June 2, 2002

The April referendum, it appears, is going to haunt the nation till such time that the general elections are actually held later this year. The culprits who have spoilt the broth must be identified and punished. Otherwise, the October elections will also be rendered controversial

THE history of polling in Pakistan, including the recently held referendum, is marred with deep controversy. The losers refuse to accept polling results, citing cases of irregularities, rigging, bogus voting and manipulation of the electoral process. As a result, the whole electoral exercise often leaves bitter divisions and at times causes instability. This and the disillusionment with the performance of political parties are amply demonstrated in the electorate’s declining interest in the electoral process.

In all previous elections, the number of people coming to poll on their own free will has been a fraction of the total turnout. Gang-pressing of voters on the polling day is common knowledge. In the past, voters have been either outrightly purchased, bribed, or, at the very least, offered a good meal and free transport.

While all this goes on openly, parties and candidates behind the scenes try to manipulate the whole electoral process, preparing fake national identity cards, getting bogus voters registered, influencing the posting of polling staff, and indulging in unfair voting practices like casting bogus and multiple votes. There is hardly any political party, any religio-political outfit, or even the sitting government that has not been involved in such practices.

Our polity is trapped in a vicious circle of no polls or rigged polls. This has alienated the massed from the entire political process. The intelligentsia has become arch cynic, limiting itself to blind and blanket criticism of all and everything. At times, this criticism is drawn to such lengths that one wonders if it is not being used as some sort of psychological justification for their absence from the social and political processes.

Our print media singularly lacks investigative skills, if not professional ethics, to dig out facts with objectivity. Even a cursory reading of the coverage of the referendum in the print media shows a complete lack of relevant substance and empirical analysis. The academicians and researchers have also failed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the electoral and political process in Pakistan.

In the recent referendum, both the government and the opposition failed to provide any convincing argument to support their respective claims. The opposition claimed a five per cent turnout, while the Election Commission of Pakistan initially put it at 63 per cent, but then brought it down to 56.6 per cent.

The opposition parties have neither explained how the five per cent figure was arrived at, nor have they methodically substantiated their condemnation of the referendum as being “controlled, unfair and opaque”. It appears from the statements of the opposition politicians that their criticism of the referendum is based partly on random individual observations, but mostly on personal political viewpoint. They have failed to provide any data to substantiate their stated position.

It seems that both the ARD and the MMA ignored the importance of conducting a proper survey on the referendum. It is interesting that long before the event, both these political groupings had been predicting a rigged referendum. Yet, despite possessing the material and human resources, they ignored to properly monitor the referendum process. Why? On other hand, neither the Election Commission nor the government has provided any substantive data to support their claims. For instance, specific details like polling station-wise turnout can provide a baseline for resolving some of the controversies.

An organization that has experience of conducting empirical research on electoral processes, Pattan Develop Organization, did, however, monitor about 270 polling stations in 19 districts across the country. The monitors were properly trained for the job. The organization used three instruments: participatory observation; focus groups with voters outside polling stations; and monitoring of the polling process i.e. checking of national identity cards, issuance of ballot papers, layout of polling booths etc. Based on the monitoring process, the following are a few of the findings:

* The polling process appeared to be relaxed and, as such, was vulnerable to multiple and non-eligible voting. This allowed some pro-referendum parties, nazimeen, councillors and individuals to cast multiple and ineligible votes to prove their loyalty and worth to the government. However, it appears that there were no instructions from the Election Commission and other government agencies to rig the process.

* The Election Commission followed electoral rules in the posting of polling staff. It was found that Presiding Officers and majority of the polling staff did not belong to the area where the polling station was situated. The polling booths were organized according to the rules.

* A large majority of the respondents — voters and polling staff — said that they did not have any instructions or pressure from any quarter.

Interestingly, when the organization published findings of its similar research study of the Local Government Elections, and claimed that the majority — nearly 80 per cent — of the councillors were new faces and that the polling process was fair, nobody was willing to believe it, at first. But, soon afterwards similar trends were reported by the print media. The problem seems to be our refusal to accept facts contrary to our mindset and orientation. Newspapers, in particular, report generally on the basis of self-selected points of observations, and that only strengthens prejudices and biases.

In the context of the recent referendum, most observers and reporters appear to base their conclusions on the rather simple observation that as compared to previous general elections, polling stations on the referendum day presented a deserted look. This is a very false and flawed basis.

In the general elections, every candidate has polling agents, establishes election camps in front of polling stations, and constantly transports voters to the polling station. All this contributes to the hustle and bustle that goes with the polling process.

Further, during general elections the voter has to wait while his/her particulars are checked in the electoral list before they are issued a ballot paper. The polling agents also meticulously check the identity of each voter. Also, in the general elections, there are generally five or more candidates per seat, and the voters spend time locating the symbol of their favourite candidate. This lengthy process results in the formation of voter queues.

Quick voting process, enhanced polling time — from eight to ten hours, more than two-fold increase in the polling stations — from 37,000 to 87,074 (163,641 polling booths), freedom to vote at any polling station, and such other government decision may well be some of the reasons for a lack of rush at the polling stations. It would be very illuminating were the Election Commission of Pakistan to conduct two mock votings: one under referendum-like conditions, and one under general election conditions. Such a simulation exercise will surely help many of us shed our blinkers.

Recent opinion polls conducted by independent institutes clearly show overwhelming support for Gen Musharraf and his policies by Pakistanis both at home and abroad. These surveys revealed that more than 55 per cent people supported Gen Musharraf because of his policies. In fact, The Herald magazine (February 2002) survey revealed 67 per cent support for Gen Musharraf’s anti-terrorism policies. Another survey conducted by the same magazine in May showed almost 40-50 per cent support amongst technocrats.

Pattan’s own survey showed very high support to Gen Musharraf’s policies amongst minority groups (nearly 97 per cent) and rural/urban poor (72 per cent). The turnout (56.6 per cent) in the referendum, as such, is well within the above-cited figures. Political parties and the press may have their own reasons for making the recent referendum controversial, but in order to move smoothly and transparently towards the October elections, the turnout controversy needs to be seriously analyzed and doubts settled as far as possible.

According to the Election Commission, nearly 43.9 million votes were polled at 87,074 polling stations. This means that on an average, 50.4 votes per hour were polled per polling station, or 269 votes per polling booth. Data collected independently from 266 polling stations — 169 male and 97 female — across the country shows that 55,982 votes were polled in 1,335 hours, or 41.4 votes per hour.

On an average, the monitoring teams observed polling that was completed on an average in five hours per polling station. Thus, on average, per station 414 votes was polled. However, gender-wise breakdown of the data shows that average per-hour turnout at women polling stations was significantly lower (32.60 votes) than at male stations (48.13 votes). The difference of voter’s turnout between Election Commission and Pattan’s data is around nine votes per hour, or 90 votes per polling station, on average. This difference means that on April 30, the votes polled were closer to 36 million, and not 43.9 million.

This raises the all-important question: how reliable the Pattan data is? The staff was given proper training and was provided a check-list to monitor irregularities. They recorded the presence of voters, counted counterfoils and entry of details on it, quality and use of ink. Besides, they interviewed voters while they were coming out of polling stations, interviewed polling staff, and conducted focus groups with voters. Along with all this, in each target district, selected polling stations were monitored at regular intervals and counting of ballots was also monitored.

Out of 50 monitors, nine reported irregularities at some stations. There were monitoring reports that bogus and multiple-voting was committed by some over-enthusiastic supporters of Gen Musharraf. Only in eight cases, any member of polling staff was found involved in violation of rules. On the basis of this, it may be concluded that 80-90 per cent polling was eligible at the polling station level. Or, that out of 414 votes, about 62-82 votes were ineligible (bogus) per polling station.

This brings the figure down to 342 per station, and, hence, the total turnout comes to about 30 million. Therefore, 13 million ghost votes need to be tracked down. The Election Commission certainly owes an explanation to the nation in this regard.

The content analysis conducted of the major English, Urdu and Sindhi newspapers shows mixed reporting. While front pages and feature articles give an impression of very low turnout and massive rigging, inside pages and correspondent reports coming from the districts provide a different picture.

To be specific, an example can be cited of contradictory reports appearing in two main English dailies. On may 1, one leading daily reported impressive and satisfactory turnout in 11 districts of Sindh, while another paper reported that there was very low turnout in the whole of Sindh. Interestingly, all the newspapers reported good turnout in the FATA. A comprehensive content analysis of the coverage of the print media is also overdue.

It appears that the conduct of the referendum is going to haunt Pakistan till the general elections are actually held later this year. Therefore, it is essentially vital to ascertain a real turnout. This can be achieved by conducting an impartial survey in randomly selected localities across the country. Along with this, the Election Commission must release polling station-wise turnout figures. This will not be an expensive exercise, but it will save the country from unnecessary polarization.

The culprits who have spoilt the broth must be identified and punished. It is feared that without this, the conduct of the October elections will also be rendered controversial.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)