Daily Times Editorial March 14, 2013

ECP, government, SC at odds The path of democracy in Pakistan ne’er did run smooth. Now, virtually on the eve of the announcement of the elections schedule, new and unexpected problems, issues and roadblocks have thrown up their ugly heads, giving the conspiracy theory industry lots more material to play around with. With so many crosscurrents in the air, it is hardly a surprise that the people of Pakistan are nothing if not confused, nay in a daze at what to make of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party we are living through these days. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) received a unanimous certificate of credibility not so long ago when a consensus Chief Election Commissioner, Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim was appointed. With his reputation for integrity, it was felt that Pakistan was on the cusp of a transparent, free and fair election, a transition through the ballot box from one elected government to the next, i.e. the laying of the foundations of agreed rules of the political game and the consolidation of a democratic order. How far we have advanced along this road since can and should be measured against the present controversy that has broken out between the ECP and the outgoing government regarding the nomination papers for aspiring candidates in the upcoming elections. In essence, the ECP is asking for so much detail on the political, economic and private life of candidates that the amended form runs the risk of being seen more as an inquisitional instrument rather than the prima facie tool for assessing a candidate’s suitability to run for elective office. The Federal Law Minister is said to have reservations on the amendments, hence the one-month delay in approval from the president of the new forms, an approval mandatory under the constitution, but on which the ECP now seems to have reversed itself and dubbing the president's approval a ‘mere formality’, has gone ahead with having the new forms printed. This has invoked the ire of Senators as well criticism from such legal luminaries as Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan on the ECP acting beyond its mandate and in violation of the prescribed procedure in the constitution. Meanwhile the Supreme Court (SC) too has weighed into the fray. Taking notice of the controversy, a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has ruled that its verdict of June 8, 2012, in which it elaborately interpreted Article 218 (3) should be the touchstone on which the elections should be organised and conducted and that the government should assist the ECP to do just that. Failing government facilitation, the SC has encouraged the ECP to implement in letter and spirit the judgement without fear or favour. The ECP, buoyed by the SC’s support, has not only stuck to its guns on the printing of the new forms despite the reservations of its member from Sindh, but also gone ahead with its proposed 24 amendments to the Representation of the People’s Act, 1976. If the amendments cannot be passed before the Assemblies are dissolved (a most likely scenario), the ECP desires these reforms to be promulgated through an Ordinance by the caretakers. They include, inter alia, an increase in the scrutiny period for nomination papers from seven to 14 days, elimination of the president’s role in appointment of election tribunals, suspension of any official who disobeys the ECP, increase in nomination fees, penalties for fraud, violations of election rules, corruption, disorderliness, etc. On the face of it the reforms seem positive, but the timing leaves many questions unanswered. It seems the constitution, laws and rules governing the country have been reduced to convenient interpretation by one or the other powerful, or aspiring to be powerful, state institution. It does no good to interpret clearly written down provisions that require the approval of the president as a ‘mere formality’ when it suits some quarters. The desire for transparency in candidates’ nomination papers is not in itself a bad thing if fraudulent, dishonest and corrupt elements are to be weeded out, but an excess of zeal in this direction is not desirable either. The contradiction between transparency and privacy must not be resolved in favour of a modern day Inquisition that not only rejects candidates unwilling to share what they see as information that is private and irrelevant to the electoral process, but also acts as a deterrent to new aspiring entrants into the electoral race. The ECP must review the criticisms being heaped on its head because of the new forms and proposed reforms that it has suddenly thought of at the eleventh hour and not get dragged into controversies that may impact on its credibility and that of the elections. All stakeholders are advised to keep the bigger picture in view – holding the elections in time and in a reasonably acceptable manner.