THE reasons behind Leader of the Opposition Syed Khursheed Shah’s call for a four-year parliamentary term can be understood, the politicians’ impatience being one of them. Recall the immediate aftermath of the Zia regime when none of the four elected governments could complete their five-year term. As pointed out by Nawaz Sharif, that was the era of ‘long marches’; and — what he didn’t say — of conspiracies that involved politicians and non-political actors manoeuvring to topple the existing government. A handy weapon was the Zia-gifted Article 58 (2b), which enabled the president to dissolve the Assembly and make a fresh reference to the people if he thought the government was not being run according to the Constitution. Invariably, the article was misused for reasons that had nothing to do with the people’s welfare. The article in question was done away with, then re-inserted by Pervez Musharraf and finally discarded again by parliament in the post-Musharraf era. Deprived of this article, the opposition today relies on ‘long marches’, ‘tsunamis’ and ‘revolutions’ to topple the PML-N government, which has just managed to complete a year in office. Mr Shah’s suggestion, that can always be debated by parliament, should be seen against this background, especially because his party has opposed the ‘marches’ and ‘revolutions’ some parties have threatened to launch.

However, there are other factors that must also be considered, such as the desirability of a developing country like Pakistan to stand what can be called the rigours, and expenses, of a general election every four years. Usually, it is in stable democracies that people go to the polls every four years. With constitutional institutions and democratic traditions in place, polls in developed countries are not the kind of shambolic phenomenon we see in the developing world. In Pakistan especially, poll results are often challenged through means legal and illegal, and it takes time for a new government to settle down. The issue also has a bearing on economic development, as governments find it difficult to complete projects within the five-year term. To reduce it to four years would hardly help, since new governments often scrap projects launched by their predecessors for no valid reason.

The social side of the elections too must be noted. Each time there is an election, the country is unhinged. Clannish loyalties, feuds, the involvement of criminal elements in the electoral process, the lavish use of money in excess of the official ceiling, and the brazen display and use of firearms dominate the essential democratic exercise. Time and space are needed for a more enlightened electoral culture to evolve. Headway towards this end can begin now by nominating a consensus candidate to the post of chief election commissioner to oversee the process of electoral reform.

Published in Dawn, July 10th, 2014