Elections in the
mist
Rashed Rahman
The European
Union Election Observation Mission (EUEOM) finally revealed its report on the
July 25, 2018 general elections in a press conference in Islamabad on October
26, 2018. Dilating on the contents and conclusions of the report, EUEOM chief
observer and European Parliament member Michael Gahler said the undue presence
of military personnel inside the polling stations limited the civilian
ownership of the polls. The military had only been asked to provide security for
the distribution of election material but were then allowed to deploy inside as
well as outside polling stations by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The deployment was 370,000 army personnel as compared to 70,000 in 2013. In
addition, 450,000 police officers were deployed. The EUEOM report noted that
the code of conduct for security personnel issued by the ECP on July 6, 2018
increased the powers and role of the security forces posted inside and outside
polling stations, including the provision of a parallel structure to report
irregularities if the presiding officer failed to take action. The report adds
that while a secure environment for voters, candidates and polling staff is
essential, the deployment of a large number of soldiers and their presence inside
the polling stations with expanded powers could have resulted in voter
intimidation. Various EUEOM interlocutors raised concerns about the role of the
military inside polling stations, particularly their interventions during the
vote count and transmission of results. In a few cases, the report said, it was
the security official rather than the presiding officer who was in charge.
The ECP informed
the EUEOM that the decision to deploy the army personnel outside and inside the
polling stations was based on requests by the political parties. The latter
however informed the EUEOM that they had only agreed to the army being deployed
outside. The ECP could not give any reasons why it deviated from its original
plan. This issue also needs to be looked at in the context of the report’s
finding that the pre-electoral environment was marred by allegations of
influence by the military-led establishment on the electoral process and the
active role of the judiciary in political affairs, including through its suo motu
jurisdiction.
Numerous
reports, the EUEOM says, depicted the armed forces and security agencies
pulling the strings to persuade candidates of anti-establishment parties to
switch their allegiance or run as independents, all of which contributed to the
splitting of the votes and influencing the results. Media outlets and
journalists suffered undue restrictions on freedom of expression, leading to
widespread self-censorship. Several events prior to and during the election
campaign pointed to the shrinking space for free speech and genuine pluralism.
The report noted
overall a range of state actors taking resolute measures well before the
elections to control the public narrative and silence any debate that might
challenge the role of the military or promote civilian supremacy. The emergence
and acceptance of extremist parties as participants in the election process was
cause for serious concern, the report pointed out. In this regard, 925
extremist candidates were included in the final list. Several reports commented
on the ECP’s implementation of procedures on candidate nomination and
acceptance of these candidates.
The EUEOM
pointed out the blurred boundary between the role of the superior courts on the
one hand and the ECP on the other in matters related to the electoral process,
arguing no election can be called into question except by an election tribunal
operating under the auspices of the ECP. Despite this, the courts were petitioned
and operated as a de facto parallel system of electoral justice to that of the
ECP. The ECP’s voter information and education campaign before the polls proved
too little too late. The report recommends amendment of the Elections Act to
include voter education at every stage of the process.
Overall the
report observed a notable lack of equality of opportunity (i.e. the absence of
a level playing field). Influential landowners and extended families, the
so-called ‘electables’, were able to generate large political appeal and
(ample) financial resources to win (as usual, nothing new there).
The EUEOM had
made 50 recommendations for the conduct of the polls. Of these, 38 were
reportedly implemented. Now, after the polls and in the light of their
observation of the electoral process, the EUEOM has put forward 30 more
recommendations to improve the process in future. Of these later 30 recommendations,
eight have been prioritised by the mission.
1.
Review
the Constitution and Election Act to ensure restrictions on candidates are not
subject to vague, moral and arbitrary criteria.
2.
Revise
the Election Act, Election Rules and Codes of Conduct to ensure the ECP’s
transparency.
3.
To
contribute to 2. above, ECP should hold regular meetings with election stakeholders.
4.
Guarantee
civilian ownership by limiting the presence of the security forces to outside
polling stations only.
5.
Review
the legal framework for the mainstream and social media to ensure compliance
with international standards of freedom of expression.
6.
Introduce
affirmative measures for improved representation of women on general seats.
7.
Adopt
a unified electoral roll by removing the need for any supplementary voters
lists.
8.
Establish
in law national and international observation ensuring full access, including
the media, to all stages of the electoral process.
While these
recommendations are offered in the spirit of improving our electoral process,
they still constitute a ‘soft’ critique of the flaws in our electoral system in
general, and the 2018 elections in particular. The underlining of the presence
of military personnel, ostensibly on security duty, inside and outside polling
stations resurrects and confirms the reservations expressed just after the
polls by opposition political parties and objective commentators regarding the
elections being fair, free and transparent. Although the EUEOM report found no
evidence of polling staff being turned out by uniformed personnel, they did not
comment on the video evidence (admittedly scanty but telling) on the social
media showing polling staff sitting to one side and soldiers counting votes.
The casting of votes seemed on the whole fine, minor flaws notwithstanding.
However, once the Result Transmission System (RTS) ‘broke down’, there was no
telling what went on in the manual counting.
This is not a
minor issue, since the theory has been doing the rounds after the polls that
this military ‘intervention’ in select constituencies was meant to engineer a
result to the liking of the establishment. If so, the authors of this plan
should realize that these revelations challenge the legitimacy of the PTI-led
coalition government. It is a weak coalition because, alleged gerrymandering
notwithstanding, the PTI was left just short of a simple majority. This
necessitated the forging of a weak, lopsided coalition government including
some smaller parties and the ubiquitous ‘electables’. Such a construct allows
for toppling in case of any disagreement between the PTI and the establishment
by the simple expedient of withdrawal of support by these latter day ‘allies’
of the PTI.
If the result of
the seven decade old struggle for democracy in Pakistan is to end up with manipulated
elections to suit one or the other agenda rather than reflect the free and
unfettered expression of the people’s will reflected in their choice of elected
representatives, it is a sobering moment and thought about how this reversion
to ‘controlled’ democracy will play out in the future.
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment