When elections were held in Afghanistan for the first time in living memory last year, the response in Pakistan was not exactly overwhelming in its enthusiasm. Although nobody said it out loud, there are a sizable number of people here who wanted the democratic experiment next door to fail.

And when, contrary to most predictions, large numbers of Afghans turned out to vote in the mostly peaceful election, there was almost a palpable sense of disappointment in Pakistan.

Despite their dire threats, the Taliban were unable to significantly affect the turnout, and after some initial reservations among the losing candidates, the result has been accepted as reflecting the will of the majority of Afghans. And as the election of Hamid Karzai coincides with the wishes of the western occupation forces, he enjoys widespread legitimacy and support.

In Iraq, too, the recent elections have been viewed with considerable suspicion in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. The general opinion is that the Americans have no business imposing democracy on a country they invaded and are currently occupying.

The subtext, of course, is that other Muslims living under tyranny will start demanding their freedom as well. This is not to suggest that democracy is the panacea for all of Iraq's many problems.

Indeed, Bush may well find that he has opened a Pandora's box instead of the ballot box. Whatever the final count and outcome of the poll, one thing is certain: the minority Sunnis will henceforth play a secondary role in any democratic dispensation in Iraq.

How soon they will get used to this unaccustomed position after decades of ruling over the majority Shias will determine how soon peace will return to that deeply divided country.

Clearly, the Americans have stuck to the electoral schedule they had laid down earlier despite widespread violence because it provides them with an exit strategy. Once an elected government is in place, and the assembly has approved a constitution, Bush will be able to declare victory and bring the boys back home. But just because it suits the Americans does not mean democracy in Iraq is a bad thing. Although I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, now that it has happened, good things can flow from it.

The removal of Saddam Hussein from office, despite its heavy cost, is to be welcomed. His savage repression of his own people, and his mad adventures outside Iraqi borders, had destabilized the region and sickened the world. But every election has its winners and losers. In Iraq, the losers are the previously dominant Sunni minority who are behind much of the current resistance to American occupation, as well as the attacks against Shia and Kurdish civilians.

There is a very real danger that after largely boycotting the election, they will be underrepresented in the assembly, feel dis-empowered and go into a terminal sulk.

Should they continue their resistance, a civil war could well ensue. Indeed, by lashing out against symbols of authority as well as Shias and Kurds, the Sunnis are already engaged in a civil conflict.

Although the huge Iraqi oilfields are concentrated in the Kurdish north and the Shia south, the Sunnis may well trigger a partition of Iraq so that it reverts to its Ottoman configuration of three provinces, namely, Kurdistan, Baghdad and Basra.

Any such development would be fiercely resisted by most of Iraq's neighbours. For Turkey, the emergence of an independent, or even autonomous Kurdish state, is anathema as it might encourage its own large Kurdish minority to make a similar demand.

Saudi Arabia does not wish to see the emergence of a Shia state on its borders as it has a significant Shia minority of its own. And in Syria, where the Shia minority rules a Sunni majority, an ideological Sunni state emerging out of Iraq would not be welcomed.

Thus, for many of Iraq's neighbours, the recent election can only be bad news. And yet, what is the alternative? Now that Saddam Hussein has been removed, should Iraq be handed over to another tyrant? If the occupation forces are to be induced to leave, a legitimate government has to be in power in Baghdad.

And in this day and age, elections are the only way to confer legitimacy on a new government. Although many Islamist groups demand the return of the Khilafat, or Caliphate, the fact is that this is a pipe dream that has no relevance to the present situation. But elections have their own dynamic that may not suit the Americans. The big winner will be Iran as Iraq will become the only Arab Shia state by virtue of its 60 per cent Shia population. This is why Ayatollah Sistani has played a patient waiting game, and has urged all Shias to vote.

So why are Muslims generally downcast by the outbreak of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Pakistan, where we have considerable experience in elections, if not in representative government, there are mixed feelings: the elite distrust free and fair elections as they often produce results that do not suit the ruling classes.

The thought of a modern, secular Afghanistan emerging next door is not a prospect that fills everybody's heart with joy. Recently, retired General Hamid Gul, ex-spy master and super-hawk, pronounced the Iraqi elections "rigged". He went on to say that "a Shia-majority Iraqi parliament will increase hardships for the Arab world."

But there are grave misgivings in the Arab world about a 'Shia crescent' extending from Iran to Lebanon. This assessment ignores the fact that after winning their freedom at such a cost, Iraqis - whether they are Sunnis or Shias - will be nobody's puppets.

A Shia government will certainly cultivate Tehran, but is unlikely to dance to the ayatollahs' tune. Closer to home in Afghanistan, a democratic government can be a powerful force for stability in a region that has long suffered from violence and uncertainty.

Already, there are reports that opium production is declining. Once the unruly and backward Taliban are tamed, the Pushtun belt on both sides of the border might settle down.

While these scenarios might prove over-optimistic, at least the recent elections have raised hopes for a better life for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier, there seemed to be no hope for them at all.