AMID some tough competition, Pakistan has a reasonable claim to the title of World’s Most Dangerous Nation. It has nuclear weapons, a large contingent of fundamentalists bent on wreaking chaos beyond its borders, a simmering conflict with the big power next door and a long history of unstable governments. The atomic armoury is there to stay; but, after an election on May 11th which propelled Nawaz Sharif to power for the third time (see article), there are good reasons to believe that the place may get stabler, calmer and more prosperous.
Given Mr Sharif’s record, such optimism may seem odd. He was a dreadful prime minister in the 1990s—vengeful and autocratic, subverting the judiciary and undermining the press. Nobody was surprised when he fell victim to a coup led by the then General Pervez Musharraf; hardly anybody regretted Mr Sharif’s departure.


But even politicians can change for the better, and while in opposition Mr Sharif has shown himself willing to put country above self. There were several moments when the Pakistan Peoples Party government, led by Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, looked as though it might be toppled by a peculiarly Pakistani phenomenon—a combination of judicial and military power, or the sudden emergence of a religious pressure group led by a Canadian-based cleric. Each time, Mr Sharif refused to help push his enemies out of power, on the grounds that they should serve their elected term.
His closeness to the religious right is a concern: his Pakistan Muslim League (N) party, which runs Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, has failed to crack down on the extremist Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and some of its candidates are believed to have links to the group. Critics suggest his closeness to the fundamentalists explains why more secular parties were attacked during the campaign and the PML-N was not. Yet links to militant groups could prove useful in reining them in.
That Mr Sharif is a successful businessman is probably good news. Militants aside, his party has done a pretty good job of running Punjab, and he understands Pakistan’s desperate need for electricity and roads. So long as his interest in money does not encourage him to pilfer the nation’s wealth, his competence should help it prosper. The markets evidently think so: share prices leapt when he won.
Mr Sharif’s victory was not the only election result worth celebrating. So was the defeat of many of the landowners and clan leaders who have dominated politics in the country since its creation in 1947. As Pakistan’s urban middle class grows, so voters are swayed less by tribal loyalty and more by a government’s policies and performance. That is how governance improves. But the most encouraging result of all is the enthusiasm with which Pakistanis have endorsed democracy. The Taliban said that voting was unIslamic. A 60% turnout said what the voters thought of that. For the first time in Pakistan’s history, one fairly elected civilian government has served a full term and, in the course of a fair election been replaced by another. Pakistani democracy has never looked stronger.
Troubles with the neighbours
None of this will count for much if Mr Sharif messes up relations with the neighbours. Pakistan is both vulnerable to the conflicts on its borders and guilty of stirring them up. In Afghanistan it has played a dangerous double game, helping the Taliban while taking American money to allow drone strikes against militants in its tribal areas. This has poisoned relations between the two countries: of 20 countries Pew Research recently ranked according to their enthusiasm for America, Pakistan came joint bottom, with Jordan. Mr Sharif must play a straighter game in future, helping America in its withdrawal and supporting rather than undermining the government it leaves behind.
But it is how things go with India that will do most to shape Pakistan’s future. That toxic relationship is behind most of Pakistan’s problems: the army’s dominance, the soldiers’ habit of ousting civilian governments, the imbalance between military and civilian spending, the terrorist groups spawned to attack India that have come back to bite Pakistan.
Mr Sharif’s election bodes well here, too. He knows that opening the sluices to trade with India would boost Pakistan’s pathetic growth rate. Last time round, he took a conciliatory line towards India. This week, even before his victory was confirmed, he had a long phone call with Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, and told his countrymen that he and Mr Singh would visit each other. Yet the lobbies with an interest in fostering conflict with India are strong. When Mr Sharif is deciding how to allocate his political capital, plenty should go towards normalising relations with Pakistan’s great neighbour. If he succeeds in doing that, much good will flow from it.