It's been almost seven weeks since PTI Chairman Imran Khan started a sit-in in Islamabad to seek redress for his complaints against alleged electoral fraud. The government so far remains sanguine after getting other political parties support in a joint parliamentary session. But Imran refuses to give in, taking instead his protest to different cities to mobilise public support for his "Go Nawaz Go" campaign. That worries not only government supporters but also some sincere pro-democracy commentators who are accusing the PTI of creating a situation that could invite some sort of extra-constitutional intervention.
They use Imran's insistence on the Prime Minister's resignation to raise 'democracy in danger' alarm and call for saving the system. There is no question about that the hard won democratic system needs to be defended against the usual suspect. However, three points deserve attention. First, there is nothing undemocratic about demanding a prime minister's resignation on the basis of legitimacy issue. Second, the system is not synonymous with a particular government's rule. Third, and most important, all players must conform to the rules of the game.
At issue, at this point in time is alleged electoral fraud. Leaders of all the parties who made noble sounding speeches in the joint session in support of the democratic project have also been complaining of electoral irregularities/rigging. Several other developments raise doubts about the last election being fair and transparent. For instance, as the electoral controversy started generating heat former Nadra Chairman, Tariq Malik, was fired under dubious circumstances after he said voter verification was possible on the basis of Nadra record. Even though reinstated by a court order, he soon fled the country to take refuge abroad, from where he has been claiming he faced 'witch-hunt' for his willingness to undertake verification exercise, and that he is ready to appear before the Supreme Court to expose alleged fraud.
There is a lot of evidence floating around about the use of fraudulent means; some of it proven in cases where the losing candidates challenged the outcome in election tribunals. Regardless of PTI's claims of large-scale rigging, the electronic media have placed substantial video proof before the public of ballot papers being freely stamped on behalf of powerful candidates all over the country. Although the Election Commission of Pakistan is adamant that the electoral exercise was fair and free, a report recently posted on its website seems to endorse some of the PTI's claims. According to the report, the Returning Officers (ROs) from the subordinate judiciary - who did not answer to the ECP - amended the polling scheme shortly before the Election Day, which caused confusion among the polling staff, voters and other stakeholders. The ROs also changed polling staff at the last minute replacing trained workers with inexperienced ones. Worse still, the report says influential candidates managed to have shifted polling stations from their opponents areas of voter support to far-flung locations to prevent those people from voting. And worst, the tamper-evident bags for ballots and other materials were not properly packed and the ROs wouldn't take responsibility for the missing materials.
Nonetheless, in a fact-sheet presented before parliamentary committee on electoral reforms on Monday, ECP Secretary Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan refuted PTI's accusations. Focusing on the controversy surrounding unauthorised printing of ballot papers, he contested the PTI's charges saying an Urdu Bazaar printing press claiming to have printed extra ballot papers has been served a legal notice. It remains to be seen whether the press is to stand firm on its position or decides to back down.
As things stand, there is a general consensus that if not rigging, massive irregularities did take place. Even if for arguments sake one accepts that fraudulent means were limited to a small number of constituencies and hence should be ignorable, massive irregularities cannot be ignored considering that these too had the potential to affect the outcome. If for instance, the supposed tamper-evident bags were not properly secured, candidates might have stuffed them with fake votes - as existing evidence suggests they did. This and a spate of other irregularities render questionable the mandate of the Prime Minister and legitimacy of the assemblies. This may not have happened by design, since candidates of different parties took advantage of the ECP's weak control wherever they could. Yet, call it fraud or irregularities, the electoral outcome does not reflect the voters' choice. In other words, the very legitimacy of the governments, at the Centre and in the provinces, is questionable.
Even though this does not seem to have happened by some grand design, a wrong is a wrong. Those anxious to save the system should consider the fact that democracy is a self-correcting system. It has the capacity to correct a wrong. Indeed, as per the Constitution there are only two ways for the government to go: one, through a vote of no-confidence; and the other, the prime minister's decision out of his own volition - as suggested by Leader of the Opposition Syed Khursheed Shah - to call a new election - which he could lose. As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for governments in parliamentary democracies to call early elections when confident of winning another term or to prove popularity when confronted by difficult situations. In the present instance, the very legitimacy of the PML-N government is in question. Either it should accept the PTI's demands for audit, or call a new election. It will help rather than harm democracy if the government opts for fresh elections and establishes its legitimacy. Dithering can only embolden undemocratic forces to damage democracy.
saida_fazal@yahoo.com