33
ONE good thing to emerge out of Imran Khan’s fury and fulmination over the 2013 elections is that hopefully, the next ones due in 2018 will not be as flawed.
Over the years, we have come to accept our ramshackle Election Commission as the best we can have. This is in line with our low expectations of our national institutions and our bureaucracy. We think things are going to get worse, not better. And in this, we have not been disappointed.
I may not agree with Imran Khan over very much, but I have supported his cause for electoral reforms. So I was pleased to learn that the Election Commission had recently agreed to incorporate the criticisms levelled by the inquiry commission into its plans for the next elections.
But rather than just tinkering with the existing system, some more fundamental reforms are needed. For whatever they are worth, I’d like to suggest a few changes that warrant consideration.
For starters, why is one candidate allowed to stand from multiple constituencies? As far as I know, this does not happen in any other democracy. Certainly, England, the birthplace of parliamentary democracy, does not permit this practice. In Pakistan, though, a party leader thinks he or she has a better chance than a second-tier local candidate against a strong opponent. Also, winning several seats is a sign of the leader’s popularity.
Fundamental electoral reforms are needed.
After succeeding, he gives up all the seats he has won except one, and by-elections are duly held there. But surely voters deserve to be able to choose between candidates from their area who focus on them, rather than having a national politician parachuted into their constituencies.
This brings me to another obvious change: currently, provincial and national candidates are selected by the party leadership. Why should not the party organisation in each constituency pick candidates they know and trust? This would force aspirants to canvass support at the grass-root level, and convince party members of their merits. And as the same local party organisation could deselect them at the next elections, candidates would work hard to represent their supporters’ interests.
Last year, I went to see the MP who represents my area in parliament about an administrative matter. She met me at her constituency office at the agreed time, and was considerate and helpful. I get regular emails from her describing what she is doing in the area as well as in Westminster. Of course these messages go out to thousands, but they help to sustain her political base.
The point is that currently, most elected representatives only visit their constituencies before elections, and then disappear until the next polls. By placing their political fortunes in the hands of local party members rather than the national leadership, we would enforce greater accountability.
Coming to the actual conduct of the elections, the whole business of using supposedly indelible ink to prevent multiple voting has proved to be a complete waste of time. Whenever I have had this placed on my thumb, I have never had any problem getting rid of it.
So why not photograph voters as they enter a polling station? In these days, digital photography costs next to nothing, and would permit the presiding officer instant access to images of those committing electoral fraud. And a CCTV camera monitoring the station would deter the physical intimidation that often goes on. Lady presiding officers at women’s polling stations could photograph veiled female voters so there should be no objections from conservative quarters.
Currently, the Election Commission is composed of a chief election commissioner and a member each from all four provinces. All these worthies are currently retired judges. While I’m sure they all have fine legal minds and lots of experience as lawyers and judges, they lack expertise in administration. And the conduct of national and provincial elections is, above all, a challenging and complex administrative task.
The logistics involved are staggering, involving the training and temporary deployment of thousands of federal and provincial staff across the country. Millions of ballot papers have to be printed in secure facilities and transported to thousands of polling stations, many of which are in remote locations. Security has to be provided in coordination with provincial authorities. And finally, filled ballot papers have to be safely carried to returning officers who supervise their counting.
So all in all, this is a daunting undertaking prone to errors and deliberate tampering, as we have seen time and again. And yet India’s general elections are on a far larger scale, and it has been using electronic voting machines successfully for over a decade. So why can’t we?
Finally, most countries allow their nationals who are living abroad to vote. This issue was raised by the Supreme Court earlier, but was shelved as the Election Commission said it needed more time to register expat Pakistanis holding dual nationality. Well, they have enough time now: ultimately, none of this is rocket science.
Published in Dawn, September 12th, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
