EDITORIAL: Why is it that more than a year has passed since the 2023 general elections, yet the resolution of election-related disputes remains incomplete?
The Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP’s) admission that it has yet to decide on a significant number of cases raises serious concerns about the efficiency and impartiality of the electoral process.
Such prolonged delays cast a long shadow over Pakistan’s democratic credentials and undermine confidence in the country’s electoral institutions.
Election tribunals are established precisely to ensure that any irregularities, allegations of misconduct, or disputes over results are addressed in a timely manner.
A swift resolution is necessary not only to uphold electoral integrity but also to prevent prolonged political instability.
However, in Pakistan, electoral disputes have long been plagued by unnecessary delays, procedural bottlenecks, and, at times, deliberate complications. This time is no different. That a significant number of cases remain undecided after more than a year is a glaring failure.
The ECP, for its part, has cited various reasons for the delay, including legal complexities and an overwhelming caseload. But these justifications ring hollow. If the Election Commission was aware of the number of disputes likely to arise, it should have taken measures to expedite the process.
The cases in question directly impact parliamentary representation, and the longer they remain unresolved, the more they erode the credibility of the system. This is not merely an issue of administrative inefficiency; it is an indictment of the entire electoral adjudication framework.
Moreover, such delays create room for speculation. The perception that cases are being deliberately stalled to benefit certain political interests cannot be easily dismissed.
Historically, election-related litigation in Pakistan has often been seen as a tool to manipulate political outcomes rather than a genuine exercise in upholding democratic principles. This is why transparency and efficiency in the process are paramount. By failing to deliver timely verdicts, the ECP risks deepening public scepticism about its neutrality.
The current situation also raises troubling questions about institutional preparedness. If the Election Commission struggles to resolve disputes within a reasonable timeframe, what does this say about its ability to conduct elections fairly?
What does it say about the judiciary’s role in overseeing electoral disputes? A credible democracy cannot function without a fair and efficient electoral dispute resolution mechanism.
In its present state, the ECP’s performance is far from satisfactory. The commission must take urgent steps to clear the backlog of pending cases and ensure that such delays are not repeated in future elections. This requires a combination of better resource allocation, streamlined procedures, and a commitment to transparency.
The political parties, too, have a responsibility. While they often criticise the ECP when decisions do not go in their favour, they must also push for electoral reforms that enhance the efficiency of dispute resolution.
Strengthening the legal framework, setting stricter timelines for decisions, and ensuring accountability in the process should be bipartisan priorities. A system where election results remain disputed for years is a broken system.
Ultimately, democracy is not just about casting votes; it is about ensuring that every vote counts and that every dispute is settled fairly and expeditiously.
The ECP’s failure to resolve these cases in a timely manner is not just a lapse in governance — it is an affront to the democratic process. If Pakistan is serious about strengthening its electoral system, the time for excuses is over.
The backlog must be cleared, and the integrity of the system must be restored before the next election cycle begins.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments