It seems that post-election legitimacy issues are not unique to Pakistan. In recent months, elections in Indonesia and Afghanistan have ended up in strife. It warrants an examination of how these two countries have approached the issue. Maybe, Pakistan can learn a thing or two from them.
The July 9 Presidential elections in Indonesia resulted in both leading candidates declaring victory. The (eventual) runner-up, Prabowo Subianto-–a former army general who was once son-in-law of former strongman Suharto, who himself ruled Indonesia for over three decades and resigned only under duress in 1998-–asked the authorities to delay the mandatory two-week long vote-counting exercise.
Convinced that the polls were manipulated, he demanded fraud investigation and re-polling in some areas before official results were announced. His request was not approved in the interim and on July 22, a day before official results, he withdrew his candidacy (without accepting defeat). The election commission declared Joko Vidodo-–the Jakarta governor, common man with no links to military, famous for his rags to riches story-–as the winner, gaining 53.15 percent of votes to Prabowo’s 46.85 percent.
Prabowo, whose party has strong legislative representation and is increasing political pressure on Joko, has since been grumbling. He has accused the election commission of failure, called the results unfair and unjust, and appealed the international community to not accept the polls. He has now filed a lawsuit in Indonesia’s constitutional court-–the final arbiter. The court is now in session. Presidential inauguration is still two months away.
In Afghanistan, both rounds of the Presidential election have been disputed. The final round that took place on June 14 has led to an impasse. Abdullah Abdullah, the leader of round 1 came in second in round 2 to Ashraf Ghani. The former challenged the results and reportedly threatened that he will form a parallel government of his own. Both candidates immediately took to accusing rival campaign of electoral fraud.
The United States, whose forces led the NATO invasion of the country in 2001, had to intervene and persuaded both candidates on a full vote recount. The recount is now in process in Kabul after initial hiccups. But Abdullah’s campaign is apprehensive of the vote recount being held under the Afghan election commission. Surprisingly, it now plans to form a unity government with Ghani after fresh US intervention. How that will work out when core issues remain unresolved is unclear.
What are the parallels between Pakistan and these two countries? Not many-–but the ones present are striking. All three countries witnessed huge turnouts compared to their recent elections. In all three cases, official margin of victory is big enough to not change the winning and losing faces. It seems if the runners-up’s contentious demands are all met; they will gain but not enough to tip the balance.
Elections were declared “largely free and fair” by international observers in Pakistan and Indonesia, but the also-rans have tried to capture the public attention through constantly alleging and alluding to poll irregularities. There was demand and expectation for e-voting in Pakistan and Indonesia, but systems were not ready by the election time. So, the paper ballots’ veracity issues strengthened the cause of runners-up.
The bested candidates have been wary of the existing redressing mechanisms in Indonesia and Afghanistan. Runners-up have accepted the restitution process, but by expressing concerns, they are keeping the options open for political agitation should they not get the desired results. That’s the path Imran Khan has followed. It may well be the path that the other two will also follow.
Comments
Comments are closed.