ON the eve of the 2008 general election, allegations of rigging have been among the recurring themes. However, the likelihood of massive rigging on the polling day is based on several factors which may not be immediately obvious to the average voter.

First, the good news: according to a study conducted for the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), polling day has historically been relatively free of rigging. This may be counterintuitive since finagling an election victory on polling itself is relatively straightforward, at least in theory. A winning candidate simply needs more votes than his closest competitor, which can be achieved in two ways: pad votes in his favour and/or suppress those of his opponents.

All this requires is some combination of stuffing ballot boxes, threatening violence to keep opposition supporters away, and tampering with the vote count and tabulation.

Yet Dr Ijaz Shafi Gilani, chairman of Gallup Pakistan, argues that apart from the 1977 round polling day rigging has been low in every election. If this claim is met with scepticism or derision, it is important to bear in mind that Dr Gilani uses the term ‘low’ only in the sense that rigging on polling day was not decisive to the electoral process. Rigging is as old as elections in Pakistan, but the degree has always been low according to the study conducted for Pildat.

The PNA of 1977, hardly dyed-in-the-wool democrats themselves, fared so spectacularly poorly on polling day in the Punjab, particularly in Lahore and Rawalpindi, that the vote bears comparison to the two presidential referendums that have been inflicted on the country. According to Dr Gilani, the alternating governments since 1988 were largely a function of piecing together electoral alliances as dictated by the establishment’s changing preferences. Even if the analysis is disputed, though the pollster has claimed to have done the math, it is only a comment on rigging on polling day itself.

Now to the bad news: Pakistanis appear to have perfected the art of pre-poll rigging to such a degree that there is little need for polling day machinations. If you do not know your DRO from your CEC and your presiding officer from your UC nazim, there is a very high likelihood that you believe that elections are won — or stolen — on the polling day itself.

You would be wrong. The ins and outs of pre-poll rigging involve the kind of bureaucratic and executive nous that is simply beyond the knowledge of the average citizen. Pre-poll rigging takes many forms whose aggregate effect is to prepare a dodgy wicket for the opposition on the polling day.

A basic form can be dubbed ‘psychological’ rigging. Candidates standing in the shadow of the state benefit from the largesse that the state selectively dishes out. You, the constituent, need gas, electricity, roads and perhaps a job for your unemployed son. The mysterious Union Council nazim and the taluka/town and district/city nazims who sit atop him in the local government pyramid are the gatekeepers for many of these things.

The local government officials were elected ostensibly on a non-party platform, but they just happen to be overwhelmingly affiliated with the PML-Q. So when a PML-Q candidate rolls into town and promises you the very heavens above, you see the row of local government officials lined up behind him and you think that it would probably be nice to vote for him. It is not that simple, of course. Clan affiliations are important to rural voters, the ones who are most likely to need the intercession of the government, and the fabled biradari vote bank does exist. The effectiveness of psychological rigging, however, lies in the little mentioned fact that there are often several rival factions within a biradari.

If psychological rigging appears nothing more than the horseplay typical to this part of the world, there are stronger, more direct weapons in the rigging arsenal.

The District Returning Officer (DRO) and the Returning Officer (RO) are the eyes, ears and arms of the election mechanism in each district and constituency, respectively. They are tasked with scrutinising nomination forms, ensuring that candidates have a level playing field, overseeing the polling and announcing the results. If the DROs and ROs turn a blind eye to illegalities, threats and violence, the atmosphere on the ground is poisoned well in advance of the polling day.

The DROs and ROs are selected from the lower judiciary. The careers, especially plum postings and promotions, of those in the lower judiciary are controlled by the superior judiciary. While wearing the hats of DROs and ROs, the lower judiciary is controlled by the Chief Election Commission (CEC).

November 3 dealt with the problem of a recalcitrant superior judiciary ignoring directions to tilt the process in favour of certain candidates. The members of the Chief Election Commission are selected by the president. Control the nomination process and the run-up to the elections through the DROs and the ROs and a candidate’s victory can look like fait accompli.

There is another important peg on which electoral victory is built: support of the local influential. In the wheeling and dealing of Pakistani politics, the ability to bribe or threaten the local influential who commands pockets of votes and can ensure an adequate turnout on polling day is incalculable. When it comes to bribing or threatening, no party can match the might of the state.

The process is ugly and not always effective. In 2002, despite working mightily to tilt the outcome in the favour of PML-Q, the party’s first prime minister, Mir Zafarullah Jamali, was elected by a precarious one-vote majority.

In 2008, the PML-Q is unquestionably in trouble, which may tempt its supporters to reverse history and indulge in wide-scale polling day rigging.The party has pinned its hopes on the Punjab, hoping for some sort of winning electoral combination at the centre with MQM, JUI-F, PML-F and assorted independents. Since the 1988 elections, the PPP and a consolidated PML have captured a combined 80 per cent of the vote bank in the Punjab.

The gap between the two camps, however, has widened since 1997 and the 2 to 1 lead in votes the PML enjoyed in 2002 would have been enough to withstand a PPP wave.

But the PML is not united. Far from it, a rejuvenated Nawaz League has for the first time in living memory converted Punjab into a bitter three-way battle. The PML-Q is also battling a second wave: that of dissatisfaction with its performance in government.

Punjab is the country’s breadbasket and voters there are wondering why they are bearing the brunt of food inflation and shortages when the province is a net exporter of food. A discontented electorate is seldom good news for a party seeking re-election.

Given all of this, an embattled PML-Q could well plump for polling day rigging. If so, this would be easier to achieve than in the past. For one, it is the first time since 1977 that successive elections would be rigged for the same party. An insider advantage is immeasurable when the system needs to be tweaked. The temptation to do so will be high.

For another, polling day rigging is relatively more straightforward now. The last of those aforementioned mysterious titles, the presiding officer, is one of three officials who is in charge of polling stations.

The presiding officer alongside the polling officer and assistant presiding officer oversee who goes into the polling booth and what goes inside the ballot box.

They are primarily government employees, mostly teachers, who belong to departments controlled by the local government. Yes, the same local government officials neatly lined up behind the PML-Q candidates when they roll into town.

There is a final compulsion for rigging on polling day itself. Post-poll rigging, variously known as horse-trading, floor-crossing and defections, was the last weapon in the rigging arsenal.

If enough seats to form a government were not captured through the polling process, the powers that be simply reached into their bag of tricks and pulled out the appropriate threat or bribe to persuade elected members of parliament to change their stripes. This was essentially what was done in 2002.

A repeat is no longer possible because the 14th Amendment, which bars floor-crossing but was essentially suspended until the Constitution was restored by the 17th Amendment, is back in force.

It is by no means a foregone conclusion, but the stars are aligned against a relatively free polling day on Feb 18.