Saving the elections
Rashed Rahman
The country collectively heaved a sigh of relief when the
Supreme Court (SC) suspended the Lahore High Court’s (LHC’s) judgement asking
the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to rectify and restore in the
nomination forms for election candidates the information left out by
parliament’s Election Reforms Act 2017. Acting promptly given the potential mischief
the LHC verdict could have caused to the election schedule, a two-member bench
of the SC headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar was obviously and
correctly guided by the exigencies of the election schedule for the polls on
July 25, 2018 and its suspension order correctly found in favour of the
requirements of Article 224 and the balance of convenience concept. The ECP and
former Speaker of the National Assembly Ayaz Sadiq had appealed to the SC
against the LHC order. These appeals were allowed and will be heard over the
next few days.
The SC also, despite the fact that the matter was not due to
any act of omission or commission of the ECP, said it would hold the ECP
responsible if there was any delay in the elections. Having a fire lit under it
in this manner, the ECP started the process of accepting nomination forms
(suspended earlier immediately after the LHC verdict) from June 4-8, 2018. The
remaining stages of the electoral process are intact and the polls continue to
be scheduled for July 25, 2018, as already announced.
Seldom has an election had such last minute hiccups and
glitches as this one. The LHC and Balochistan High Court’s (BHC’s) rejection of
some delimitations of constituencies in their respective provinces, the
Balochistan Assembly’s resolution asking for a delay in the elections on the
spurious grounds of weather, Hajj, possible floods, etc, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(KP) former chief minister Pervez Khattak’s demand for simultaneous elections
in former FATA and KP, and last but not least, the LHC’s verdict grounded in
adherence to the provisions of the controversial Articles 62 and 63 inserted in
the Constitution by General Ziaul Haq, all combined to rock the boat and
engender extreme uncertainty about the elections. Pakistanis familiar with
their country’s history suspected the ubiquitous hand of the establishment
behind these seemingly unconnected developments, whose collective impact was to
throw the country into a pit of dizzying uncertainty and fear of instability
and chaos if the elections were delayed or cancelled. Kudos therefore to all
the political parties, state institutions and superior judiciary for upholding
the law and Constitution.
Although hinted at by former Leader of the Opposition Syed
Khursheed Shah and other PPP leaders, the core issue around the LHC nomination
forms verdict was the sovereign right of parliament to enact/change laws,
including the Constitution. Some have argued that it was the ECP’s sole
prerogative before the Election Reforms Act 2017 was promulgated to make rules
regarding the process of elections. Was this privilege over and above the power
of parliament to legislate on the matter? That interpretation seems a stretch,
and feeds into the downgrading of parliament’s sovereignty that has been our
bête noir since memory serves. No doubt the SC will have something to say on
this when the appeals of the ECP and Ayaz Sadiq against the LHC order are
heard.
Meanwhile these legal battles are not the only hitches to
the smooth holding of the elections. Apart from Sindh, there is so far no
consensus in Punjab, KP or Balochistan between the outgoing chief ministers and
leaders of the opposition of these respective provinces on a name for caretaker
chief minister. The process seems headed, via the failure of the parliamentary
committees to which the matter will first be referred, to the ECP finally
deciding the names from the lists forwarded to it by each side in these three
provinces. Syed Khursheed Shah reflected more than a grain of truth when he
said the PPP’s political maturity had produced consensus on the caretaker prime
minister and chief minister Sindh, whereas the immaturity of the political parties
in the other three provinces had created the mess on display, in which the
PTI’s famous U-turns were elevated to absurd heights.
Articles 62 and 63could not be repealed or amended through
the 18th Amendment because of resistance by some parties to their
removal/change. They are grounded on the principle that aspirants to high
office or those in high office must be demonstrably sadiq and ameen (truthful
and trustworthy), although these categories can prove to be subjective. The
nomination forms in use in the 2013 elections, to which the LHC wanted a
return, were simplified by the Election Reforms Act 2017 to exclude 19
questions regarding the aspiring candidates. These included information about
defaulted loans; spouses, dependents and business interests; criminal
proceedings; occupation; tax and income; foreign travel; contribution to
constituency from which the aspiring candidate may have been previously
elected; political donations; net assets; foreign passports and last but not least,
educational qualification.
This last provision was the lingering desiderata of Musharraf’s
2002 addition of graduation as a necessary condition to stand in elections. On
the one hand, this measure deprived with one fell stroke the millions of citizens
who do not have a graduation degree from standing in elections. This
disenfranchisement was a backward step, running against the grain of such
educational qualifications gradually but incrementally falling by the wayside
in mature democracies. It also deprived the working masses and their leaders
and representatives of the chance to run in elections. On the other hand, given
the character of our political class, it harvested a rich menu of aspiring candidates
resorting to submitting fake degrees to keep their foot in the electoral door.
Some of these fake degrees were later exposed and their owners disqualified,
but the whole episode left the political class looking even shoddier than
usual.
The country is breathing a sigh of relief that the threat of
a postponement or cancellation of the elections has been firmly and decisively
scotched by the SC. The electoral games therefore are now set to begin.
However, a niggling question remains: what, if anything, apart from ballot
fodder, have the working people to do with these (or any parliamentary)
elections? Can they hope that the tall promises of the political parties seeking
their votes will this time be translated after the campaign dust settles into a
better life and future for them and their children? Not if the track record is
any guide. Should the working people, and those who aspire to lead and
represent them, then be indifferent to the outcome of these elections? There is
little doubt that elections in our country have never strayed from the script
of contention amongst the discrete factions of the ruling elite, organized into
political parties, to decide which set of privileged vested interests will hold
the reins of power. When allowed by the ever-present shadow of the
establishment, elections in our history have never gone beyond this unstated
goal. The virtually voiceless working people, hampered by lack of resources in
a contest run by big money, must nevertheless see which faction of the ruling
elite is for them the lesser evil, and at the same time intervene in the
relatively freer atmosphere of an election campaign to bring home their message
of the real change required to improve their lives. This real change cannot be
predicated on anything else but a redistribution of wealth, income and power to
allow the teeming masses a long denied entry onto the stage of history.
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment