iran (2003-2008); Saeed Barzin, Iran analyst with BBC Persian Service and the BBC Monitoring service since 2006; and Roger Cohen, a journalist, author and op-ed columnist for The New York Times.

Iran after Ahmadinejad

Wednesday 26 June 2013, 7:00 PM
Following the presidential election in Iran, we will be bringing together a panel of experts to deliberate the results and what they mean for the future of the country. In association with BBC Persian Service, we will be taking an in-depth look at Iran’s new president, exploring his affiliations and policies both at home and internationally. With: Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS); Saeed Barzin, Iran analyst with BBC Persian Service and the BBC Monitoring service since 2006. Additional speakers to be confirmed.

In association with BBC Persian:

https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/iranafterahmedinejad
Following the presidential election in Iran, we will be bringing together a panel of experts to deliberate the results and what they mean for the future of the country.

In association with BBC Persian Service, we will be taking an in-depth look at Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, exploring his affiliations and policies at home and internationally.

Going forward, we will examine how Rouhani will tackle some of the biggest problems facing the country: from the nuclear issue to the economic crisis, and domestic power struggles to human rights.

Chaired by Elizabeth Palmer, CBS News correspondent.

The panel:

Azadeh Moaveni is a former Middle East correspondent for Time magazine who has reported on Iran since 1999. She is the author of Lipstick Jihad, Honeymoon in Tehran, and co-author, with Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi, of Iran Awakening. She writes widely on Iran and the Middle East for Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, and other publications.

Saeed Barzin has been an Iran analyst with BBC Persian Service and the BBC Monitoring service since 2006. He has written extensively on Iranian politics, media and society for general audiences, internal BBC customers and UK government officials. Over the past 15 years he has written for a number of current affairs journals and has published several books, including the Political Biography of Mehdi Bazargan which was among the top ten best-selling books in Iran in mid 1990s.

Mark Fitzpatrick is the director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme at International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He is the author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Avoiding worst-case outcomes. Prior to joining IISS he had a 26-year career in the US Department of State, where in his final posting he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Non-proliferation.

Scott Lucas is professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham and editor-in-chief of EA WorldView, which specialises in analysis of Iran. A specialist in US and British foreign policy and international relations, especially the Middle East and Iran, he has written and edited eleven books, more than 40 major articles, as well as producing a radio documentary and co-directing the 2007 film Laban!. Formerly a journalist in the US, he wrote for newspapers including the Guardian and The Independent and was an essayist for The New Statesman before founding EA WorldView.

This session is in association with BBC Persian Service.

As Pakistan gears up for crucial general elections in just over a week, on 1 May the Frontline Club hosted a panel discussion, First Wednesday: Pakistan goes to the polls, to consider the country’s prospects.

The panelists on the evening were journalist and author Irfan Husain,  Pir Zubair Shah of the Council on Foreign Relations, Umber Khairi, a producer and radio broadcaster with BBC Urdu at the BBC World Service and the High Commissioner of Pakistan to the UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan.

L-R: Irfan Husain, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Umber Khairi, Pir Zubair Shah Photo credit: Adil Shahzeb

Chaired by Paddy O’Connell of BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House, the debate aimed to give an overview of the main political parties contesting in the election – to be held on 11 May – marking their distinctions along religious and political lines. They also discussed their electioneering pledges as well as the ensuing threats and violence at rallies.

In answer to the question of the make up of the political parties, the panel agreed on their often ambiguous nature which makes some hard to distinguish along religious or political divides. The role of regional parties was also emphasised. In answer to a question of their importance, Shah explained:

“You have to be interested in the regional parties; besides Baluchistan you have to know what’s going on in tribal areas . . . who is running there, which parties are supporting them. In the tribal areas for the first time they have extended the Political Parties Act of Pakistan’s constitution; now you can run on a party political platform. However the situation there is still tenuous as attacks on secular party candidates are encouraging them to stand as independent.”

The changing face of the electorate was also linked to the emerging urban middle class, which seem to favour the party lead by Pakistan’s former cricketing hero Imran Khan. Pakistan Tehreek- e-Insaf (PTI), in Khairi’s view, is favored by younger voters but is also seen as a Taliban sympathizer:

“He is not a very experienced politician . . . he comes across as rightist. He is trying to form an alliance with Jammate Islami, a large regressive Islamist party, which has had association with Al Qaida.”

The role of the military, which over Pakistan’s 65 year history has toppled many elected governments, was also discussed. However, protracted legal disputes over its role in recent years has resulted in banning the country’s last military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, from contesting.

The question of crumbling economic infrastructures, possibly stemming from Pakistan’s intractable financial decline, was also highlighted in the discussion. Husain explained:

“The biggest single issue is currently recurring power shortages that the government could not get a handle on . . . so the country is on its knees . . . and there are areas in Pakistan where electricity goes out for 18 hours a day. . . . This is one issue I think the electorate is going to punish this government for.”

Forecasting the outcome of the elections, the panel agreed that a coalition was the most likely outcome. High Commissioner Hasan said that rural areas of Pakistan held majority votes and was therefore less hopeful for the prospects of PTI as it is more urban based. However, he foresees Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) making large scale gains in its traditional heartland province of Sindh, as well as sweeping the votes in Southern Punjab with its coalition partners.

For Khairi on the other hand, forecasting the outcome was likely to give a false picture:

“I wouldn’t like to make a prediction because when they did the voters verification, about 37 million were unverified and thrown out of registers and 36 million came in with new voters . . . it is a very unclear. I think there is going to be a coalition . . . but it is also an interesting election because it is the first time when there isn’t a right-wing religious party coalition contesting against specifically, say, PPP or Nawaz Sharif.”

Assessing the prospects of the other major parties, Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PMLN) and  PPP, Husain explained:

“The polls show that PMLN is ahead and will get the biggest number of seats so it’s very likely that he [Nawaz] will lead a coalition, but he is not expected to get an outright majority. Next to that in the polls is the PPP, which may or may not be part of a coalition. PTI is expected to do much better than before and pollsters are giving him [Khan] 15 to 30 seats out of 270. So we are looking at a coalition with Nawaz Sharif being the dominant player.”

Shah was more hopeful as the elections look set to bring in a second, consecutive democratic term in Pakistan’s history, but he was also critical:

“They have made progress on constitutional issues but face problems of power shortages and corruption and the elections in the regions are important to USA and NATO – all this is related and how you predict the outcome . . . PMLN, PTI and other religious parties will have a field day and the secular parties will suffer . . . the effect will be a hung parliament which can not do the basic things on security and foreign policy.”

You can watch the full event and listen to the podcast below:

http://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/first-wednesday-pakistan-goes