Although most calls Dr Jehan Ara* receives are of an urgent nature, the call she received 17 hours before local government polls on May 30 left her in shock. The office of Peshawar’s deputy commissioner, who was the district returning officer for local government polls, had made the call to direct her to collect election material and join polling duty at a local polling station.

Prior to this, the only experience she had had of polling was when she herself went to a polling station to cast her vote in the previous general elections; she certainly didn’t know how to conduct the polls as a polling agent. Nevertheless, she had to do as directed and reported for duty at the assigned polling station on the outskirts of Peshawar.

“I have never performed election duty. This doesn’t make sense?” she murmured.

Such last-minute hustling merely underscored the level of preparedness to conduct local government elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) among officials of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and other relevant quarters. An official in the election commission, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that returning officers and assistant returning officers in some areas were deputed for election duty without much training.

But were the elections being taken seriously to begin with?

The tables have turned: the PTI is at the receiving end of the same rigging allegations that it has made in Punjab. What went wrong?

Senior functionaries of the provincial government and ECP officials privately concede that as huge an undertaking as local government polls were, they were not taken seriously and were conducted without proper arrangements and homework.

Throughout the process, incumbent Chief Election Commissioner Justice (Retd) Sardar Muhammad Raza, who belongs to KP and has served in the province, did not bother to visit Peshawar to review poll arrangements either.

“I have never seen such poor arrangements for elections in the past,” remarks Waseem Ahmad, a Peshawar-based journalist who has covered numerous elections, and points to there being no concept of making queues or maintaining order in and outside the polling station. “It was a free-for-all situation. The moment voters start breaking queues at the polling station, the chances of free and fair elections diminish.”

Security arrangements for the polls were inadequate too. Out of a total 11,211 polling stations, some 2,837 were declared highly sensitive; 3,940 sensitive; and 4,340 normal. Only two or three constables were deputed at each polling station for security and maintaining order.

Ministers and other public office holders carried out massive campaigns in their respective constituencies and the provincial government spent millions of rupees on publicity campaigns through advertisements in the media. The ECP buried its head in the sand and did not take notice of these violations of the code of conduct.

It is no surprise that on polling day, and after polling closed, election-related violence claimed 21 lives. One minister was detained too, in Dera Ismail Khan, on charges of attacking a polling station.

In fact, the way the polls were conducted was anticlimactic. The ECP failed to assert its authority over the process, while the six-page code of conduct issued by the Commission was blatantly violated as well. Holding local government polls was part of the election manifesto of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), which had committed to conducting local government elections within three months of coming into power.

The PTI had also announced introducing a biometric system to prevent discrepancies and rigging in the polling process. Party chief Imran Khan’s daily sermons about free and fair elections and the tall claims of the ruling party had already upped the ante. Voters’ expectations were very high, as millions had to wait for almost two years to cast their votes in a secure environment.

But in truth, even the ruling party of the province was guilty of not following the ECP’s rules and regulations. For example, the Peshawar deputy commissioner had imposed Section 144 before the polls thereby banning public meetings, but PTI chief Imran Khan addressed rallies despite the ban.

Ministers and other public office holders carried out massive campaigns in their respective constituencies and the provincial government spent millions of rupees on publicity campaigns through advertisements in the media. The commission buried its head in the sand and did not take notice of these violations of the code of conduct.

In the aftermath, the KP government, ECP, and opposition politicians all seem to agree that a “ballot papers stuffing exercise” was conducted in the name of elections.

The ECP has notified a total of 93 election tribunals for hearing complaints, re-election has already been ordered on 351 polling stations across the province, while losing candidates in Peshawar alone have lodged over 2,500 complaints.

The mismanagement of polls triggered a blame game between the ECP and the provincial government. The commission accused the KP government of mismanagement and violence, while Chief Minister Pervez Khattak, Imran Khan and PTI’s coalition partner Jamaat-i-Islami held the ECP responsible for the mess on polling day.

The JI also blamed its senior coalition partner for using the police and the ROs to prop up support for PTI candidates, and alleged that the monitoring cell set up at Chief Minister’s House was in fact meant to manipulate results. On the other hand, opposition parties also made hay while the sun shone, and attacked the provincial government.

This scenario put both the provincial government and the PTI leadership in defensive mode: Imran Khan immediately offered re-election and CM Pervez Khattak summoned an all-parties conference and decided to form a judicial commission.

Most importantly, the provincial government notified a four-member committee headed by the chief secretary on June 12 to investigate “the causes of administrative failings which led to disturbances in the peaceful holding of local government elections and fix responsibility.” The committee will complete its findings and submit recommendations within 15 days.

The dilemma for the PTI is that it neither trusts the judiciary, which provided ROs for the May 2013 general elections, nor does it trust its executive officers who conducted the local government elections.

The question is: who is responsible for the mess? Is it the provincial government or is it the ECP?

A top legal brain of the KP government puts responsibility on the ECP but did not absolve the government either. He says it is the commission’s constitutional responsibility to conduct elections and not the provincial government’s: “Article 218 (3) says that it shall be the duty of the ECP to organise and conduct the election, and to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly,” he says.

Keeping in view the provisions granted in the constitution, he argues that the chief election commissioner can summon the army 12 hours before polling if he is not satisfied with security and other arrangements.

“After announcing schedule for the election the entire machinery including police and civil administration is at the disposal of the commission to implement the code of conduct and provide a secure environment for voters,” he says.

Around 88,000 candidates were contesting these elections, and every voter had to cast six to seven ballots. There are reports that ballot boxes were not provided in some areas. The question is why the ECP arranged such a large scale exercise in a day?

“In principle conducting such a huge process in one day was not possible and it should have been held at least in three phases,” says an official of the commission. “This is a mistake on the part of the ECP.”

*Name changed to protect identity and privacy

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, June 28th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play